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

[christundivided]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I'm not reading into anything. I don't find death in the Bible before Adam's sin. If you do please point it out.

It's kind of hard to eat celery without killing it. Same for carrots. And potatoes. And turnips. And yams. And onions. And....[/quote]

You're a total buffoon. Energy in of itself.... is not sentient life. Death being mentioned is the ending of sentient life in the flesh. Get it? You're so dishonest. No one can have a real conversation with you when you act like this.

 

[Mathew Ward]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I'm not reading into anything. I don't find death in the Bible before Adam's sin. If you do please point it out.

It's kind of hard to eat celery without killing it. Same for carrots. And potatoes. And turnips. And yams. And onions. And....

[quote author=Mathew Ward]How could there be these other living people that did not come from Eve, since she is the mother of all living?[/quote]

Mother of all living what?

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Pure speculation is taking the word day and making it mean a non 24 hour period in Genesis 1.[/quote]

Yes. After all, it makes perfect sense to talk about a 24-hr day before the creation of the sun itself, something that itself is part of determining how long a day is. And then you still have to deal with the fact that the creation order apparently gets screwed up in the second Genesis account.
[/quote]

Genesis 1 is chronological, Genesis 2 is descriptive. No issue for me, obviously an issue for you.

Who made the 24 hour period? Does the sun and the universe determine that or did God make it?

If God made the 24 hour period, do you think He really needs the sun for it?

There is nothing in the context of Genesis 1 that would indicate that the day would be anything but a 24 hour period.

Since there were this other group of "people" are there any verses detailing them or is it mere speculation on your part?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I'm not reading into anything. I don't find death in the Bible before Adam's sin. If you do please point it out.

It's kind of hard to eat celery without killing it. Same for carrots. And potatoes. And turnips. And yams. And onions. And....

[quote author=Mathew Ward]How could there be these other living people that did not come from Eve, since she is the mother of all living?

Mother of all living what?

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Pure speculation is taking the word day and making it mean a non 24 hour period in Genesis 1.[/quote]

Yes. After all, it makes perfect sense to talk about a 24-hr day before the creation of the sun itself, something that itself is part of determining how long a day is. And then you still have to deal with the fact that the creation order apparently gets screwed up in the second Genesis account.
[/quote]

Genesis 1 is chronological, Genesis 2 is descriptive. No issue for me, obviously an issue for you.[/quote]

Yes...one account details the creation of plants before mankind and a second one that completely reverses this order. If you insist on a 'plain reading' of the early Genesis accounts, it tends to screw things up for you.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Who made the 24 hour period? Does the sun and the universe determine that or did God make it?[/quote]

To your second question, "yes".

[quote author=Mathew Ward]If God made the 24 hour period, do you think He really needs the sun for it?[/quote]

Since a day is partially defined by the presence of the sun...

[quote author=Mathew Ward]There is nothing in the context of Genesis 1 that would indicate that the day would be anything but a 24 hour period.[/quote]

Except for things like "the context of Genesis 1".

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Since there were this other group of "people" are there any verses detailing them or is it mere speculation on your part?[/quote]

One might argue that Cain's concern for his own life is at least mentioning them. One might also argue that it's not a good idea to look for the local taco stand's phone number in a dictionary, so why would one ask questions of the text that the text isn't even remotely addressing?

I tend to do a little bit of both.



I also noticed that you completely ignored the fact that even a 'plain reading' of Genesis requires death of other living things prior to the Fall.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Yes...one account details the creation of plants before mankind and a second one that completely reverses this order. If you insist on a 'plain reading' of the early Genesis accounts, it tends to screw things up for you.

Not in the least bit. You are the one that has a problem with one being chronological and the other being descriptive.

To your second question, "yes".

So God cannot determine a 24 hour day without the sun?

Since a day is partially defined by the presence of the sun...

So God cannot determine a 24 hour day without the sun?

Except for things like "the context of Genesis 1".

And the context doesn't lend itself to 100's, 1000's, 10,000's, millions or billions of years. Especially when Genesis 2 states specifically that God rested on the 7th day.

One might argue that Cain's concern for his own life is at least mentioning them. One might also argue that it's not a good idea to look for the local taco stand's phone number in a dictionary, so why would one ask questions of the text that the text isn't even remotely addressing?

I tend to do a little bit of both.

At least you admit you are just speculating and not basing your speculation on the text of the Bible. But you are reading into the text.

I also noticed that you completely ignored the fact that even a 'plain reading' of Genesis requires death of other living things prior to the Fall.

