"Kinds" in Genesis 1. Does it correlate exactly with "species" in Darwinism?

[rsc2a]

Figures.  You were clearly wrong in your charges and falsely accused me with vile accusations.  But you refuse to apologize.  Color me surprised.

 

[Mathew Ward]

So I'll let your eisegetical interpretation by proclamation be the final word.

This is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. You accuse me of just reading the text and interpreting from the text and you stated that you read into the text along with using speculation and somehow I am eisegeting the Scriptures and not exegeting them.

 

[rsc2a]

This would be the recap:

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

I believe the technical term is a "colophon".

The question remains. Have you considered the validity of toledot as this recap and given up on the two creation accounts?

If it's a recap, then the next part would be a different chapter.

But then, what does a megalomaniac with a god complex who is rewriting Scripture know?

 

[rsc2a]

If it's a recap, then the next part would be a different chapter.

Do you hold to a unique 2 creation account belief because of vv 5ff? I have only heard of 2 account advocates using vs 4 as their starting point.

I hold to two creation accounts because they are different. For example, the creation order in the first has plants before mankind. The second has mankind before animals.

And the emphases are different. For example, the emphasis in the first appears to be God as creator of all things (which makes perfect sense in the ANE context in which it was penned) and mankind as being created in the image of God. The emphasis in the second appears to be a theology of vocation and marriage (with a setup for the reason for evil).

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The emphasis in the second appears to be a theology of vocation and marriage (with a setup for the reason for evil).

So what you're saying is that work and marriage is evil. 

 

[rsc2a]

I hold to two creation accounts because they are different. For example, the creation order in the first has plants before mankind. The second has mankind before animals.

And the emphases are different. For example, the emphasis in the first appears to be God as creator of all things (which makes perfect sense in the ANE context in which it was penned) and mankind as being created in the image of God. The emphasis in the second appears to be a theology of vocation and marriage (with a setup for the reason for evil).

We are just going to go round and round on this.

The emphases does not answer the question as to why this is two different creation accounts. It is an assumption that bypasses the grammatical syntax. You admitted to viewing 2:4 as a recap of chapter 1. Those who hold to a 2 account creation base it on 2:4 belonging to the second creation.

As far as the difference in animals before or after Adam, well... chapter 2 does not demand an upset of the chronology in chapter one. There is no chronology outlined in chapter 2.

Plants, not animals. And it's pretty explicit.

And, yes, you knew we'd be going round and round. We've debated about this several times.

Yet what is most important is that we still agree on what is most foundational to our faith, and I thank you for how you force me to stretch theologically and intellectually.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

As you go 'round and 'round, consider this, also.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Only the word for "man" is Adam.  So this could easily mean this is when God specifically created Adam, not "mankind". 

It's kind of pointless to go 'round and 'round on this, though.  We aren't going to know for sure this side of Heaven. 

 

[rsc2a]

As you go 'round and 'round, consider this, also.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Only the word for "man" is Adam.  So this could easily mean this is when God specifically created Adam, not "mankind". 

It's kind of pointless to go 'round and 'round on this, though.  We aren't going to know for sure this side of Heaven.

I'm cool with that.  8)

Personally, I tend to fall under the theistic evolution flavor and believe that, at some point, God looked at one of his creatures and re-fashioned that creature in God's image (which I would consider more spiritual than physical for lack of better terms...but I really hate that language because I think it's a false distinction). So you might say I believe both in both evolutionary theory and special creation.

 

[rsc2a]

Plants, not animals. And it's pretty explicit.

If simple conjunctions "and/now," in the Hebrew are that explicit, then I would be interested in knowing how you determine this when these conjunctions have 30 different usages.

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.

 

[christundivided]

As you go 'round and 'round, consider this, also.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Only the word for "man" is Adam.  So this could easily mean this is when God specifically created Adam, not "mankind". 

It's kind of pointless to go 'round and 'round on this, though.  We aren't going to know for sure this side of Heaven.

I assume you still ignore the phrase The first Adam?