What Genesis Two Says

In Message 120 Percy Proclaims Problems Pertaining To Scripture. First off, Percy is correct in that Genesis two is not from Adam's POV. Genesis two begins with a statement capping the sequential Genesis one record of generation/origins/beginnings of planet earth. That Genesis two preface is followed by a non-sequential account of pertinent points pertaining to God's work of Genesis one.For example, another problem some find is that though the plant life was created on day three, Genesis two says no seeds had yet sprouted because there was no man yet to till the ground.Explanation: Notice in Genesis three, after the curse that the ground was cursed due to God's curse. Adam was to become a tiller of the ground and herbs/plants were to be his food, for the first time in his life. Notice that in Genesis one, the fruit of the tree was to be his fruit No tilling of the ground. All the need do was pluck the fruit of the trees.Also in Genesis one the ground was watered from a ground mist rather than from the atmosphere. After the ground was cursed that changed so as for falling moisture to water the tilled ground where Adam was to till and plant his food.There are other examples of the consequence the fall, including the cursing of the reptilian species which I've debated in other threads.

You read it and go figure. It's not sequential in all aspects that Genesis one is.Ask Percy That was his point in the message link. No? Did you read the Percy message link? Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

Supposedly doesn't cut it, Trixie.
If you itemize all of the work you did each day in your work week, beginning with day one you would have a sequential list of events which you did.One through six = sequentialThen If you referred to certain aspects of what you did on day three and then something about day two and perhaps then something on your Friday, that would not be sequential.Three, two, six = non-sequential. Savvy?That's what you have regarding Genesis one and Genesis two. It's as that regarding animals/man etcSo far as detail, Detail was the purpose of Genesis two, detailing certain aspects pertaining to the weeks aggregate work, etc. .

Yes it does. Here's the deal about translators. Too many of them take it upon themselves to interpret what was written in the oldest manuscripts from which they translated rather than to do their rightful job of translating what was written in those manuscripts.Back when the NIV was being translated, one of the NIV translator spoke in our SS class in Southern Ca. He said something that roused me and I told him so afterward. He said something like, "we are not so interested in publishing the letter of the text as we are the message of the text. Essentially what he was saying is "we will interpret for you what we think the text means. Thus, the NIV is not reliable so far as literacy.For example, most other OT translators, including the KJV and the NIV people took it upon themselves to remove YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah, adoni/lord/master, removing the actual proper name of the Biblical god Jehovah over 6000 times in the OT.That name was not in the Biblical text in Genesis, however until a later time when men began calling on the name of God etc.I use the old 1901 ASV because it is the most literal of all translations to the oldest (Alexandrian) manuscripts, some of which did not exist until 1901. Nevertheless, the KJV which was from the Nestles or Received text also removes Gods proper name.Genesis, as I understand was not a Hebrew Text which is, perhaps God's proper name was not in the chapters at hand.IMO, all of this fuss by Biblical skeptics is strainings of gnats and swallowings of camels as Jesus charged the nit picking Pharasees and Saducees: anything in the futile attempt to discredit the Biblical record but in his case, to discredit him.It's as simple as one, two three/three, one, two: sequential/non-sequential.So on and on will this thread will likely go, debating the straining of Biblical gnats, all the while rejecting the important recorded cache of pertinent data such as the fulfilled prophecies, archeological discoveries, etc, etc..However, this thread will be most interesting if we can hone in on certain aspects and implications of what Genesis one and Genesis two do state. Some of that is coming up in posts posted and I hope to respond to as many as I can. My time on the computer is limited, so please bear with me, as I plan to address pertinent points posted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jar you just don't get it. You and some others totally miss the purpose of this thread.Percy, et al alleges contradition relative to Genesis one and two. because he and they think Genesis two should have the same data and sequence as Genesis one in order to be compatible.Buzsaw explains that the only actual sequence of God's work as to which day of the Genesis week each thing was created in only in Genesis one. Water covered cold planet gets heated up and atmosphere is created etc. No detail given pertaing to any given day in Genesis one. Oceans and dry land emerge on surface, plants come up, sun, moon becomes source of light replacing what God's Spirit provided, animals and man etc. That's the six day prolog of creation events. .Genesis two is as I explained to Trixie. It is not an actual secquence of the creation days so it is not sequential to the actual days each thing was created. It was articulating various aspects of this and that day's event.As I explained to Trixie, just because she might add things about one day or the other after the week was over does not mean that comments made relative to the seqence of events must be in the same order or the same brevity of the events prologed in Genesis one. And to think: In POM Percy alleges it's Buzsaw who can't comprehend. Sigh!

I see my jeer stalker, Theodoric tabbed his usual jeer to my message.Hey Theodoric, pray tell, what, pertaining to my message, do you find problematic? Perhaps you can enlighten me, as to where I err.ABE: Oh yea, I forgot; Subbie. Subbie, What about you? Any enlightment from you? Inquiring minds need to know.Yes!!. The site's top troll weighs in. Between the three of you, perhaps I will receive some enlightment!! Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.