CU already answered...i can repost if necessary. However if you think eating a peach or a pear is killing the tree you pick it from (because God commanded you to eat freely) you may want to look into a little closer.

I'm a simple guy. I believe in a literal 6 day creation because the text of the Bible teaches such. I don't have to read into a gap between 2 verses or read into a pre-Adamic race of people that dies or didn't die. I believe God created Adam and breathed into the breath of life. From Adam He created Eve (who is the mother of all living) and they are responsible for populating the earth.

1 Corinthians 1:23  But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Sometimes the simple things are the most difficult to grasp.

 

[rsc2a]

Yes...one account details the creation of plants before mankind and a second one that completely reverses this order. If you insist on a 'plain reading' of the early Genesis accounts, it tends to screw things up for you.

Not in the least bit. You are the one that has a problem with one being chronological and the other being descriptive.

Ohhh......so when the second creation account states that...

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up...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.

...you have to ignore the chronologically 'plain sense' reading because the 'plain sense' reading of the first account becomes problematic, and the best method of hermeneutics is a 'plain sense' reading except for where it's not. Forgive me for being unconvinced by your inconsistencies.

[quote author=Mathew Ward][quote author=rsc2a]To your second question, "yes".[/quote]

So God cannot determine a 24 hour day without the sun?

[quote author=rsc2a]Since a day is partially defined by the presence of the sun...[/quote]

So God cannot determine a 24 hour day without the sun?[/quote]

Can God make a square with 5 sides?

[quote author=Mathew Ward][quote author=rsc2a]Except for things like "the context of Genesis 1".[/quote]

And the context doesn't lend itself to 100's, 1000's, 10,000's, millions or billions of years. Especially when Genesis 2 states specifically that God rested on the 7th day.[/quote]

And Hebrews says that the Sabbath day is Christ as represented by the promised land. Did you have another point?

[quote author=Mathew Ward][quote author=rsc2a]One might argue that Cain's concern for his own life is at least mentioning them. One might also argue that it's not a good idea to look for the local taco stand's phone number in a dictionary, so why would one ask questions of the text that the text isn't even remotely addressing?

I tend to do a little bit of both.[/quote]

At least you admit you are just speculating and not basing your speculation on the text of the Bible. But you are reading into the text.[/quote]

Did you completely ignore the bolded portion? Would you like the citation?

[quote author=Mathew Ward][quote author=rsc2a]I also noticed that you completely ignored the fact that even a 'plain reading' of Genesis requires death of other living things prior to the Fall.
[/quote]

CU already answered...i can repost if necessary. However if you think eating a peach or a pear is killing the tree you pick it from (because God commanded you to eat freely) you may want to look into a little closer.[/quote]

No. CU redefined life to mean "sentient beings" instead of "living thing". Of course, the Hebrew is going to make this a bit problematic for him, but why let word meaning get in the way of a good bit of cognitive dissonance? Just redefine it, and you are good to go.

And, I didn't mention pears. Read the list I provided again. "You might want to look a little closer."

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I'm a simple guy. I believe in a literal 6 day creation because the text of the Bible teaches such. I don't have to read into a gap between 2 verses or read into a pre-Adamic race of people that dies or didn't die. I believe God created Adam and breathed into the breath of life. From Adam He created Eve (who is the mother of all living) and they are responsible for populating the earth.

1 Corinthians 1:23  But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Sometimes the simple things are the most difficult to grasp.[/quote]

Fantastic! Then I'll assume you hold to transubstantiation and believe Eve to be the mother of all squirrels, dolphins, oak trees, iguanas, corn stalks, sheep and every other living thing.

 

[christundivided]

Fantastic! Then I'll assume you hold to transubstantiation and believe Eve to be the mother of all squirrels, dolphins, oak trees, iguanas, corn stalks, sheep and every other living thing.

You really are a turd. A big stinking pile of dung.

You know Matthew WASN'T talking about transubstantiation nor did he even imply anything similar. You take a simple explanation and dishonestly chide him as if he believed such things?????

Hack.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Ohhh......so when the second creation account states that...

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up...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.

...you have to ignore the chronologically 'plain sense' reading because the 'plain sense' reading of the first account becomes problematic, and the best method of hermeneutics is a 'plain sense' reading except for where it's not. Forgive me for being unconvinced by your inconsistencies.

It really isn't that difficult to understand. God puts things in chronological order in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 He then gives us a descriptive account (more details). There is no inconsistency here, I am not trying to insert time, change word meaning, make pre-Adamic races or even reading into the Scriptures. I believe what they say.

