Evidence for God from Science

DBowling wrote: Equating the creation of mankind in Genesis 1 with the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 is based on the presumption that Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of Day 6 of Genesis 1. That is a presumption about what the Bible says, not what the Bible actually says.
If we read the text naturally, assuming that the events of Genesis 2 take place sequentially after the events of Genesis 1, then the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27 takes place some unspecified period of time before Adam and Eve appear 6000 to 8000 years ago.

In my post above I noted that it is a presumption upon the Biblical text to equate the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:5-25 with the creation of Mankind on ‘Day 6’ in Genesis 1:26-30. Let me dive into why I think the Biblical text itself indicates that the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 is not a recapitulation of ‘day 6’ in Genesis 1.

Key verses for my proposition include:
- Genesis 2:7
- Genesis 2:19

The first indicator that Genesis 2:5-25 is not a recapitulation of creation ‘Day 6’ (Genesis 1:24-31) is the well known significant difference in sequence of events between the two passages.

In Genesis 2 the sequence of events is:
a. Mankind is formed (Genesis 2:7)
b. Then the beasts of the field and birds of the air are formed (Genesis 2:19)

In Genesis 1 the sequence of events is:
a. God creates the birds of the air on ‘day 5’.
b. On ‘day 6’ livestock and creatures that move along the ground are created first (Genesis 1:24-25)
c. Then later on ‘day 6’ God’s final act of creation is the creation of mankind (Genesis 1:26-30)

The fact that the sequence of events in Genesis 1 ‘day 6’ differs significantly from the sequence of events in Genesis 2:5-25 is a strong indicator that these two passages are not referring to the same event.

So if these two passages are not referring to the same creation event, does that mean that God created animals and mankind twice, once in Genesis 1 and once in Genesis 2?
I don’t think so… and the NIV translation of Genesis 2:19 gives us a clue as to what is going on.

Here’s the NIV translation of Genesis 2:19

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

To avoid the sequence of events conflict the NIV translates the beginning of Genesis 2:19 “the Lord God had formed” instead of “the Lord God formed”. This indicates that the creation of the animals and birds occurred some time prior to the actual events that were taking place in Genesis 2:19-20. And the NIV translators made a legitimate translation choice here because the Hebrew does not specifically indicate past or present tense.

The same grammatical situation in Hebrew that exists in Genesis 2:19 also exists back in Genesis 2:7 and if we apply the same translation principle to Genesis 2:7 that the NIV translators applied to Genesis 2:19 we would get something like
"Now the LORD God had formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being."

If the correct translation of Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:19 is “had formed” (past tense) insead of “formed” (present tense) then Genesis 2 is indicating that the creation of mankind and animals had already occurred prior to the events that take place in Genesis 2:5-25.

This eliminates any contradiction between the sequence of events of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and it also provides a strong internal indication that the events of Genesis 2:5-25 are not a recapitulation of the events of creation 'day 6' in Genesis 1.

In Christ

DBowling wrote:

DBowling wrote: Equating the creation of mankind in Genesis 1 with the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 is based on the presumption that Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of Day 6 of Genesis 1. That is a presumption about what the Bible says, not what the Bible actually says.
If we read the text naturally, assuming that the events of Genesis 2 take place sequentially after the events of Genesis 1, then the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27 takes place some unspecified period of time before Adam and Eve appear 6000 to 8000 years ago.

In my post above I noted that it is a presumption upon the Biblical text to equate the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:5-25 with the creation of Mankind on ‘Day 6’ in Genesis 1:26-30. Let me dive into why I think the Biblical text itself indicates that the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 is not a recapitulation of ‘day 6’ in Genesis 1.

Key verses for my proposition include:
- Genesis 2:7
- Genesis 2:19

The first indicator that Genesis 2:5-25 is not a recapitulation of creation ‘Day 6’ (Genesis 1:24-31) is the well known significant difference in sequence of events between the two passages.

