What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?

quote:

---

Can we really not do better than this? Is there no literalist to provide a more reasonable explanation than us ex-YECer's have come up with?

---

My explanation is that chapter 1 is the sequence. The next chapter is after the fact, and it goes back and explains what was already done in some greater detail.

quote:

---

To add to your point, which is the same reason I was told, the interpretation of the words is used to reinforce that point.
For example, in Chapter two where a phrase includes something like "God created ___ and ____", the explanation is that the word "and" does not necessarily mean "at the same time". To add to your point, which is the same reason I was told, the interpretation of the words is used to reinforce that point.
For example, in Chapter two where a phrase includes something like "God created ___ and ____", the explanation is that the word "and" does not necessarily mean "at the same time".

---

Also, in Genesis 2 it starts with saying everything was already creted and done. So what we then see is going back, and looking closer at what was already done.

quote:

---

Gen 2:18 -- And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (19) And out the the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

If there are animals before man, then when God puts man in Eden, he would not be alone. Further more, God would not have created all the animals if they already existed.

---

Everything was already created in chapter 2. This chapter is not a creation order at all. That is where you crash and burn. Look at this, the first words of chapter 2, and comprehend the setting."Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. "

No, they are seen at different distances, so to speak. Chap 2 goes back, and takes a closer look at what already went down. It brings a few things out that were not mentioned in the overall viewpoint of chap 1.

"And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food"Here we see the plants that were created, and how in more detail, they were planted." And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man"Here, we see more detail how the woman was made that was made.And made they all were, as the first verse of this chapter clearly denotes! "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. "

quote:

---

This tells us that the garden of Eden was made after Man, from the statement "had formed."

---

No. See, the planting of the garden may have been in advance of (east of) Eden. Again, we simply are going back for a close up shot here in chap 2 of something already done -finished.

The order is in chap 1. In two the 'order' is just going over things that need a little fleshing out. That happens to not be precisely in the order it was created here. By chap 2 all was finished anyhow.

No, it is quite possible. Using the word 'then' does not mean we change the order of creation in chap 1. It means that what we are flashing back on happened like this, then we look at that. If we look at it like this it resinates perfect harmony. The universe is safe.

quote:

---

genesis 2 contains a specific order, which is strictly dictated by both the content of the story, and grammar.

---

No, not really, any order has nothing to do with created order. It was all done here. Finished, right in verse one. Can't ignore that.

quote:

---

it's that "terem" that's the issue. it literally describes order. and look what directly follows it:

---

Not created order. Plants were made first that is clear. Any other order really doesn't matter much. One cannot read chap 2 to conflict with the finished creation, the order of which was already given. Finito.

quote:

---

the man is made before the plants of the field. there is no other way to read this:

---

Of course there is.
Look a little futher in the chapter, there it has this"8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. "
Here the planting of the garden comes before making the man.

quote:

---

there were no plants yet because there was no man to till the ground. genesis 2 depicts creation as depending on mankind: it was all made for us. we were first, and then everything we needed was created for us.

---

No, sorry. The order is not negotiable. I could have a stab at what this means as well. Could it be talking about how God made plants somewhere else, before He planted the garden? Why?-Because there was not yet man to tend the garden on earth, He hadn't made us yet!

quote:

---

with the clear implication (in the hebrew, at least) that he is a member of the of the "beasts of the field." snakes are not domesticated, usually. and in genesis 25, esau is called ????? ?????? ish shadeh, or "man of the field." esau was anything but domestic. he was what we'd call a wild man.

---

What are you saying here, that the serpent was vastly different than the snake we know? Of course. So what?

quote:

---

so it doesn't seem to me that "of the field" here means that genesis 1 applies to all plants and animals, but genesis 2 applies to agriculture and domesticated animals. it also doesn't seem that genesis 2 is an elaboration -- genesis 2 does possess an order, and it is contradictory to genesis 1. the two stories contain many of the same elements, are of roughly the same length, and read very well as two separate stories.

---

I read them as talking about the same thing. The order is in chap 1, and in 2 we get more detail. Like how the woman was made, exactly. She was already made, chap 2 just goes back, and shows us more detail of how it was done. Any other reading of these texts will leave you thinking God is incompetant. He isn't.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter if Chapter 1 says it's finished. If there are two seperate stories, then the ending of one has no bearing on the second.

---

It is the crux of the matter. It was finished, there can be no other created order! The stories are not seperate, but the same, Eve was the woman we see created in chap 1. And so on.

quote:

---

In Genesis 2, God made Man, and then He made the world as companionship for the Man.