When God says Genesis 1:5  ...And the evening and the morning were the first day. I simply believe that the plain sense here is a 24 hour period. If you want to make it figurative, have at it. My hermeneutic is being consistent, whereas you have a different meaning in Genesis 1 for day than Genesis 2 or other portions of the Scriptures.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Ohhh......so when the second creation account states that...

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up...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.

...you have to ignore the chronologically 'plain sense' reading because the 'plain sense' reading of the first account becomes problematic, and the best method of hermeneutics is a 'plain sense' reading except for where it's not. Forgive me for being unconvinced by your inconsistencies.

It really isn't that difficult to understand. God puts things in chronological order in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 He then gives us a descriptive account (more details). There is no inconsistency here, I am not trying to insert time, change word meaning, make pre-Adamic races or even reading into the Scriptures. I believe what they say.

When God says Genesis 1:5  ...And the evening and the morning were the first day. I simply believe that the plain sense here is a 24 hour period. If you want to make it figurative, have at it. My hermeneutic is being consistent, whereas you have a different meaning in Genesis 1 for day than Genesis 2 or other portions of the Scriptures.

So how does your hermeneutic account for the kingdoms and the religious practices and the victims of unfair trade at Satan's fall when only 2 people existed?

 

[rsc2a]

Ohhh......so when the second creation account states that...

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up...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.

...you have to ignore the chronologically 'plain sense' reading because the 'plain sense' reading of the first account becomes problematic, and the best method of hermeneutics is a 'plain sense' reading except for where it's not. Forgive me for being unconvinced by your inconsistencies.

It really isn't that difficult to understand. God puts things in chronological order in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 He then gives us a descriptive account (more details). There is no inconsistency here, I am not trying to insert time, change word meaning, make pre-Adamic races or even reading into the Scriptures. I believe what they say.

It's not that there are more details in the second creation account. It's that the second creation account contradicts the first one if you want to insist on a 'plain reading'. One explicitly has the creation of plant matter before mankind; the second has it after. It's not a narrower focus on what was stated. It is a completely different one.

And you still ignore the fact that death of living things wasn't just a possibility but a requirement for a 'plain reading' of the first creation account.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]When God says Genesis 1:5  ...And the evening and the morning were the first day. I simply believe that the plain sense here is a 24 hour period. If you want to make it figurative, have at it. My hermeneutic is being consistent...[/quote]

...except where you ignore your stated hermeneutic principles. (i.e. one chapter over).

[quote author=Mathew Ward]...whereas you have a different meaning in Genesis 1 for day than Genesis 2 or other portions of the Scriptures.[/quote]

I have a different meaning for bucket when I say "go fill up the bucket" than when I say "he kicked the bucket" also. And yet both meanings are correct!

(I'd also point out that you likewise understand "day" to have different meanings depending upon the context.)

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]So how does your hermeneutic account for the kingdoms and the religious practices and the victims of unfair trade at Satan's fall when only 2 people existed?[/quote]

I'd be interested in knowing how his hermeneutic accounts for a (seemingly) contradictory creation account only ten verses over.

 

[christundivided]

Ohhh......so when the second creation account states that...

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up...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.

...you have to ignore the chronologically 'plain sense' reading because the 'plain sense' reading of the first account becomes problematic, and the best method of hermeneutics is a 'plain sense' reading except for where it's not. Forgive me for being unconvinced by your inconsistencies.

It really isn't that difficult to understand. God puts things in chronological order in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 He then gives us a descriptive account (more details). There is no inconsistency here, I am not trying to insert time, change word meaning, make pre-Adamic races or even reading into the Scriptures. I believe what they say.

When God says Genesis 1:5  ...And the evening and the morning were the first day. I simply believe that the plain sense here is a 24 hour period. If you want to make it figurative, have at it. My hermeneutic is being consistent, whereas you have a different meaning in Genesis 1 for day than Genesis 2 or other portions of the Scriptures.

So how does your hermeneutic account for the kingdoms and the religious practices and the victims of unfair trade at Satan's fall when only 2 people existed?

What does humans have to do with it?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Ohhh......so when the second creation account states that...

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up...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.

...you have to ignore the chronologically 'plain sense' reading because the 'plain sense' reading of the first account becomes problematic, and the best method of hermeneutics is a 'plain sense' reading except for where it's not. Forgive me for being unconvinced by your inconsistencies.

I happen to believe "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up..." God was referring to the local area where He was about to plant the garden of Eden. 

Nobody really knows where the garden of Eden was, but most of the suggestions locate it in pretty barren lands.  However, there's no way to know if those lands were barren pre-flood, but I'm still guessing God was referring to a barren land where he planned to place the garden Eden. 

 

[rsc2a]

Ohhh......so when the second creation account states that...

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up...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.

...you have to ignore the chronologically 'plain sense' reading because the 'plain sense' reading of the first account becomes problematic, and the best method of hermeneutics is a 'plain sense' reading except for where it's not. Forgive me for being unconvinced by your inconsistencies.

I happen to believe "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up..." God was referring to the local area where He was about to plant the garden of Eden. 

Nobody really knows where the garden of Eden was, but most of the suggestions locate it in pretty barren lands.  However, there's no way to know if those lands were barren pre-flood, but I'm still guessing God was referring to a barren land where he planned to place the garden Eden.

I happen to agree with you on this passage here but that I wouldn't try to claim that my belief derives from a simple 'plain meaning' reading of the text in question. (And it doesn't address the other folks that Cain was concerned with or other related questions.)

 

[christundivided]

Hey rsca....how about the next time you say something to me you.... don't bury it in the middle of a conversation with someone else... Coward.

Death entering the world didn't have anything to do with something being eaten. Death passed upon mankind. A death beyond just the fact this body returns to dust. Christ didn't take upon Himself the form of an apple to die for every apple that's faced death from being eaten. Christ didn't take upon Himself the form of a maggot to grant to maggots.....eternal life.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Ohhh......so when the second creation account states that...

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up...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.

...you have to ignore the chronologically 'plain sense' reading because the 'plain sense' reading of the first account becomes problematic, and the best method of hermeneutics is a 'plain sense' reading except for where it's not. Forgive me for being unconvinced by your inconsistencies.

It really isn't that difficult to understand. God puts things in chronological order in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 He then gives us a descriptive account (more details). There is no inconsistency here, I am not trying to insert time, change word meaning, make pre-Adamic races or even reading into the Scriptures. I believe what they say.

It's not that there are more details in the second creation account. It's that the second creation account contradicts the first one if you want to insist on a 'plain reading'. One explicitly has the creation of plant matter before mankind; the second has it after. It's not a narrower focus on what was stated. It is a completely different one.

And you still ignore the fact that death of living things wasn't just a possibility but a requirement for a 'plain reading' of the first creation account.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]When God says Genesis 1:5  ...And the evening and the morning were the first day. I simply believe that the plain sense here is a 24 hour period. If you want to make it figurative, have at it. My hermeneutic is being consistent...

...except where you ignore your stated hermeneutic principles. (i.e. one chapter over).

[quote author=Mathew Ward]...whereas you have a different meaning in Genesis 1 for day than Genesis 2 or other portions of the Scriptures.[/quote]

I have a different meaning for bucket when I say "go fill up the bucket" than when I say "he kicked the bucket" also. And yet both meanings are correct!

(I'd also point out that you likewise understand "day" to have different meanings depending upon the context.)
[/quote]

If you want to believe the Scriptures were written in chronological order from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 you are more than welcome to believe that. If you want to believe the Scriptures are contradictory you can believe that too.

Now if morning and evening were the first day has multiple meanings from the context, go ahead and prove that from the Scriptures. I'll stick with a consistent hermeneutic (as I have stated previously) that doesn't read into the Scriptures.

If you don't believe in the kingdom of God vs the kingdom of Satan, you can believe that too. I just tend to believe that the warfare is spiritual.

Now before Adam sinned what died? Please use Scripture to prove that it died, not your speculation.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Now before Adam sinned what died? Please use Scripture to prove that it died, not your speculation.


So the civilization(s) that were on earth before Satan's fall as mentioned in Ezekiel 28, because there were only 2 people in the garden, what do you think happened to them? Were they raptured or is it safe to speculate that they were dead? Or is there a completely different perspective that they never really existed?

 

[christundivided]

Now before Adam sinned what died? Please use Scripture to prove that it died, not your speculation.


So the civilization(s) that were on earth before Satan's fall as mentioned in Ezekiel 28, because there were only 2 people in the garden, what do you think happened to them? Were they raptured or is it safe to speculate that they were dead? Or is there a completely different perspective that they never really existed?

