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

[Mathew Ward]

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.

We see it differently and that is ok.

I don't see death before sin and I don't see a pre-Adamic race of people and I don't see millions of years in creation.

 

[Bob H]

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).

You are

 

[Smellin Coffee]

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).

You are

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]The things I see is you reference creation as a myth (bold above).[/quote]

Just because something is classified as myth does not make it false. C.S. Lewis (and others) have covered this territory quite well.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]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.[/quote]

Let me repeat: 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.

Now you can ignore this to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would result from your mutually exlcusive interpretations, but ignoring it doesn't mean that it isn't there.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]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.[/quote]

Seriously...<sigh>

I even cited the verse. 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."

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I just take God at His word and you don't seem too.[/quote]

Cause clearly that's the only possible option.  :

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I think when you don't accept creation by God it is dangerous territory.[/quote]

I would agree. Luckily. I don't think I've read anything by anyone here that would deny a Creator.

 

[rsc2a]

Let me repeat: 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.

Now you can ignore this to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would result from your mutually exlcusive interpretations, but ignoring it doesn't mean that it isn't there.

How do you understand the word "toledot" which introduces 2:4?

I see the two creation accounts in Genesis as two different accounts that have differing (but related) purposes for their writing (like I see all the creation accounts in Scripture actually...) Other than that, I don't understand what you are asking?

 

[christundivided]

Let me repeat: 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.

Now you can ignore this to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would result from your mutually exlcusive interpretations, but ignoring it doesn't mean that it isn't there.

How do you understand the word "toledot" which introduces 2:4?

I see the two creation accounts in Genesis as two different accounts that have differing (but related) purposes for their writing (like I see all the creation accounts in Scripture actually...) Other than that, I don't understand what you are asking?

Obviously you don't understand. Think of the great affinity the KJVOist has for the word "begotten".

 

[rsc2a]

Other than that, I don't understand what you are asking?

Because that word sets up the content of chapter 2 and actually explains why there is a restatement of Genesis 1.
This word is a marker throughout the book of Genesis, not just here in chapter 2.

See this journal article: http://www.oldtestamentstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/FI2DBSJ.pdf

It is pretty technical... so if you start at page 73 with the "significance" you will see how this is critical to understanding the book of Genesis.

If the second account is a telling of the creation of Eden and/or the Promised Land (as many people believe), this would seem to be clearly addressing the reasoning the author has given. With that said, I'm going to spend a bit more time with the article because it's interesting.

[quote author=admin]Speculating about two creation accounts without understanding the Hebrew language is not solid ground.[/quote]

I would point out that

1)plenty of people with a firmer grasp of Hebrew than I'll ever have don't have a problem with the idea of two creation accounts

...and...

2) speculating about the creation accounts without taking any consideration for the cultural context, specifically other ANE myths, is not solid ground.

 

[christundivided]

1)plenty of people with a firmer grasp of Hebrew than I'll ever have don't have a problem with the idea of two creation accounts

Plenty of people considered Obama to be a good candidate for president. We all know how that worked out.

 

[rsc2a]

Other than that, I don't understand what you are asking?

Because that word sets up the content of chapter 2 and actually explains why there is a restatement of Genesis 1.
This word is a marker throughout the book of Genesis, not just here in chapter 2.

Doing a bit of research (again, I'm going to study this more), it appears from both the Biblical texts (particularly Genesis) and other ANE texts that the passage in question (Gen 2:4) may very well have been a recap/closing for the previous writing.

In other words, two creation accounts.

 

[Mathew Ward]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]The things I see is you reference creation as a myth (bold above).

Just because something is classified as myth does not make it false. C.S. Lewis (and others) have covered this territory quite well.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]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.[/quote]

Let me repeat: 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.

Now you can ignore this to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would result from your mutually exlcusive interpretations, but ignoring it doesn't mean that it isn't there.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]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.[/quote]

Seriously...<sigh>

I even cited the verse. 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."

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I just take God at His word and you don't seem too.[/quote]

Cause clearly that's the only possible option.  :

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I think when you don't accept creation by God it is dangerous territory.[/quote]

I would agree. Luckily. I don't think I've read anything by anyone here that would deny a Creator.
[/quote]

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?

For you Genesis 2 is a different account then Genesis 1, not for me. Just because God describes something a different way doesn't make it a different account.

I read where God gave Adam fruit and plants to eat. Where is the death before sin? (Please reference the Scriptures of death before sin).

If you would like to reference Adam planting seeds in the ground before his sin I would love to see that Biblical reference. Since you keep making that speculation (with many others) I will assume there are no Bible verses supporting your theory.

Since you clearly take God at His word then these (see below) would reference a 24 hour period, right?

And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]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?[/quote]

...sigh...