---

It simply explains why things were made that were made already. If it explains man was lonely, and a woman was made, that is mere added detail, to the woman being created we see in chap 1.

quote:

---

You keep saying this, but you've given no reason as to why the words in the chapters don't show order.

---

Yes I have, it was already finished, The order was history here already. No other creation order is happening in any way! There is a sequence to the explanations of what went down already, but so what? Something has to be mentioned before something else, and since it was already finito, that tells us something.

quote:

---

We've told you why the words used in Genesis 2 show order, now if you could, please show us why you think they don't. And just because one order is already established in the previous chapter, doesn't mean that the following chapter cannot disagree.

---

The order it shows is not the created order, as it is crystal clear it was finished before this chap got to verse 2! Of course it cannot disagree. God is smart.

quote:

---

uh, no. let's try this again. genesis 2 should start about halfway through verse 4, not verse 1. notice that verse 2 continues the story of genesis 1?

---

Uh, so now God starts this chapter in the wong place!? Wow, grasping at straws here or what?
No, as the bible says4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.If we want to talk order here, we see the plants, but no man. Now that is order.

quote:

---

this is clearly where the chapter SHOULD break, and modern translations usually split this verse in two as such. you have to remember that in the original hebrew there are no verse numbers and chapter divisions. these were added arbitrarily by later christian translators. the numbers in modern jewish bibles were added to match christian versions -- although they frequently don't actually match all that well.

---

Inspitation of translatos overrides all these little qualms! But even if we break it here we see the plants with no man to tend them. Give it up.

quote:

---

no, genesis 2 makes it very clear that man was created before the plants -- the plants were made with the idea that man would tend the garden. no man, no garden. this is implicit in the logic, and explicit in the grammar.

---

Of course God inteneded there to be man! Who doubts this? Why else would He create man on day 6? Long after, by the way, plants were made!

quote:

---

so you are writing off part of the bible?

---

As a contadicting to God part that has some phantom alternative creation order, of course. Consider it absolutely written off as such. You bet.
It saddens me a little to have to even tell you all this.

quote:

---

this is grammatical evidence of a contradiction. the problem that is the premise of this discussion is that genesis 1 and 2 do, in fact, contradict each other. the question is, how do you reconcile it?

---

By telling you there is no contadiction at all, save in the contorionist translations you promote for some strange reason.

quote:

---

man is made in verse 2:7. the garden is planted and plants are made in verses 8 and 9. verse 8 says, as you quoted, and read closely:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

man is formed, then the garden is planted, then man is placed in the garden.

---

In no way, because the created order was already sealed, finished, given, complete over and done with, and wrapped up. The order you claim is no more valid than the rivers suddenly appearing here, and water! Because verse 10 mentions this next in the "order" Ha.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads

quote:

---

, in genesis 2, that man was made first, then plants, then animals, then woman. it's not my problem that this is what it says

---

Not in any way at all. You simply ignore the already finished creation and the real new world order that was clear as a bell. Man is more important than plants, so we seem to have a priority order here! (this includes woman, though it later expounds on that one more) Animals are more important than plants! Case solved!!!!

quote:

---

i'm saying that the serpent is called "a beast of the field" which is further evidence that "of the field" does not refer to domesticated animals or agricultural plants.

​

he was only vastly different in that he seems to have been upright (possibly walking on legs, but it doesn't say).

---

Fine, all that brings to mind for me is an open area, rather than forest.

quote:

---

the problem with that is that we don't get more detail in chapter 2. we just get DIFFERENT detail.

---

No sir. Woman was Eve. Plants were plants and men were men.

quote:

---

have you heard of lilith? her name was used for a prominent womens' music festival a few years back. lilith is the traditional first wife of adam.

---

In a lesie song featival too I suppose?

quote:

---

even a thousand years ago, people saw problem with woman being created twice -- and so they made up this story to try to reconcile genesis 1 and genesis 2.

---

Two thousand years ago, they knew better! Ask Jesus He and other new testament writers spoke of the time of Adam and Eve.

quote:

---

the story goes that man and woman were first created together, but adam's first wife (lilith) was too powerful, or dominant, or whatever, and so she became a demon -- and eve was created second, out of adam so she would be more subservient.

---

Story indeed. Was this published in Penthouse too?

quote:

---

god didn't put the numbers there. in fact, god didn't even put the vowels and punctuation there. the masorites did -- but the NUMBERS are much, much more recent.