I think you're reading too much in the story of the Price of Tyre. He is never called a "King" in the Old Greek texts. The Old Greek texts also speaks of "paradise" and not specifically of the Garden of Eden. Either way, many consider such verses to be a allusion to Hiram.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]If you want to believe the Scriptures were written in chronological order from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 you ate more than welcome to believe that. If you want to believe the Scriptures are contradictory you can believe that too.[/quote]

I don't believe that at all. But you are the one who stated that the second account is simply greater detailed description of the first account. When one says A then B, then "details" the sequence by saying B then A, that is not more detail. That is a different account.

Is it contradictory? If you insist on reading it like a science textbook or modern history book, absolutely! If you read it like an ancient near-eastern creation myth, then not at all.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Now if morning and evening were the first day has multiple meanings from the context, go ahead and prove that from the Scriptures.[/quote]

I have. And you ignore the problems that result from your interpretation.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I'll stick with a consistent hermeneutic (as I have stated previously) that doesn't read into the Scriptures.[/quote]

As I have pointed out, there is nothing at all consistent about your hermeneutical preference (unless you've suddenly developed a belief in the Real Presence...to use one example).

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Now before Adam sinned what died? Please use Scripture to prove that it died, not your speculation.[/quote]

I have used Scripture. You've ignored it. Shock!

Here again: And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food."

You cannot eat a carrot without killing it. You cannot eat a turnip without killing it. And I've planted both carrot seeds and turnip seeds...

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Now before Adam sinned what died? Please use Scripture to prove that it died, not your speculation.


So the civilization(s) that were on earth before Satan's fall as mentioned in Ezekiel 28, because there were only 2 people in the garden, what do you think happened to them? Were they raptured or is it safe to speculate that they were dead? Or is there a completely different perspective that they never really existed?

I think you're reading too much in the story of the Price of Tyre. He is never called a "King" in the Old Greek texts. The Old Greek texts also speaks of "paradise" and not specifically of the Garden of Eden. Either way, many consider such verses to be a allusion to Hiram.

This possibilty is a fair interpretation. However, I see it differently. My perspective is that the Prince of Tyre in the first 10 verses is the physical ruler but was controlled by demonic spirits. I believe the same can be said of the Prince of Persia in Daniel 10 and possibly the King of Babylon (Sennacherib?) in Isaiah 14.

If that is correct (and I might be wrong), then it would make sense that in Ezekiel 28, the Prince is the earthly ruler being indwelled by the Satan the King of Tyre (vs. 11-14).

This explanation explains to me how the King of Tyre was a cherub, a created being, a ruler that dwelled in the mountain of God.

Not making debate but laying it out as how I see it.

 

[Mathew Ward]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]If you want to believe the Scriptures were written in chronological order from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 you ate more than welcome to believe that. If you want to believe the Scriptures are contradictory you can believe that too.

I don't believe that at all. But you are the one who stated that the second account is simply greater detailed description of the first account. When one says A then B, then "details" the sequence by saying B then A, that is not more detail. That is a different account.

Is it contradictory? If you insist on reading it like a science textbook or modern history book, absolutely! If you read it like an ancient near-eastern creation myth, then not at all.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Now if morning and evening were the first day has multiple meanings from the context, go ahead and prove that from the Scriptures.[/quote]

I have. And you ignore the problems that result from your interpretation.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I'll stick with a consistent hermeneutic (as I have stated previously) that doesn't read into the Scriptures.[/quote]

As I have pointed out, there is nothing at all consistent about your hermeneutical preference (unless you've suddenly developed a belief in the Real Presence...to use one example).

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Now before Adam sinned what died? Please use Scripture to prove that it died, not your speculation.[/quote]

I have used Scripture. You've ignored it. Shock!

Here again: And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food."

You cannot eat a carrot without killing it. You cannot eat a turnip without killing it. And I've planted both carrot seeds and turnip seeds...
[/quote]

The things I see is you reference creation as a myth (bold above).

Where are the Scriptures you have used to prove that the morning and evening were the first day is something other than a 24 hour period?

If you don't believe that the Scriptures are in harmony that is a problem for your hermeneutic and speculation. I've told you how I interpret it. Genesis 1 chronological, Genesis 2 descriptive.  Both literal.

You haven't used any Scripture to prove anything died before Adam.  Speculation...much, Scripture zero.

As far as turnips and carrots which of those grow on trees? I thought the command was Genesis 2:16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

I don't see Adam planting anything in the garden.

I just take God at His word and you don't seem too.

I think when you don't accept creation by God it is dangerous territory.

Romans 1:20-24  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: