Chapter 1 gives the order in which God created the world. It give us an objective overview. Time is important in this chapter.

Chapter 2 tells the story of creation subjectively, as if through the eye of humanity. Gen. 2: 4-10 are not given in the order in which events occurred. . It may appear that God made man first, before any shrub or bush, but that is because the narrative begins with Adam, followed by a series of flashbacks which describe what God had done before. However, the story is told in such a way that, without chapter 1, the reader would never be sure of when the events occurred. Time is virtually ignored in this chapter.

1. Hmm. Not sure that I agree with your interpretation of that passage in the KJV. You conclude that creating them before they grew means that they were created mature?

And pardon my oversight, but the order in the later part of the chapter indicates that Adam was created before the animals, which doesn't match the story in Genesis 1.

2. We agree that the Bible is not a science book. I will always agree with you in that detail, unless one of us changes our minds. So let's leave that aside, shall we?

The problem is that while many other people agree that the Bible is not a science book, they in fact treat it as if it is (and I mean to suggest that you do, too). The Bible says that God created the earth in six days. What we've learned about the earth and the universe paints a very different picture. Calling it one thing doesn't mean you treat it as that thing.

4. You don't have to take that journey, but I wish you'd give it a shot.

John 317, what is it about chapter 2 that indicates it's a subjective view of the story?

Quote:

The Bible says that God created the earth in six days. What we've learned about the earth and the universe paints a very different picture.

Hi, Vera, what you mean is that the Bible says that God created the earth in six days, and what men have assumed -- because they want to leave God out of the picture paints a very different picture.

If you turn in your Bible to Hebrews 11:1-3 we read that "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made ot of what was visible".

OK, which do we believe -- the Word of God or of men? 2 Peter 1:19-21 says, "And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit".

The Bible is indeed the Word of God, and we either accept that it is God's Word, or we disbelieve.

Scripture is full of references to God as the creator of the world. Read Psalm 19 -- it is in poetic language, and was written by David. He gives glory to God as the creator -- not to evolution.

The book of Job also affirms God as the creator -- not evolution. Read what God has to say to Job in Chapters 38 - 41. Can you answer all of God's questions? No -- and neither can the evolutionists!

Go to Isaiah, and read chapters 40 to 43.

Yes, Vera, we need faith to believe what God says, but I would sooner put all of my faith in God than in a bunch of evolutionists who are only interested in trying to prove the Bible wrong.

There is just so much more in the Bible that proves that God speaks the truth, but I won't make this post any larger!

God bless,

Beryl

First of all I agree with the notion of letting the Bible text speak without trying to shoehorn it into evolutionism. Bending the text to meet an evolutionist agenda would be eisegesis - not exegesis.

And as you point out the Bible says that all life on earth was created in six days -- something that evolutionists generally are not happy with. Easy to spot that gap.

The bible says in Jer 4:23 that the earth exists during the millennium in a similar formless and void state as we find it already existing in Gen 1:2.

But in the case of Gen 1 (according to the text) -- there is no life on earth. No sun, no moon.

God is the author of the text according to 2Peter 1 and most here will conclude that His being creator and all - He knows a thing or two about actual "events".

As we see in this video - there is a widely circulated proposal by many of our atheist friends to the point that the Bible in fact is merely a good book of morals - but lousy on events and accuracy.

http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16679&category_id=778

Darwin himself came to that same conclusion and then stated that he completely rejected Christianity because of it.

But the key to answering the problem is not in downsizing the Bible to meet evolutionism's needs NOR is it to change science to meet the needs of evolutionist orthodoxy.

When Israel stands at the foot of Sinai and God says "SIX DAYS you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS God MADE..." do you suppose they were saying "not sure if God really knows what he is talking about here with those timelines. Let's keep some kind of one in seven rule and see if that hits the mark for the moral principle since we are not sure if the actual details are trustworthy".


The key is to engage in the critical objective thinking needed to distinguish between what the Bible says and what darwinists would prefer that it said -- and to distinguish between actual science vs the smoke-and-mirrors proven frauds of darwinism.


in Christ,

Bob

No, I mean just what I said. The Bible says this one thing, but humans—from the evidence in front of them—have come to some vastly different conclusions. God may or may not have been part of the picture for individual humans coming to these conclusions. When you're dating a piece of rock, acceptance or denial of God's role is not part of the process. There's not a step that says "First, I must believe/disbelieve that God created the heavens and the earth." It's not relevant.

This leaves Christians with at least a couple of possibilities. One is what I call the Lala perspective, because I imagine people walking around with their fingers in their ears, singing "La la la la la la la la" to keep out the noise of any perspective with which they don't agree. It's not a nice image, because it makes people I love look like fools.

Another one—and this is but one possibility—is that Christians can agree among themselves that God is the author of creation, but we've learned things about the natural world that aren't consistent with the Bible. Then we might wonder what those passages are really saying. If they're not descriptive of what actually happened, can we still learn something about God? Can we affirm the Sabbath commandment (because a world without the Sabbath is—well, you can see how that's working out)?

Call me crazy for asking, but how do you define actual science?

Biology, Physics, Math etc.

Vs the junk science story telling about "how one thing came from another... stories easy enough to make up but they are NOT science" so rife with documented fraud after documented fraud.

in Christ,

Bob

I assume that we can agree that scientific fraud is serious when it occurs, but that it doesn't make up a significant portion of scientific effort or thought.

Chapter 1-2:4 is an account in the form of a chronological sequence -- each unit of time is identifed and events in each unit are specified in the exact sequence.

Chapter 2 is not a chronological sequence which means it can not be positioned as a competing one. It provides added detail without any timeline and the events are such that they add detail to the initial chronological sequence without duplicating it.

in Christ,

Bob