​

in fact, my bible has a different system of chapter division.

​

genesis, exodus, and numbers are three sections of one book (as they should be.) leviticus and deuteronomy are also included in this book. this book is called .

​

genesis, or rather ‘ is divided into a few sections. the first one after the beginning is called and begins (in your books) at gen 6:9.

---

This changes nothing, really. Inspiration overrides this.

quote:

---

i know i'm losing you with the hebrew. but can you read english? no plants had grown.

---

Not on earth, is what it says. Maybe they were started up in some place, and that is where He got the stuff for the garden on earth He planted? Notice there was no man here either!

quote:

---

inspiration of WHICH translators? that's the problem: there's a ton of different translations. and i can point out errors in every one of them.

​

i'll give you a good guess as to why i know a little hebrew.

---

The king James version is inspired. Despite any 'flaws' in what it draws from, it works out right in the end. God knew all along about the flaws.

quote:

---

not in genesis 2, they're not. man is made, THEN the plants are made.

---

No, I do not read that at all. Must be your assumptions making things look a certain way.

quote:

---

it saddens me a lot that people are too obsessed with their own preconceptions of the text to actually read it.

---

I read, but also seem to have some gift of understanding what I read. I thought it was easy, and everyone could see it. You make me realize it is a gift.

quote:

---

which contortionist translations? the masoretic text, the closest we have to the original, in the original language? that's not a translation.

---

You read it wrong in Hebrew, english, or any any way you can read. It is not a creation order. It was all finished before this chapter began!

quote:

---

the ones i posted in message 175?

---

No plants were on earth before man. I allow plants if the text demands it, but they weren't here on earth. An orbiting, or hovering nursery perhaps.

quote:

---

hey, there's a good idea. ignore genesis 1. entirely. just forget it exists. start reading on the second half of genesis 2:4, and read until verse 24 or 25. remember, forget genesis 1 exists, for a little while.

---

Hey here's an idea for you. Ignore the key to your locked house next time you go home. Who needs the key? Chap 1 is the key to chap 2. Without it, you are locked out, pal.

quote:

---

genesis 2 presents this SAME idea, but instead has man created FIRST, and then god creates everything he needs as he needs it.

---

No! You miss the boat here. You miss the ocean liner in fact. It was finished already before we started this chapter. Read verse 1 if you doubt this. I suggest you pray for God's help. We need it to get this. No way round that one.

quote:

---

no, look again closely. god creates animals BECAUSE man is lonely. man has to exist first, and be lonely first, for the animals to be created. the only other way to read this is that god created animals (ALL animals) twice. which doesn't make much sense, does it?

---

No. Because He knew we would need companionship. The animals were made the same day we were. But Adam kinda knew he needed a special animal like him.

quote:

---

while "adam" (proper name, man, mankind) may be interchangeable with "ha-adam" (THE man, and NOT a name), chavah and ishah are not the same word.

---

And so? You think this means what?

quote:

---

yet both stories existed before jesus's time. "a thousand years ago" was generous, as the talmud's been around longer. i'm just not shure WHEN the particular reconciliation first appeared.

---

Lots of stories have been around! Lots of fables too. How they measure up to the actual word of God is where the tire meets the road.

quote:

---

no. the talmud. look it up.

---

"The Talmud (—) is a record of rabbinic discussions of Jewish law, ethics, customs, legends, and stories, which Jewish tradition considers authoritative. "
I consider them equal to old wives tales. Sorry.
I believe Jesus refered to this very thing here.Mr 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

quote:

---

That is incorrect. If we break at 2:4, we still see Man (and Woman) having been created in 1:27. So if we read these two stories as supliments of one another (as you claim is possible), we actually see the plants of Gen 2 being created AFTER the Man in Gen 1.

---

No, only if you do not use the chap 1 key to chap 2.

quote:

---

No, we AREN'T ignoring it. If we ignored it, and pretended like it wasn't there, then we wouldn't have such a problem with the conflicting stories. The reason we see the contradictions is because we are looking at the order you mention, and then we are looking at a different order.

---

No. That is not what you are actually looking at at all.

quote:

---

How? Arachnophilia gave you the exact word which shows the order. There are no "contor[t]ionist translations" going on here. There is simply a literal reading that creates conflict in the story.

---

No, he is outside the locked door telling it like it isn't. Sad.

I am. Nice try, though.

Right. By 'locked out' I don't mean from heaven. I mean from understanding chap 2. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill.