Still doesn't matter to me, it's obvious that it is all past tense.
That is because you are starting with the doctrine that it has to be past tense and then interpreting Genesis to fit that doctrine. What Genesis 2 actually says is that he created them which in the context of Genesis 1 means he re-created them.
I mean are you saying you can't believe in God now because of the word had appearing in the NIV?
That is just silly. How do you take my posts to mean that the NIV being wrong means I can't believe in God. The NIV was written by man. What does that have anything to do with God? All I am saying is that the NIV is ADDING stuff to the Bible. Many people like to read the NIV and quote scripture. When they do there is potential to be creating doctrine that is not in the "original" Bible.
Many Christians like to claim that the Bible is the 100% inerrant word of God. Why then would they accept a Bible like the NIV that has changed that word?
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)