The first creation story seems to agree with evolution

[GooberJIL]

Hello GooberJIL,

If I understand correctly, you are saying the garden of Eden was on the 6th day. I suppose also that there may have been plants but not perhaps good for food which was specific to Eden.

Assyrian and I agreed that the Garden was planted on the Sixth Day.

Could you rephrase your statement, "I suppose also that there may have been plants but not perhaps good for food which was specific to Eden." or expound on what you're saying here? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

 

[gwynedd1]

Assyrian and I agreed that the Garden was planted on the Sixth Day.

Could you rephrase your statement, "I suppose also that there may have been plants but not perhaps good for food which was specific to Eden." or expound on what you're saying here? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Hello GooberJI,
The garden was not merely plants but edible food. We are not ruminants. That could have been on another "day" certainly apart from let there be vegetation.

 

[GooberJIL]

Hello GooberJI,
The garden was not merely plants but edible food. We are not ruminants. That could have been on another "day" certainly apart from let there be vegetation.

No we don't chew the cud, and I'm not sure how that is relevant to this conversation. Scripture states that plants good for food was planted there, OTOH it never states that only plants good for food was planted there.

When you say, "That could have been on another "day" certainly apart from let there be vegetation," I will assume that by "let there be vegetation" your referencing the Third Day. The text of chapter two would appear to make it highly improbable that the Garden was planted on the Third Day, while ch 2 also states that God rested from creating and making on the seventh day and gives the impression that Adam was already created before the Garden was planted, thus making the Sixth Day as the day for the planting of the Garden.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.

 

[gwynedd1]

No we don't chew the cud, and I'm not sure how that is relevant to this conversation. Scripture states that plants good for food was planted there, OTOH it never states that only plants good for food was planted there.

When you say, "That could have been on another "day" certainly apart from let there be vegetation," I will assume that by "let there be vegetation" your referencing the Third Day. The text of chapter two would appear to make it highly improbable that the Garden was planted on the Third Day, while ch 2 also states that God rested from creating and making on the seventh day and gives the impression that Adam was already created before the Garden was planted, thus making the Sixth Day as the day for the planting of the Garden.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.

GooberJIL,
Yes you are misunderstanding me. I am saying vegetation and edible vegetation are events that may be considered separate. So I agree, edible vegetation could be on the sixth day.

 

[Assyrian]

You almost got my next point.

Recap: Earth has plants/Garden barren until Day Six.

Um no.
Gen 2:5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.
This is talking about the earth being barren, and as you said, the reasons given are that there was no rain and no gardener. The latter shortage was not sorted out until day six.

We have two different groups of vegetation being described.
1. Wild
2. Domestic

No, there is nothing in the terms used that suggest cultivated plants and Gen 1 describes fruit trees and seed bearing plants back on day three. The term 'of the field' in Gen 2, 'bush of the field' 'plant of the field', seem to be stylistic, the writer also uses the term for beast of the field too. Interestingly, beast of the field seems to be distinct from livestock Gen 2:20, and includes wild animals like the snake, Gen 3:1 the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field. Plant of the field does not suggest domesticated horticultural plants. The word bush or plant, siyach, is only used three other times in the OT and every time it is wild bush in the wilderness Gen 21:15, Job 30:4, Job 30:7.

Do the plants that grow wild need someone to worry about watering them or tilling the ground? The obvious answer would be, "No."

Do domesticated/cultivated plants need someone to worry about watering them and tilling the ground? The obvious answer would be, "Yes."

Anyone that has ever kept and dressed a garden or a farm will confirm that it takes alot of work. From the limited amount of gardening that I've done, step one is 'till the soil,' step two is 'moisten the ground,' step three is 'plant the plants,' step four is 'dress and keep,' and step five is 'repeat previous steps as often as necessary.'

Depends on how much faith you have, doesn't it? If the bible says plants could not grow without man why not believe it? Obviously I think this is explained by the passage being figurative, but I would not like to accept an explanation of domesticated plants that is not supported by the text.

