What came first...?

[juvenissun]

That's a reasonable answer, kinda what I was looking for. Maybe try to avoid the "Can you read?" questions, it doesn't really make a good case for your response, just puts a bad taste in ppls mouths.

Sorry for that. But your half-question attracts that response.

 

[juvenissun]

Base on scripture, what came first, the fowl of the air and the beasts of the land, or man? Please answer based on Genesis 1 AND 2. I'd like to hear from the YECs before the TEs jump in with their interpretations.

I know this has come up many times but I'd really like to give the YECs a chance to explain their answer to this.

This is the way I read the Scriptures on this so-called Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 problem:

The first key is on the position of chapter mark. Chapter 2 is NOT put after the current 2:7. This is a very significant point in writing. It means whatever says in Genesis 1 is true, and should be taken as a major description of creation sequence, and it needs not to have any connection to the content of chapter 2.

Second, the whole chapter 2 is focus on the description of Eden and Eve. Verses 2:1 to 2:7 are used as an review or an introduction.

With the above two understandings. then whatever says in 2:1-7 should not be used to contradict what says in chapter 1. When we write a review or a summary, the actual sequence of content DO can be mixed in sequence.

Most importantly, I do not see any contradiction between 2:1-7 and chapter 1 in the sequence of creation. Verse 2:5 is the key. It only addresses plant and herb. And it does NOT say they were not there. They ARE there, but simply not grow up yet (due to no rain).

I really do not see what is the big surprise on this issue. The description attracts me the most is, in fact, that it says there are already seeds in the ground, but there were no rain. That is VERY interesting. Does anyone know the origin of plant on land? How did it come up from the ocean? I knows nothing about it. But I bet people do not know it either.

 

[philadiddle]

The first key is on the position of chapter mark. Chapter 2 is NOT put after the current 2:7. This is a very significant point in writing. It means whatever says in Genesis 1 is true, and should be taken as a major description of creation sequence, and it needs not to have any connection to the content of chapter 2.

Second, the whole chapter 2 is focus on the description of Eden and Eve. Verses 2:1 to 2:7 are used as an review or an introduction.

With the above two understandings. then whatever says in 2:1-7 should not be used to contradict what says in chapter 1. When we write a review or a summary, the actual sequence of content DO can be mixed in sequence.

Most importantly, I do not see any contradiction between 2:1-7 and chapter 1 in the sequence of creation. Verse 2:5 is the key. It only addresses plant and herb. And it does NOT say they were not there. They ARE there, but simply not grow up yet (due to no rain).

I'm not sure why you are only talking about Gen 2:1-7, since the animals are talked about in verse 19.

That is VERY interesting. Does anyone know the origin of plant on land? How did it come up from the ocean? I knows nothing about it. But I bet people do not know it either.

This is a "God of the Gaps" argument. You are saying "I don't know, therefore God did it." So once science explains it the atheists will jump all over it and say "See, I told you there was no God". Please read my more detailed explanation of why your position is dangerous in the "Handing the enemy a weapon" thread.

As it turns out, it has been explained. There's a brief introduction to the topic found at the Waikato web site.

If you do just a little bit of research, I know you will find out how plants evolved from being in the ocean to being on the land. I doubt you will though, because assuming ppl don't know the process of plant evolution makes it easier to cling to your beliefs.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not sure why you are only talking about Gen 2:1-7, since the animals are talked about in verse 19.

So what? Anything wrong with that verse?

As it turns out, it has been explained. There's a brief introduction to the topic found at the Waikato web site.

Quote article full of big words do not scare me and it proves nothing. If someone care to get into the details of it with me, I am sure I can find a lot of holes in the article. Give me some (may be quite a bit) education and time, I believe I can make the person confess that the knowledge we have on the origin of anything is not that solid at all.

 

[Assyrian]

This is the way I read the Scriptures on this so-called Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 problem:

The first key is on the position of chapter mark. Chapter 2 is NOT put after the current 2:7. This is a very significant point in writing. It means whatever says in Genesis 1 is true, and should be taken as a major description of creation sequence, and it needs not to have any connection to the content of chapter 2.

Second, the whole chapter 2 is focus on the description of Eden and Eve. Verses 2:1 to 2:7 are used as an review or an introduction.

With the above two understandings. then whatever says in 2:1-7 should not be used to contradict what says in chapter 1. When we write a review or a summary, the actual sequence of content DO can be mixed in sequence.

Most importantly, I do not see any contradiction between 2:1-7 and chapter 1 in the sequence of creation. Verse 2:5 is the key. It only addresses plant and herb. And it does NOT say they were not there. They ARE there, but simply not grow up yet (due to no rain).

I really do not see what is the big surprise on this issue. The description attracts me the most is, in fact, that it says there are already seeds in the ground, but there were no rain. That is VERY interesting. Does anyone know the origin of plant on land? How did it come up from the ocean? I knows nothing about it. But I bet people do not know it either.

Gen 1:12 tells us the earth did produced fully grown plants that were bearing seeds and tree with fruit. It wasn't just seed on the ground. And why was the lack of rain a problem when the land had all been completely underwater a few days before?

I agree there is no contradiction between the two accounts, but that is because one is a poetic revelation and the other a parable. But if you try to interpret them as literal histories they do contradict each other, as misunderstandings of scripture so often do.