There are Two Creation Stories in Genesis

[GenemZ]

Probably what happened.

"Probably?" You accuse me...

Put down those stones.

 

[-57]

"Probably?" You accuse me...

Put down those stones.

I already admitted to speculation. I present it as speculation...you have presented your speculation as biblical fact.

 

[GenemZ]

I already admitted to speculation. I present it as speculation...you have presented your speculation as biblical fact.

Its how the Lord gave it to me. It did not come by speculation. I did not ask for it. I was minding my own business and the thought entered my mind as if someone was teaching me. All I was doing was studying and learning every day from excellent teachers... I think I might have been watching TV when the thought was given to me. I was not pondering over the passage trying to find a way to make it work. For, that is how speculation comes about.


Now... with that out of the way.

God gave us animals (in part) to be living metaphors to teach us with. "Stubborn as a mule." "Sly like a fox." "Dumb as an ox." ...etc.

Adam was enjoying life. He was in no big hurry. God was constantly bringing new house pets into his life to be amused by and to observe their unique characteristics... And, to come to be able to create a name for each one according to his observation. As a result, Adam was constantly learning new vocabulary from the Lord.

Do you disagree with what I just said?

 

[-57]

Its how the Lord gave it to me. It did not come by speculation. I did not ask for it. I was minding my own business and the thought entered my mind as if someone was teaching me. All I was doing was studying and learning every day from excellent teachers... I think I might have been watching TV when the thought was given to me. I was not pondering over the passage trying to find a way to make it work. For, that is how speculation comes about.


Now... with that out of the way.

God gave us animals (in part) to be living metaphors to teach us with. "Stubborn as a mule." "Sly like a fox." "Dumb as an ox." ...etc.

Adam was enjoying life. He was in no big hurry. God was constantly bringing new house pets into his life to be amused by and to observe their unique characteristics... And, to come to be able to create a name for each one according to his observation. As a result, Adam was constantly learning new vocabulary from the Lord.

Do you disagree with what I just said?

Pretty much....it's based upon speculation.

To be honest the bible doesn't give us enough information to draw your conclusion.

 

[GenemZ]

Pretty much....it's based upon speculation.

To be honest the bible doesn't give us enough information to draw your conclusion.

It does.... You need to find better teachers to give you more information. That's the problem I am having with you. Your ignorance is your right to tell me to stop when you fail to understand. I am moving on sir, without you. Do as you wish.

Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and
every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would
call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its
name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to
every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper
comparable to him." Gen 219-20​

How many animals do we have in this creation? God was bring all of them to Adam. That took time for safe travel. That tells us a gold mine of what we need to know to know what was taking place. Other parts of the Bible lets us know how there was no hurry in Adam's life of innocence. Adam had no deadline to meet. Life was sweet.

Just like as children when we enjoyed watching nature shows on TV about animals... it was an amusing and entertaining study of the animals unique designs for Adam. God did not have Adam name them superficially. Adam studied them. They lived around Adam as the Lord brought them to him.

Look at all the animals we have in this creation? You think Adam named them all in one day?

They were like pets to him. He saw over time some procreating and giving birth... Animals are not known for shyness when in heat.

The rest to say on the matter? I leave behind because you have a standard that makes you closed minded. Rigid in your approach. When something does not contradict what the Scriptures do tell us openly, and even edifies what we can know directly? You? "NO! NOT THERE! "

Its called "insight", sir. Something you do not understand nor experienced yet.

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight." Phlpns 1:9​

Insight is a sign of spiritual maturity. Speculation is pseudo self imposed maturity.

Quite often when men in history had insight into something they were mocked by others of narrow minds. So what's new? Just reject it because its not spelled out in black and white like you demand?


If its to be spelled out in "black and white" as you claim it should be? Then, Paul's prayer was in vain.

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight." Phlpns 1:9​

grace and peace.....

 

[-57]

It does.... You need to find better teachers to give you more information. That's the problem I am having with you. Your ignorance is your right to tell me to stop when you fail to understand. I am moving on sir, without you. Do as you wish.

Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and
every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would
call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its
name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to
every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper
comparable to him." Gen 219-20​

How many animals do we have in this creation? God was bring all of them to Adam. That took time for safe travel. That tells us a gold mine of what we need to know to know what was taking place. Other parts of the Bible lets us know how there was no hurry in Adam's life of innocence. Adam had no deadline to meet. Life was sweet.