From these two chapters one can see that there is a shift in style and format, suggesting that these are two different stories(or an accounting inside an accounting).

There is quite a distinct difference in style, apart from the God / Lord God usage.
Gen 1 has beast of the earth an bird of the heavens.
Gen 2 says plant, herb, and beast of the field, and bird of the air.

These chapters are given a uniformity by using similar wordings to describe different events that have a common theme. From what I understand, the original text was written in a very poetic manner, and my attempt to articulate this is admittedly lacking, but does fit when one views these from a poetic POV.

A modern example of two seemingly contradictory accountings.
Obi: Darth Vader betrayed and murdered you father.
Darth Vader: Luke, I am your father!
Obi: What I said is true, from a certain point of view.

Both are correct. Darth Vader was Luke's biological father. Obi is right because there is more to being a father than just 'making a baby.'

You mean the contradictions between the accounts are explained if one (or both) are metaphorical. Darth Vader did not literally kill Luke's father, but the pull of the Dark Side that became Darth Vader destroyed the goodness and character that was Luke's father Anakin.

Here's another example:

As this is written in the OT, if it was done by anyone other than Jesus, we would say that the speaker had taken the Isaiah passage out of context and we would consider the "acceptable year of the LORD" and "the day of vengeance of our God" to be one event. Yet by the way Jesus read it we now know that they are not so tightly connected as a simple reading of the text would suggest.

You mean there can be vast gaps in passages that some people take to be a single chronological unit? For example the days in Genesis may be as far apart, or further, than the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance of our God?

 

[GooberJIL]

Good points.

So what is your conclusion, did plants grow on day three or not?

 

[GooberJIL]

As for the days of ch 1 being long ages, that would appear to be ruled out by the inclusion of "and the evening and the morning were the x day, don't you think so?

 

[Assyrian]

Good points.

Thank you

So what is your conclusion, did plants grow on day three or not?

In the first account yes, not in the second account.

As for the days of ch 1 being long ages, that would appear to be ruled out by the inclusion of "and the evening and the morning were the x day, don't you think so?

No, even if you take the evenings and morning literally, it doesn't say the days were consecutive. In fact if you interpret the numbered days as biblical calendar days, these run from evening to evening Lev 23:32 from evening to evening shall you keep your Sabbath. Which would mean each numbered day only starts with the 'and there was evening...' The numbered days begin at the end of each work of creation that went on before it. We are not told how long the works of creation were.

 

[GooberJIL]

Thank you

YW

In the first account yes, not in the second account.

I'm asking for your opinion here and there are three choices.
1. They grew on the Third Day
2. They did not grow on the Third Day.
3. I don't know.

No, even if you take the evenings and morning literally, it doesn't say the days were consecutive. In fact if you interpret the numbered days as biblical calendar days, these run from evening to evening Lev 23:32 from evening to evening shall you keep your Sabbath. Which would mean each numbered day only starts with the 'and there was evening...' The numbered days begin at the end of each work of creation that went on before it. We are not told how long the works of creation were.

God rested before the Seventh Day?

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Or are you saying that it took God longer than a solar day to make a plant grow?

Jonah 4:
5 So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city.
6 And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd.
7 But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.

 

[Nachtjager]

Interesting thread. I've long said that I see no reason why evolutionists and creationists have to be at each other's throats all the time. The creation account in Genesis 1 does not agree with the creation account in Genesis 2, no matter how you look at it, they don't jive.

Having said that, I certainly believe our almighty God created this place, everything in it, and all those little dots in the sky we call stars. God created it all, but who are we to say that a couple of ancient Hebrew priests got the exact methodology of that creation right? Obviously there was a first man, a first woman, a first tree, a first everything, but how do we know when it occurred or how it occurred, no one who ever wrote about it was anywhere near being born when it occurred. Thus, I believe the old earthers and the young earthers should find some middle ground.