In Genesis 2 the sequence of events is:
a. Mankind is formed (Genesis 2:7)
b. Then the beasts of the field and birds of the air are formed (Genesis 2:19)

In Genesis 1 the sequence of events is:
a. God creates the birds of the air on ‘day 5’.
b. On ‘day 6’ livestock and creatures that move along the ground are created first (Genesis 1:24-25)
c. Then later on ‘day 6’ God’s final act of creation is the creation of mankind (Genesis 1:26-30)

The fact that the sequence of events in Genesis 1 ‘day 6’ differs significantly from the sequence of events in Genesis 2:5-25 is a strong indicator that these two passages are not referring to the same event.

So if these two passages are not referring to the same creation event, does that mean that God created animals and mankind twice, once in Genesis 1 and once in Genesis 2?
I don’t think so… and the NIV translation of Genesis 2:19 gives us a clue as to what is going on.

Here’s the NIV translation of Genesis 2:19

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

To avoid the sequence of events conflict the NIV translates the beginning of Genesis 2:19 “the Lord God had formed” instead of “the Lord God formed”. This indicates that the creation of the animals and birds occurred some time prior to the actual events that were taking place in Genesis 2:19-20. And the NIV translators made a legitimate translation choice here because the Hebrew does not specifically indicate past or present tense.

The same grammatical situation in Hebrew that exists in Genesis 2:19 also exists back in Genesis 2:7 and if we apply the same translation principle to Genesis 2:7 that the NIV translators applied to Genesis 2:19 we would get something like
"Now the LORD God had formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being."

If the correct translation of Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:19 is “had formed” (past tense) insead of “formed” (present tense) then Genesis 2 is indicating that the creation of mankind and animals had already occurred prior to the events that take place in Genesis 2:5-25.

This eliminates any contradiction between the sequence of events of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and it also provides a strong internal indication that the events of Genesis 2:5-25 are not a recapitulation of the events of creation 'day 6' in Genesis 1.

In Christ

Thanks. That was a good summary and is basically what I believe as well. As you said, "... that the events of Gen 2:5-25 are not a recapitulation of the events of creation 'day 6' in Genesis 1."

I would add that there is a also a difference in the Hebrew words utilized for "man" in Genesis 1:26 and Gen 2:7. "Ha 'adam" in Genesis 1:26 is different than " 'eth Ha 'adam" in Gen 2. Genesis 1:26 denotes mankind or humanity in general and does not contain the article or prefix, "eth". Gen 2 means specifically, "the man Adam" and is not denoting humanity whatsoever. Gen 1:27 however, contains the article or prefix "eth" which is the same as Gen 2:7, to indicate that the man Adam created in Gen 2:7 was the "man" here purposed. You would need a good interlinear Bible to look up the difference in the words but the article or prefix "eth" makes a difference to the true understanding of the transliterated English word, "man." I use Green's Interlinear. But this link may help with understanding the word "man":

The Synonymous Words Used For Man

http://levendwater.org/companion/append14.html

So I believe God created all of humanity, the ethnos, on the sixth day and then created a very specific man, Adam. And the purpose of God creating a specific Adamic bloodline was that further down the generations of time, He would be born as Jesus Christ, through that bloodline, which follows Jesus' family tree, by law in Matt 1 and by blood in Luke 3, in which both accounts claim "Adam" as Christ's flesh ancestor.

The only other difference I have with your analysis (which is trivial), is that I believe God created wild animals, that is, animals incapable of domestication, in Gen 1 and then created animals that could be domesticated in Gen 2. But that's a topic for another thread.

Good post!

A few months ago I read a book by John Walton titled "The Lost World of Adam and Eve".

There were parts of the book that I absolutely agree with. There are parts that I am still mulling over. And there are a couple of places where I can't quite bring myself to go where John Walton goes.

That said, this book did have a significant impact on my understanding of the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Here is a youtube video where John discusses " The Lost World of Adam and Eve"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fn1ESgtNi4

In Christ

"The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." (Genesis 3:20)

How does the above fit in with two creation sequences?