Just like as children when we enjoyed watching nature shows on TV about animals... it was an amusing and entertaining study of the animals unique designs for Adam. God did not have Adam name them superficially. Adam studied them. They lived around Adam as the Lord brought them to him.

Look at all the animals we have in this creation? You think Adam named them all in one day?

They were like pets to him. He saw over time some procreating and giving birth... Animals are not known for shyness when in heat.

The rest to say on the matter? I leave behind because you have a standard that makes you closed minded. Rigid in your approach. When something does not contradict what the Scriptures do tell us openly, and even edifies what we can know directly? You? "NO! NOT THERE! "

Its called "insight", sir. Something you do not understand nor experienced yet.

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight." Phlpns 1:9​

Insight is a sign of spiritual maturity. Speculation is pseudo self imposed maturity.

Quite often when men in history had insight into something they were mocked by others of narrow minds. So what's new? Just reject it because its not spelled out in black and white like you demand?


If its to be spelled out in "black and white" as you claim it should be? Then, Paul's prayer was in vain.

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight." Phlpns 1:9​

grace and peace.....

You keep forgetting God brought the original of the animal kinds to Adam...kinds...

The kinds would have speciated after their original creation representing the original kinds. For example God could have brought to "cats" to Adam. Those two cats could have then bred and spectated into the other species of cats.

At the flood the represenatives of the original species... kinds...were on the ark and released after the flood where they once again spectated into the animals we see all over the world today.

 

[GenemZ]

You keep forgetting God brought the original of the animal kinds to Adam...kinds...

The kinds would have speciated after their original creation representing the original kinds. For example God could have brought to "cats" to Adam. Those two cats could have then bred and spectated into the other species of cats.

At the flood the represenatives of the original species... kinds...were on the ark and released after the flood where they once again spectated into the animals we see all over the world today.

Are you speculating there? The Kangaroo and Platypus were speciated from what?

 

[Dale]

I'm only illustrating that someone as wrong as Sumerians would still not budge into the realm of Gnosticism. It's amusing to me that even they had a threshold here. That's all I'm pointing out. Projecting Gnosticism into all of this is an anachronism anyways. It's a school of thought that came thousands of years (or at least a thousand) later and doesn't exactly belong in the hopes of the ancient world or their ideas of paradise.

*Some* modern Christians aren't very informed either. Jesus comes back to make a new heaven and earth. Not just heaven. The Church has historically squashed the over-spiritualizing tendencies of the Gnostics, and taught the importance of both material and spiritual reality. Not just the latter. The core of the Church's teaching is that Jesus is both God and Man. And this is the hope behind his Resurrection itself as well. That we will be raised in glorified, but flesh and bone bodies. Not simply go to heaven. The Lord's Prayer itself is a call for the Kingdom of God to come on earth: "On earth as it is in heaven". The real work of the Kingdom starts in the here and now, not elsewhere. This is also why there are so many calls for down to earth justice throughout the scriptures. Not meditations and contemplation about other realities. But improving life here first. The more Christians get away from a social, down to earth "gospel", the less it becomes "gospel" (that is, good news). Few want to hear good news about somewhere else, but good news for this world.

"Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
I am not listening.

Your hands are full of blood!

Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow." - Isaiah 1:13-17

How did Gnosticism get into this? You seem to be assuming that Gnosticism comes from excessive emphasis on ideas that are within the Christian/Jewish scheme of things. I don't believe this is true. Scholars say that Gnosticism was a religion before Christianity. There were all kinds of religions in the ancient world: state religion, local cults, public religions and private and secretive religions. When Christianity came along, for some reason Gnostics liked the sound of Christian theology. They lifted Christian words and phrases and jumbled them up with pagan ideas, ideas completely alien to the Christian tradition.


The Gnostics did not "over-spiritualize," as you suggest. They put Christian words on pagan ideas. That is why they were so dangerous to the faith of early Christian converts with limited understanding of Christianity. Consequently, the Apostles spent much of their energy fighting Gnosticism.

 

[Pathfinder627]

How did Gnosticism get into this? You seem to be assuming that Gnosticism comes from excessive emphasis on ideas that are within the Christian/Jewish scheme of things. I don't believe this is true. Scholars say that Gnosticism was a religion before Christianity.