Who are we to say that God's creation didn't evolve through the generations? Just in the last several hundred years we've seen species die out, mankind in general has gotten taller and fatter, rivers form, rivers dry up, the world is in a constant state of change. Is that not God's design? Certainly it is or it wouldn't be occurring! So why should we not believe that over the course of thousands of years, or tens of thousands of years, or millions of years if you prefer (I don't think it's quite that long actually), that animals, plants, and even man, didn't evolve to what we have today? Why couldn't there have been cavemen, more primative men, living right alongside more developed "modern" man at the same time and the cavemen simply died out?

Not trying to be a heretic, just stirring the pot as I'm prone to do I suppose. Take care all and God bless!

 

[gwynedd1]

Interesting thread. I've long said that I see no reason why evolutionists and creationists have to be at each other's throats all the time. The creation account in Genesis 1 does not agree with the creation account in Genesis 2, no matter how you look at it, they don't jive.

Having said that, I certainly believe our almighty God created this place, everything in it, and all those little dots in the sky we call stars. God created it all, but who are we to say that a couple of ancient Hebrew priests got the exact methodology of that creation right? Obviously there was a first man, a first woman, a first tree, a first everything, but how do we know when it occurred or how it occurred, no one who ever wrote about it was anywhere near being born when it occurred. Thus, I believe the old earthers and the young earthers should find some middle ground.

Who are we to say that God's creation didn't evolve through the generations? Just in the last several hundred years we've seen species die out, mankind in general has gotten taller and fatter, rivers form, rivers dry up, the world is in a constant state of change. Is that not God's design? Certainly it is or it wouldn't be occurring! So why should we not believe that over the course of thousands of years, or tens of thousands of years, or millions of years if you prefer (I don't think it's quite that long actually), that animals, plants, and even man, didn't evolve to what we have today? Why couldn't there have been cavemen, more primative men, living right alongside more developed "modern" man at the same time and the cavemen simply died out?

Not trying to be a heretic, just stirring the pot as I'm prone to do I suppose. Take care all and God bless!

Hello Nachtjager,

Heretics are wecome durning summer bonfire season
A hands on creation just does not seem consitent for a Hebrew//Christian God. When has God ever been hand's on? Angels are typically sent in his stead. When he punished Israel he used Assyrians or Babylonians.
Literalism is also rather silly given a little thought. Did the prophets know how to build a sky scraper? Did Jesus? Joseph knew a famine was coming because in a dream seven skinny cows went cannibal. When the famine happed, and the cows did not eat the others in a dream was it a false prophesy? No purely litteral system of interpretation can ever work. As I expressed , proving the second story true does what for the first? Was the fall of man really explainable? Should we expain to a toddler eletrical engineering when it comes to a wall socket and a butter knife(Ohms Law, amps and voltages)? Or shall I say the wall socket bites?

 

[Assyrian]

I'm asking for your opinion here and there are three choices.
1. They grew on the Third Day
2. They did not grow on the Third Day.
3. I don't know.

1. They grew on the Third Day
2. They did not grow on the Third Day.
3. I don't know.
4. The two accounts contradict each other.

I go with four. The problem lies in trying to interpret them literally.

God rested before the Seventh Day?

God never actually stopped working. John 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Do you really think the Lord God Almighty was refreshed after having a day's rest? God was not worn out by creation. The question you have to ask your self about these passages is, are they teaching the Israelites six day Creationism, or are they teaching Sabbath observance? Because if the lesson being taught is observing the Sabbath then there is no need for the illustration to be literal. In fact if you look at the ten commandments over in Deuteronomy, you will find another illustration used to teach Sabbath observance, and if you look at it you will find another non literal anthropomorphic metaphor describing God.

Or are you saying that it took God longer than a solar day to make a plant grow?

Jonah 4:
5 So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city.
6 And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd.
7 But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.

Jonah 1:17 And the LORD prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. How long did it take the fish to grow?

It doesn't matter. God could have fulfilled Isaiah 61:2 the year of the LORD's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God, in a single year. He didn't. Neither did plants go from cyanobacteria and blue green algae to flowering shrubs and trees in a single day. They took billions of years.