[quote author=Mathew Ward]For you Genesis 2 is a different account then Genesis 1, not for me. Just because God describes something a different way doesn't make it a different account.[/quote]

Personally, I don't ascribe to a "it might be true for you but not for me" method of interpretation. And it's not "described a different way". It says something different. It completely changes the order of things. To use my well-worn example:

If I tell my kids the story of the three little pigs and one night, the second pig builds his house out of sticks and another night this pig builds his house out of branches, have I changed the story at all?

Now again, if one night I decide the pig is going to build his house out of crushed S-10s he picked up from the scrap yard, is the story different?

By changing the explictly granted order of creation, it says two different things.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I read where God gave Adam fruit and plants to eat. Where is the death before sin? (Please reference the Scriptures of death before sin).

If you would like to reference Adam planting seeds in the ground before his sin I would love to see that Biblical reference. Since you keep making that speculation (with many others) I will assume there are no Bible verses supporting your theory.[/quote]

One can read Scripture in a fashion where absolutley nothing is in the text except what is explicitly stated but it's a horrible way of actually reading Scripture. Oh yeah...and you have to toss out ideas like the Trinity, but who cares about orthodoxy when you're treating the Bible like a Dr Suess book anyways?

Now since it does explicitly state that "[God has] given [Adam] every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth [for food]" and there is no requirement whatsoever for Adam having actually planted the food source in question, and since it is inherently impossible to consume a carrot (which produces seeds) without killing said plant, it is clear from the text that, yes, there was death before the Fall.

Now if you want to be explicit, Paul later states that "by one man, sin entered the world...so death spread to all men". Paul explicitly makes the claim that death spread to all men.

Better yet. I have asked many others on here, and now I ask you. Where does Scripture explicitly say that the death resultant spoken of in the first commandment was applicable to anything but humanity since Paul explicitly makes it for mankind in the above verses?

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Since you clearly take God at His word then these (see below) would reference a 24 hour period, right?

And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
[/quote]

"Since you clearly take God at His word..."

...I'll assume you think He is a chicken. (Matt 23:37, Ps 91:4)

 

[subllibrm]

Questions for the gappers:

Is the <space> between 1:1 and 1:2 equal to a "day"?

Are all of the Genesis 1 "days" of equal length of time (whatever that may be)?

Regarding the previous question, how long would you say each day was? For instance, was day one 1xxx years and day 5 1x years while day 6 may have been 24 hours or some such?

I am curious because all of the gap proponents that I have ever encountered were using that <space> to explain the appearance of time seen in nature. This would include the fossil record, land forms such as the Grand Canyon and sedimentary phenomena attributed to "ice ages" and such.

 

[Mathew Ward]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]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?

...sigh...  I'd sigh too if asked for verses that I don't provide. Because it sure beats having to give Biblical proof  ;D 

[quote author=Mathew Ward]For you Genesis 2 is a different account then Genesis 1, not for me. Just because God describes something a different way doesn't make it a different account.[/quote]

Personally, I don't ascribe to a "it might be true for you but not for me" method of interpretation. And it's not "described a different way". It says something different. It completely changes the order of things. To use my well-worn example:

If I tell my kids the story of the three little pigs and one night, the second pig builds his house out of sticks and another night this pig builds his house out of branches, have I changed the story at all?

Now again, if one night I decide the pig is going to build his house out of crushed S-10s he picked up from the scrap yard, is the story different?

By changing the explictly granted order of creation, it says two different things. Same event described in a different way.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I read where God gave Adam fruit and plants to eat. Where is the death before sin? (Please reference the Scriptures of death before sin).

If you would like to reference Adam planting seeds in the ground before his sin I would love to see that Biblical reference. Since you keep making that speculation (with many others) I will assume there are no Bible verses supporting your theory.[/quote]

One can read Scripture in a fashion where absolutley nothing is in the text except what is explicitly stated but it's a horrible way of actually reading Scripture. Oh yeah...and you have to toss out ideas like the Trinity, but who cares about orthodoxy when you're treating the Bible like a Dr Suess book anyways?

Why would one have to throw out the idea of the Trinity? Have you not read...Matthew 3:16-17  And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.  I don't have to read into the text things that are clearly taught.

So reading into the text is the way to read the Bible, I got ya.

Now since it does explicitly state that "[God has] given [Adam] every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth [for food]" and there is no requirement whatsoever for Adam having actually planted the food source in question, and since it is inherently impossible to consume a carrot (which produces seeds) without killing said plant, it is clear from the text that, yes, there was death before the Fall.

That is great speculation on your part, but then again you like to read into the text and not read out of the text.

Now if you want to be explicit, Paul later states that "by one man, sin entered the world...so death spread to all men". Paul explicitly makes the claim that death spread to all men.

Better yet. I have asked many others on here, and now I ask you. Where does Scripture explicitly say that the death resultant spoken of in the first commandment was applicable to anything but humanity since Paul explicitly makes it for mankind in the above verses?

