Why is man created the last?

[juvenissun]

Very few threads talked about the sequence of creation. So, I thown out a simple, but a critical one.

Man is created last in the sequence. Why? If man is so important, why not create him the first?

I think this issue has important implication to the issue of life outside the earth. We probably will get some evidences in 10 years. Do you believe we could find fossil life on Mars?

Sorry for not much elaboration. But I think it is always good to leave some spaces for imagination.

 

[laptoppop]

Actually, if I am not mistaken WOman was last created. <grin>

CS Lewis has a science fiction trilogy about life on other planets. Could be, dunno. Man was made in the "image of God" -- but does that mean God could not make others in His image?

AFAIK, the distances and rules as we understand it seem to make interstellar travel virtually impossible. I'm a big Science fiction fan (esp. Star Trek), but I just don't see warp (or hyper) drive anytime, esp. not anytime soon.

 

[weakestlink33]

My scientific side says that life certainly should exist on other planets (not necessarily in our solar system as it is much younger than others, but on planets in some of the much older solar systems)

My religious side seems to make me think that even if there is planet with life, we must be the highest form of life because Jesus came to save us. Maybe He went to other planets too, but the Bible states that He came here, died, was buried, resurrected from the dead, and then ascended into Heaven (and is seated at the right hand of the Father) --- That account doesn't leave much room for traveling to other planets.

I guess it is possible though that Christ visited other planets though, but it just wasn't written about in the Bible because Christ chose not to reveal it (as He may have felt that we couldn't comprehend it at that time). If this is the case, then it is quite possible that their are other planets with human-like beings too who are also created in God's image

 

[Fed]

God is not bound by time so he could have traveled to every other planet in the universe and it wouldn't stop him from coming here as well.

 

[Melethiel]

Very few threads talked about the sequence of creation. So, I thown out a simple, but a critical one.

Man is created last in the sequence. Why? If man is so important, why not create him the first?

I would say because man is the "crowning glory" of creation, so to speak. For example, when I'm doing art, I start from the most basic foundations and colors, and build from there. If we see creation as a painting (or a poem ), you get the same sequence. Start from the basics, and go up in detail.

As for life outside earth, I'm rather agnostic toward the whole deal. 'Twould be interesting if there were, no big deal if there's not.

 

[theIdi0t]

As for life outside earth, I'm rather agnostic toward the whole deal. 'Twould be interesting if there were, no big deal if there's not.

I'm rather atheist toward the whole deal. If I wasn't a believer I would be agnostic, but I think as a believer the whole idea of life on other planets seem to have some weird theological implications.

I'm surprised to see the creationist cater such a position, while I who has no problem accepting evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, seem to take issue with life on other planets (at least man like life). I see the latter position to be one that compromises faith, but not the formers.

 

[juvenissun]

Melethiel said:

For example, when I'm doing art, I start from the most basic foundations and colors, and build from there. If we see creation as a painting (or a poem ), you get the same sequence. Start from the basics, and go up in detail.

May be a crescendo from the beginning to the end is not that beautiful after all. Why not have some up and down and put the creation of man/woman in the middle?

Hey, TEers, do you think Moses had the knowledge of evolution so he put the sequence this way? Why couldn't mammals evolve before the reptiles? or human before the monkey and evolved into monkey (see movie Planet of Apes?)

 

[crawfish]

Hey, TEers, do you think Moses had the knowledge of evolution so he put the sequence this way? Why couldn't mammals evolve before the reptiles? or human before the monkey and evolved into monkey (see movie Planet of Apes?)

Well, being as that I think the creation story is poetic/metaphorical, I pretty much hold to what Melethiel said.

The purpose behind the story is to note that mankind is the pinnacle of creation; we are placed OVER all of creation and under God. Putting us last implies that God created it all for us. Create the garden, then create the keeper to put in charge.

 

[Mallon]

Hey, TEers, do you think Moses had the knowledge of evolution so he put the sequence this way?

No, because the order of creation in Genesis does not follow the evolutionary sequence of life. Moses was a man of his time. He had no knowledge of evolution, atoms, or gravity.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, being as that I think the creation story is poetic/metaphorical, I pretty much hold to what Melethiel said.

The purpose behind the story is to note that mankind is the pinnacle of creation; we are placed OVER all of creation and under God. Putting us last implies that God created it all for us. Create the garden, then create the keeper to put in charge.

Then why not create man FIRST? Is anything happened the First the Best? Why should the first born get double blessing? Why not the last born?

 

[juvenissun]

No, because the order of creation in Genesis does not follow the evolutionary sequence of life. Moses was a man of his time. He had no knowledge of evolution, atoms, or gravity.