I never said it had to have anything to do with Christianity or Judaism specifically. But it isn't that old either. They definitely became vehicles for it, but it more than likely started with Pythagoras and Rationalists. It's just a heavy emphasis on abstractions over practicality. With Pythagoras, it wasn't a religion at first per se, but an excessive emphasis on his Rationalist study over the Empiricism of his rival Ionians. The Ionians were often tradesmen and ship navigators - people who applied mathematics for real world use. They actually had worthwhile things to do instead of sitting around sniffing their own farts. Pythagoras on the other hand was the consummate fart sniffer. He focused on mathematics as a thing unto itself. He emphasized a world of pure rationality, where everything in the universe was broken down to barebones elements and geometrical shapes. He didn't care to study any real things or solve any practical problems like the Ionians. To him, it was enough to only study the "things behind things".

His famed successor was Plato, who carried this idea further with his concepts of a world of "Being" vs a world of "Becoming". He didn't quite break everything down to elements and shapes as Pythagoras tried to do, but emphasized "Ideal" nature (the world of Being). The world of "Becoming" was a pale comparison down here, that derived everything from the world of Being. For example, he didn't care to talk about "chairs", but only the ideal "chair" whose form only existed out in the metaphysical ether. There was only one "true" chair that people should imitate in his mind. This also applied to people themselves. Or an entire political systems (like his "Republic" that he's famous for). This is also where much of Western culture gets it's ideas of beauty from and when Athens began pushing forward only idealized images of human faces and bodies. Anything else was just considered a mutation of the idealized state. It was later that Platonic cults started popping up that emphasized his world of pure Ideals, but with a spiritual bent. It attached itself to Christian symbols, but it certainly wasn't the only thing they used.

Anyhow, I call what you're proposing Gnosticism simply because you're trying to deemphasize the real world as they did, and escape to idealized/spirituality realities.

 

[Dale]

I never said it had to have anything to do with Christianity or Judaism specifically. But it isn't that old either. They definitely became vehicles for it, but it more than likely started with Pythagoras and Rationalists. It's just a heavy emphasis on abstractions over practicality. With Pythagoras, it wasn't a religion at first per se, but an excessive emphasis on his Rationalist study over the Empiricism of his rival Ionians. The Ionians were often tradesmen and ship navigators - people who applied mathematics for real world use. They actually had worthwhile things to do instead of sitting around sniffing their own farts. Pythagoras on the other hand was the consummate fart sniffer. He focused on mathematics as a thing unto itself. He emphasized a world of pure rationality, where everything in the universe was broken down to barebones elements and geometrical shapes. He didn't care to study any real things or solve any practical problems like the Ionians. To him, it was enough to only study the "things behind things".

His famed successor was Plato, who carried this idea further with his concepts of a world of "Being" vs a world of "Becoming". He didn't quite break everything down to elements and shapes as Pythagoras tried to do, but emphasized "Ideal" nature (the world of Being). The world of "Becoming" was a pale comparison down here, that derived everything from the world of Being. For example, he didn't care to talk about "chairs", but only the ideal "chair" whose form only existed out in the metaphysical ether. There was only one "true" chair that people should imitate in his mind. This also applied to people themselves. Or an entire political systems (like his "Republic" that he's famous for). This is also where much of Western culture gets it's ideas of beauty from and when Athens began pushing forward only idealized images of human faces and bodies. Anything else was just considered a mutation of the idealized state. It was later that Platonic cults started popping up that emphasized his world of pure Ideals, but with a spiritual bent. It attached itself to Christian symbols, but it certainly wasn't the only thing they used.

Anyhow, I call what you're proposing Gnosticism simply because you're trying to deemphasize the real world as they did, and escape to idealized/spirituality realities.

Pathfinder: "Anyhow, I call what you're proposing Gnosticism simply because you're trying to deemphasize the real world as they did, and escape to idealized/spirituality realities."


You have me mixed up with someone else. I have never de-emphasized the real world. The Gnostics did not understand the physical world or the spiritual world.

 

[Pathfinder627]

Pathfinder: "Anyhow, I call what you're proposing Gnosticism simply because you're trying to deemphasize the real world as they did, and escape to idealized/spirituality realities."


You have me mixed up with someone else. I have never de-emphasized the real world. The Gnostics did not understand the physical world or the spiritual world.