DBowling wrote:A few months ago I read a book by John Walton titled "The Lost World of Adam and Eve".

There were parts of the book that I absolutely agree with. There are parts that I am still mulling over. And there are a couple of places where I can't quite bring myself to go where John Walton goes.

That said, this book did have a significant impact on my understanding of the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Here is a youtube video where John discusses " The Lost World of Adam and Eve"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fn1ESgtNi4

In Christ

Interesting,I must say but I'd need to hear more about this from a much wider perspective.Like for instance,What lost world is he talking about? I already believe there is a lost world,also he seems to be willing to accept evolution which I could not do.I like to hear teachings that challenge our understanding but I need to hear this idea expanded out in greater detail.

Here's another thread that's along the same topic.

Philip wrote:"The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." (Genesis 3:20)

How does the above fit in with two creation sequences?

I'm going to cheat a little and copy/paste from some of my posts earlier in this thread

DBowling wrote: OK... let's see how Genesis uses this type of language just one chapter later to see if Genesis 3:20 is really claiming that Eve was the genetic progenitor of all humans.

In Genesis 4:20 Jabal is referred to as the "father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock".
Does this mean that Jabal is the genetic progenitor of all those who dwell in tents and have livestock?

In Genesis 4:21 Jubal is referred to as the "father of all those who play the lyre and pipe".
Does this mean that Jubal is the genetic progenitor of all those who play the lyre and pipe?

Understand that it is unlikely that any of Jabal's or Jubal's descendants survived Noah's Flood and Genesis was written after the Flood, so within the context of Genesis 3 and 4 this type of language ("father of...", "mother of...") cannot be be limited to meaning "genetic progenitor of...".

...

It's one thing to denonstrate that "father of..." and "mother of..." does not necessarily mean "genetic progenitor of..." within the context of Genesis 3-4.
The question I didn't address was what does "mother of all living" mean then.

First let's look at the context of Adam and Eve in the Garden in Genesis 2-3.
The Garden is the place where God has chosen to dwell on the earth after he created and populated the earth in Genesis 1.
God has chosen the historical Adam and Eve to dwell in His presence in the Garden.
I believe this establishes Adam and Eve as achetypal representatives of mankind in the presence of God in the Garden.

I believe their names describe their representative roles.
Adam means "mankind", therefore Adam was the archetypal representative of all mankind before God in the Garden.
Eve means "giver of life" (love that name... we named our daughter Eve), therefore Eve was the archetypal representative of all women/mothers before God in the Garden.
Their relationship was also archetypal of God's design for the fundamental building block of human culture... marriage and the family.

One additional comment here... when I use the term archetypal representative I am not saying that Adam and Eve weren't historical people. I absolutely believe that Adam and Eve were historical people and Genesis 2 and 3 accurately represents what happened in history to Adam and Eve.

When I use the term archetypal representative I am saying that they served as representatives for all humanity when they served in Garden of Eden, which was the place on earth that God chose to dwell with mankind. I see their representative role for humanity as similar to the representative role that the Levitical Priesthood exercised for the Israelites in the Tabernacle and Temple.

In Christ

So, the inference is, as the saga of Noah's Flood was recorded long after the events, as ALL alive - those alive at the time of the writing of the Genesis accounts - undoubtedly DID descend from Adam and Eve. Is that it? I wonder about any language issues surrounding Genesis 3:20?

Philip wrote:So, the inference is, as the saga of Noah's Flood was recorded long after the events, as ALL alive - those alive at the time of the writing of the Genesis accounts - undoubtedly DID descend from Adam and Eve. Is that it? I wonder about any language issues surrounding Genesis 3:20?

Let me lay the foundation for my answer to your question with a post I made earlier in this thread about the scope of Noah's Flood

DBowling wrote: There are two Scriptural issues that have to be dealt with here.
1. Does Scripture claim that the flood covered the whole globe?
2. Does Scripture claim that all humanity across the globe were killed by the flood?