Yes it does. Is human the last one to appear in the evolution sequence? Moses obviously know this fact miraculously.

Also, does human really "dominate" the world? In what sense? Number? Distribution? Physical capability? How did Moses know we can "rule" the world? Particularly at his time when people are still fighting lions with sticks.

 

[crawfish]

Then why not create man FIRST? Is anything happened the First the Best? Why should the first born get double blessing? Why not the last born?

One thing you realize by reading Genesis - an overarching theme in the entire book - is that the concept of "firstborn" is man-made. Abel was chosen over Cain; Isaac over Ishmael; Jacob over Esau; Joseph over his brothers. In each case, God chose the younger over the older.

I can also only speculate on this point: but if God had put man first, with his special status, that MIGHT imply to some that man had some say in creation. Instead, we cannot imply that God created the world with us; only that He created it for us.

In any case, here are the theological points I take from the creation story:

1) God created everything.
2) Everything God created is good.
3) God set man apart from creation.
4) Man is placed in a position of authority over creation.

Another take on the order is that it is a direct attack on the creation story of the Enuma Elish (the Babylonian "bible"). It essentially follows the same order as that story, and systematically tears away that stories assumptions. OUR God created the things their gods claimed; rather than an accident, it was done purposefully; rather than evil, it is good. Rather than being created to be a servant of the gods, man was created and put OVER creation - he is not a servant of the gods, but a favored child of God.

 

[Melethiel]

Then why not create man FIRST? Is anything happened the First the Best? Why should the first born get double blessing? Why not the last born?

To me, creating man last makes more sense. For example, I was always taught in art that when painting, you start with the background, and then you add layers of color, and the details come last. Same deal here. First you get the basics - light/dark, earth, land. Then you get details - critters, man.

Putting man last in the sequence sends a message of importance.

 

[Mallon]

Yes it does. Is human the last one to appear in the evolution sequence? Moses obviously know this fact miraculously.

No, in fact, the Genesis account doesn't follow the evolutionary sequence of life. Sure, man appears last, but all the other details are incongruent. Genesis says birds appeared before reptiles; evolutionary theory says the opposite. Genesis says whales appeared before terrestrial mammals; evolutionary theory says the opposite.
I think you're trying to milk a miracle out of Genesis that just isn't there, juvenissun.

 

[Assyrian]

Technically, Genesis say flying creatures oph appeared before the beasts of the earth, and that includes locusts or, say, giant dragon flies...

Yes it does. Is human the last one to appear in the evolution sequence? Moses obviously know this fact miraculously.

Depends on which account you read doesn't it. In Gen 1 man and woman come last. But in Gen 2 man is created before the beasts of the field, livestock, birds of the air, and as laptoppop pointed out, the woman.

 

[theIdi0t]

Then why not create man FIRST? Is anything happened the First the Best? Why should the first born get double blessing? Why not the last born?

It's kind of like building a House for your children, it would perhaps be boring for them to sit around and watch as it was being built. After it's built you present it to them, not while it is still under construction.

It's sort of like how Jesus tell us he is going to prepare a place for us, it doesn't seem sensical to ask why can't he take me there while it is being prepared. After it is prepared it is presented.

 

[juvenissun]

It's kind of like building a House for your children, it would perhaps be boring for them to sit around and watch as it was being built. After it's built you present it to them, not while it is still under construction.

It's sort of like how Jesus tell us he is going to prepare a place for us, it doesn't seem sensical to ask why can't he take me there while it is being prepared. After it is prepared it is presented.

Interesting idea. Thanks.

Wonder what is to prepare by the Lord.

So it is also possible that the Lord created many places like earth in universes, but only put human on "the Earth". In other words, SETI people will never hear anything no matter what.

 

[juvenissun]

Technically, Genesis say flying creatures oph appeared before the beasts of the earth, and that includes locusts or, say, giant dragon flies...

Depends on which account you read doesn't it. In Gen 1 man and woman come last. But in Gen 2 man is created before the beasts of the field, livestock, birds of the air, and as laptoppop pointed out, the woman.

I think the argument on Genesis 2 is boring and not intelligent. It takes so many verses in Genesis 1 to describe the sequence. Why should anyone use just one verse (2:20) to overthrown the whole thing? Moses is smart. He will not make this kind of mistake.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Maybe Moses didn't make that mistake? Is the Bible now unintelligent or wrong in some way to you? How do you reconcile those two passages, Juvenissun?

 

[laptoppop]

I wish topics we had covered before popped up automatically <grin>

Genesis 1 is covering the whole earth. Genesis 2 is specifically referring to animals of the land - what we might call the farm -- i.e. domesticatable animals, part of what Adam was charged with managing. Its pretty plain in the Hebrew.