You're literally proposing the exact thing that Gnostics did. That's enough for me to point out the comparison and say you're barking up the wrong tree. The idea that Eden was a spiritual paradise, that is. From this, the Gnostics taught that humans were actually "parts" of the heavenly realm as well (their doctrine of the preexistence of souls), and that the "skins" that they were later clothed with was our flesh bodies. From this also, the Gnostics taught that our bodies, the material world, and our flesh is a sign of curse. That all of "this" - this physical state that we're living in - it's all a sign of the fall of man. That physicality didn't begin until humans were cast out of heaven. That nothing is good about this world - even though the scriptures plainly tell us that God called his creation good.

Perhaps you don't take it that far, but it's the natural conclusion of your proposal. That is, if Eden is spiritual, that makes Adam and Eve spiritual too, since they lived there. And then you've opened a can of worms. How and why did they transition to a physical state, if they started in a spiritual one?

edit: It all got worse from there btw. Since they didn't stop at just spiritualizing Eden, they took it further and couldn't accept that God ever cared about some merely human race like the Jews or all of their nation building throughout Exodus and afterwards. So the Gnostics taught that this was actually a false god called the "Demiurge" who was only pretending to be god. To them, the Old Testament God just wasn't grand and spiritual enough to really be God. Then they taught that Jesus' real mission was to kill the Demiurge. That his Father was not the same God of the Old Testament. They also said that Jesus was never a real man - because it would be beneath him to have flesh and blood himself. So from this conclusion, they also taught that he faked his Death and Resurrection. He merely put on a show and never truly died, since he was always a spiritual being. And since he didn't really die, they didn't teach or care anything about his sacrifice or redemption. This was too small minded for them. They ridiculed the Church who "wasted their time" with the cross. They dismissed sacrifice and said salvation lie in spiritual secrets and knowledge (Gnosis), and knowing the real "truth" of the Demiurge and Jesus' secret nature. Not the sacrifice that Jesus suffered through.

I could go on, but basically, this all started with looking down on physical creation and excessively allegorizing things.

 

[GenemZ]

You're literally proposing the exact thing that Gnostics did. That's enough for me to point out the comparison and say you're barking up the wrong tree. The idea that Eden was a spiritual paradise, that is. From this, the Gnostics taught that humans were actually "parts" of the heavenly realm as well (their doctrine of the preexistence of souls), and that the "skins" that they were later clothed with was our flesh bodies. From this also, the Gnostics taught that our bodies, the material world, and our flesh is a sign of curse. That all of "this" - this physical state that we're living in - it's all a sign of the fall of man. That nothing is good about it - even though the scriptures plainly tell us that God called his creation good.

Perhaps you don't take it that far, but it's the natural conclusion of your proposal. That is, if Eden is spiritual, that makes Adam and Eve spiritual too. And then you've opened a can of worms. One of the original heresies.

edit: It all got worse from there btw. Since they didn't stop at just spiritualizing Eden, they took it further and couldn't accept that God ever cared about some merely human race like the Jews or all of their nation building throughout Exodus. So the Gnostics taught that this was actually a false god called the "Demiurge" who was only pretending to be god. To them, he just wasn't "big" and grand and spiritual enough to really be god. Then they taught that Jesus' real mission was to kill the Demiurge. That his Father was not the same god of the Old Testament. They also said that Jesus was never a real man - because it would be beneath him to have flesh and blood. That's a curse, remember? He's too grand for that. So from this conclusion, they also taught that he faked his Death and Resurrection. He merely put on a show and never truly died, since he was always a spiritual being.

I could go on, but basically, this all started with looking down on physical creation and excessively allegorizing things.

Paul was often times appealing to a gentile audience. Quite often he would show those who followed Stoicism that the concepts they held to (but could not be fulfilled in their flesh) were to find its true fulfillment in the spiritual life in Christ.

I believe one of the concepts - "pleroma" - was of great interest to them, so Paul used it so they could relate to what God's power would produce in a believer. I believe also that the word "wertuse" (virtue) was borrowed from the Greek philosophical thinking, as to show them once again that it was to find its fulfillment by walking in the Spirit and in truth.

The Stoics suffered from a terrible form of binding, emotional constipation in trying to achieve their ideals. Paul showed them that it was to be achieved in a relaxed, joyful state, to be found in maturing in Christ.

Some claim that Christianity stole from the pagan thinking. But, rather, concepts were used to draw in the Greek thinkers into Christianity by showing how Christianity had real powerf to be the much better way.

grace and peace.......