And the answer to both questions involves the correct understanding of what 'kol erets' means within the context of the flood account.
Rich Deem of godandscience.org (this Discussion Board's parent site) has an excellent article titled "The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says it Must Be Local.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

One of the key points that Rich makes in his article is...
"The 'whole earth' (kol erets) usually refers to local geography"

Once we understand what "kol erets" means within the context of the flood account, alleged problems with a local flood disappear.
Try this and you'll see what I mean... when you read through the flood account substitute the word "earth" for "land of Mesopotamia".
The land that was covered with water was the 'land' of Mesopotamia.
The people that were destroyed were all the people of the land of Mesopotamia
The animals that were destroyed were all the animals of the land of Mesopotamia

Moses' use of the word "erets" (land) to refer to the land of Mesopotamia is very similar to how Luke and Paul use the word "world" to refer to the known Roman world.

Once we understand that the geographical context of Noah's Flood was the land (erets) of Mesopotamia, then we realize that all of humanity (humans living in Africa, Australia, the Americas, Asia, Europe, India...) were not destroyed by the Flood that wiped out the land of Mesopotamia.

I believe that all of Adams descendants were still living in the land of Mesopotamia at the time of Noah's Flood. So Noah was the sole surviving remnant' of Adam's line who was tasked with bringing God's truth to mankind.

Genesis 10 lists the people groups that descended from Noah, Adam's sole surviving descendant. And those surviving descendants of Adam include the Semitic people groups in general and God's chosen people, the Israelites, in particular.

In Christ

DBowling wrote:

Philip wrote:So, the inference is, as the saga of Noah's Flood was recorded long after the events, as ALL alive - those alive at the time of the writing of the Genesis accounts - undoubtedly DID descend from Adam and Eve. Is that it? I wonder about any language issues surrounding Genesis 3:20?

Let me lay the foundation for my answer to your question with a post I made earlier in this thread about the scope of Noah's Flood

DBowling wrote: There are two Scriptural issues that have to be dealt with here.
1. Does Scripture claim that the flood covered the whole globe?
2. Does Scripture claim that all humanity across the globe were killed by the flood?

And the answer to both questions involves the correct understanding of what 'kol erets' means within the context of the flood account.
Rich Deem of godandscience.org (this Discussion Board's parent site) has an excellent article titled "The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says it Must Be Local.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

One of the key points that Rich makes in his article is...
"The 'whole earth' (kol erets) usually refers to local geography"

Once we understand what "kol erets" means within the context of the flood account, alleged problems with a local flood disappear.
Try this and you'll see what I mean... when you read through the flood account substitute the word "earth" for "land of Mesopotamia".
The land that was covered with water was the 'land' of Mesopotamia.
The people that were destroyed were all the people of the land of Mesopotamia
The animals that were destroyed were all the animals of the land of Mesopotamia

Moses' use of the word "erets" (land) to refer to the land of Mesopotamia is very similar to how Luke and Paul use the word "world" to refer to the known Roman world.

Once we understand that the geographical context of Noah's Flood was the land (erets) of Mesopotamia, then we realize that all of humanity (humans living in Africa, Australia, the Americas, Asia, Europe, India...) were not destroyed by the Flood that wiped out the land of Mesopotamia.

I believe that all of Adams descendants were still living in the land of Mesopotamia at the time of Noah's Flood. So Noah was the sole surviving remnant' of Adam's line who was tasked with bringing God's truth to mankind.

Genesis 10 lists the people groups that descended from Noah, Adam's sole surviving descendant. And those surviving descendants of Adam include the Semitic people groups in general and God's chosen people, the Israelites, in particular.

In Christ

How do you explain Genesis 9:9-17?

abelcainsbrother wrote: How do you explain Genesis 9:9-17?

I think Genesis 9:8-10 does a nice job of establishing the context and scope for the covenant that God makes with Noah.

8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, 9 “Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. 11 I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.”

God states in verse 9 that this covenant relates specifically to Noah and his descendants. The animals covered by the covenant are those that are with Noah and his descendants. And the geography involved is the earth/land (erets) which we have discussed previously.

So in a nutshell, God is promising Noah, the sole surviving member of Adam's family line, that his descendants, the land that they are dwelling in, and the animals in that land will never again be destroyed by a flood.

In Christ

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: How do you explain Genesis 9:9-17?

I think Genesis 9:8-10 does a nice job of establishing the context and scope for the covenant that God makes with Noah.

8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, 9 “Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. 11 I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.”

God states in verse 9 that this covenant relates specifically to Noah and his descendants. The animals covered by the covenant are those that are with Noah and his descendants. And the geography involved is the earth/land (erets) which we have discussed previously.

So in a nutshell, God is promising Noah, the sole surviving member of Adam's family line, that his descendants, the land that they are dwelling in, and the animals in that land will never again be destroyed by a flood.

In Christ

Thanks for the explanation but it seems to be a covenant with all of mankind but also all living flesh on the face of the earth.This is why I asked this and I'm wondering if this was overlooked.I interpret this different because we know not all flesh was destroyed off the face of the earth in Noah's flood and so I believe there was a time when all flesh was destroyed off the face of the earth and the fossils in the layers of strata are proof but that is for another time.Also I believe in a global flood in Noah's day however not like young earth creationists have taught it.I think the way they have taught it has caused people to doubt it happened,so I believe in a global flood but not like YEC's have taught it.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Thanks for the explanation but it seems to be a covenant with all of mankind but also all living flesh on the face of the earth.This is why I asked this and I'm wondering if this was overlooked.

Where does the text say that the covenant with Noah was a covenant with all mankind?
The Biblical text explicitly says that the covenant is with Noah and his descendants. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is the presuppositions that we bring to the text, not the text itself, that expands the scope of the covenant from Noah and his descendants to all of mankind.

How we interpret and understand "all living flesh on the face of the earth" is again a function of the presuppositions that we bring to the word "erets' which is commonly translated earth. In the article I refer to above, Rich Deem does an excellent job of demonstrating that within the context of the Biblical Flood account a more accurate translation of the word 'erets' would be 'land'.
Again it is the set of presuppositions that we place upon the text and not the text itself that expands the meaning of 'erets' from 'land' to encompassing the whole globe.

So if we just look at the Biblical text, God is promising Noah, the sole surviving member of Adam's family line, that his descendants, the land that they are dwelling in, and the animals in that land will never again be destroyed by a flood.

To the best of my knowledge the only thing that I'm overlooking, and deliberately so, are the traditions and presuppositions that we all tend to bring to the Biblical text, and try as best I am able to focus on what the Biblical text itself actually says.

In Christ

I am following this and I have a question.
Sorry if it's off topic or perhaps a silly question
I understand that Mesopotamia was located in between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers but why would every animal need to on the ark? Was it mainly his livestock, like cattle, sheep, goats ect, unclean animals like pigs, birds ect?
Scripture says in Genesis 'two of every kind'.
It's difficult to imagine that to be possible or even necessary in a localised flood.
Not to mention that birds can fly, quite long distances, so I'm not sure why birds would need to be included at all?

DBowling wrote:Where does the text say that the covenant with Noah was a covenant with all mankind?
The Biblical text explicitly says that the covenant is with Noah and his descendants. Nothing more, nothing less.

All mankind are descendants of Noah. Chapter 10 records the genealogies of his descendants and ends with this sentence: "These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their nations, and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood."

The following chapter describes the construction of the tower of Babel and includes this statement: " So the LORD dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth. And from there the LORD dispersed them over the face of all the earth." If this group didn't include all mankind then there must be people on earth today who weren't affected by the curse and who still speak the original language used before the tower was built. Do you know whether any such people exist?