I find after the fall that God's creation was affected by the fall. I find that the Biblical result of sin is death.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Since you clearly take God at His word then these (see below) would reference a 24 hour period, right?

And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
[/quote]

I take it that you should sigh here when asked about these verses above?

"Since you clearly take God at His word..."

...I'll assume you think He is a chicken. (Matt 23:37, Ps 91:4)
[/quote]

Matthew 23:37  O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

It doesn't say God is a chicken, sorry if you think it does.

Just because I take God at His word doesn't mean I don't believe that God doesn't speak in metaphors and other figures of speech. When He does the context of his figure of speech is clear.

However in Genesis 1 that isn't evident. But it not being evident won't stop you from reading into the Scriptures things that are not there.

It is your speculation that a day isn't a 24 hour period in Genesis 1. Nothing in the text would indicate that God is using a figure of speech and even the Hebrew doesn't support your theory.

I have asked for your Scriptural proof for day being something other than a 24 hour period, you have provided none.

You asked for Scriptural proof that death is a result of sin, I provided.

I asked for Scriptural proof that death came before sin. Again no Scriptural proof just speculation and reading into the text on your part.

Now if I tell my son the story of the three pigs one night without much detail and tell the story the second night with greater detail to you it is two different accounts. To me it is the same story with more detail.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]...[/quote]

Clearly, you'll ignore anything that doesn't fit into your predefined view of Genesis, even when the evidence is plain to see. And I'm tired of repeating myself when you don't even attempt to engage in the points I've made. So I'll let your eisegetical interpretation by proclamation be the final word.

Let me know when you start denying transubstantiation though.

 

[christundivided]

Questions for the gappers:

Is the <space> between 1:1 and 1:2 equal to a "day"?

Are all of the Genesis 1 "days" of equal length of time (whatever that may be)?

Regarding the previous question, how long would you say each day was? For instance, was day one 1xxx years and day 5 1x years while day 6 may have been 24 hours or some such?

I am curious because all of the gap proponents that I have ever encountered were using that <space> to explain the appearance of time seen in nature. This would include the fossil record, land forms such as the Grand Canyon and sedimentary phenomena attributed to "ice ages" and such.

I don't personally believe in a gap between verse 1 and verse 2. I just don't believe verse 1 details the beginning of God or the beginning of all His creations. Thus, I believe God created things before Genesis 1:1. In the same manner "gap" generally see the same thing. Just between verse 1 and verse 2. There is no indication of a the length of time between verse 1 and verse 2 to a traditional "gaper". Most "gapers" see a literal 24 hour day. I personally believe the same thing. I can't believe anyone would try to say they are 1,000 year days.

 

[subllibrm]

Questions for the gappers:

Is the <space> between 1:1 and 1:2 equal to a "day"?

Are all of the Genesis 1 "days" of equal length of time (whatever that may be)?

Regarding the previous question, how long would you say each day was? For instance, was day one 1xxx years and day 5 1x years while day 6 may have been 24 hours or some such?

I am curious because all of the gap proponents that I have ever encountered were using that <space> to explain the appearance of time seen in nature. This would include the fossil record, land forms such as the Grand Canyon and sedimentary phenomena attributed to "ice ages" and such.

I don't personally believe in a gap between verse 1 and verse 2. I just don't believe verse 1 details the beginning of God or the beginning of all His creations. Thus, I believe God created things before Genesis 1:1. In the same manner "gap" generally see the same thing. Just between verse 1 and verse 2. There is no indication of a the length of time between verse 1 and verse 2 to a traditional "gaper". Most "gapers" see a literal 24 hour day. I personally believe the same thing. I can't believe anyone would try to say they are 1,000 year days.

Okay, the best as I understand it from those who explained their gappness to me:

Between verse 1 and 2 is all the time that we see in nature. Billions and billions of years if need be. Then everything was destroyed and creation (recreation?) started on day 1. Whether those 6 days are 24 hours or not is irrelevant as long as the "time" shown in nature is accounted for between vs. 1 and 2.

Now, that is how it was explained to me so I only have that to go on. I was just curious if anyone here held to similar explanation.

 

[rsc2a]

Doing a bit of research (again, I'm going to study this more), it appears from both the Biblical texts (particularly Genesis) and other ANE texts that the passage in question (Gen 2:4) may very well have been a recap/closing for the previous writing.

In other words, two creation accounts.

That does not sound like good math to me. How does a creation account with a recap of that same account add up to two different accounts?

My position is based on sound exegesis.

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".

 

[rsc2a]

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[rsc2a]

No really.  What in the world are you talking about? Where am I rewriting Scripture?

 

[rsc2a]

That's what I thought.  You had no idea what you were talking about.

Grab yourself an ESV, flip to Genesis chapter 2, read a bit, and find the exact quote I used.

I'll be waiting for your apology...