 

[-57]

Are you speculating there? The Kangaroo and Platypus were speciated from what?

Don't know....

But I have blown your speculation apart. Perhaps you need a new teacher.

 

[GenemZ]

Don't know....

But I have blown your speculation apart. Perhaps you need a new teacher.

I see...

Ignore is no chore when the other keeps slamming the door.

Have a wonderful Day.

 

[-57]

I see...

Ignore is no chore when the other keeps slamming the door.

Have a wonderful Day.

You have no biblical proof that it took the time you said to name all the animals...none...I mentioned in the post you were speculating....then have some sort of fit acting as if you have the truth.

 

[GenemZ]

You're literally proposing the exact thing that Gnostics did. That's enough for me to point out the comparison and say you're barking up the wrong tree. The idea that Eden was a spiritual paradise, that is. From this, the Gnostics taught that humans were actually "parts" of the heavenly realm as well (their doctrine of the preexistence of souls), and that the "skins" that they were later clothed with was our flesh bodies. From this also, the Gnostics taught that our bodies, the material world, and our flesh is a sign of curse.

That Gnostic belief I was shown was a reason Paul had a difficult time teaching about the resurrection body to certain Gentiles who were brought up to think that way. Some found it a repulsive idea at first. I learned that from my pastor.

 

[jhwatts]

There are two creations in the Bible however I argue they are backwards in order.

To see this you have to start with Genesis 10:31 and the move to Genesis 11:1 and ask yourself, what is wrong with this picture? There is nothing wrong and no contradiction it's just that events in Genesis are neccesarily written in Chronological order.

Moving to Genesis 1:1 and reading we see that here God created the heaven and earth. Some people argue a gap after 1:1 and 1:2. There is a gap and what is in the gap starts in Genesis 2:4 and continues to Genesis 4:26. Theres a lot to ponder here but something very interesting to noticed is that in Genesis 3 Adam and Eve are banished from the garden however they are told to eat of the tree of life and live forever. Now look the geneologies of Genesis 4 and see how old those generations are.

Now several things went wrong here and the Master of the Sea flooded the earth. There is a lot of discussion on the earth being flooded and a lot of scripture pointing to this and I can explain more later if people want to understand why I say that. Returning to Genesis 1:2 and reading through Genesis 2:3 and now skipping to Genesis 5 to see the new creation and its geneologies. These are the generations to replenish the earth in Genesis 1:28. The ones made in the likeness of God.

Ok. Two important takeaways here. The first creation was made from the dust of the earth and has the breath of life in them and second creation was made in the likenesses of God and are made in His image.

This is a great picture of salvation. The first creation, a fallen man, a new creation made in the image and likeness of God and the earth flooded as if it was baptized, etc.

Here is something interesting. Go to Genesis 7: (13-14). Notice who entered first on the "selfsame day". These are the ones "after thier kind". These are the ones from the second creation. Now look at verse 15 and 16 and see what entered later. This was the remains of the first creation, the ones with "the breath of life" these are the ones of the first creation. They are kept separate. These are the clean and unclean.

There a lot more on this.

 

[Littlek]

If in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth....I assume they were both made together..or one right after the other?
So if there was no heaven...where was God before heaven was made? I know he said he always was...but it's hard to understand the concept of always being there without a beginning.

 

[GenemZ]

If in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth....I assume they were both made together..or one right after the other?
So if there was no heaven...where was God before heaven was made? I know he said he always was...but it's hard to understand the concept of always being there without a beginning.

How do you think Abraham felt when he was told he will have a son at age 90+ ? Now you know. Accept it by "faith." If it depended on us to first figure it out before we would believe? We would know nothing about God.

Leave these things be to rest, and (pray) find a good pastor who knows how to teach the Bible. Then... learn...learn...learn. And, never stop learning.

But be growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen." 2 Pet 3:18​

God will take care of the details.

 

[Littlek]

How do you think Abraham felt when he was told he will have a son at age 90+ ? Now you know. Accept it by "faith." If it depended on us to first figure it out before we would believe? We would know nothing about God.

Leave these things be to rest, and (pray) find a good pastor who knows how to teach the Bible. Then... learn...learn...learn. And, never stop learning.

But be growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen." 2 Pet 3:18​

God will take care of the details.

It's not that I don't believe lol...I just find it fascinating..and realize how much more he is.