ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

When Was Man Was Created

In Genesis 1, we are told that animals, fish and birds were created before man. In Genesis 2, we are told that God first created man (Gen 2:7) and then created animals (Gen 2:19) - and then created woman (Gen 2:22). Why this difference?

Join Our Christian Chat and Take The Creationism Quiz
 ---Mary on 1/22/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (6)

Post a New Blog



Jerry if we should end up in court charged with a breach of the Traffic Act we are ultimately judged by what that Act says.

You failed to stop at a stop sign. You may claim Stop doesn't really mean stop. But it does, becaust the rule book says so. Case over.

However when it comes to God's word what is written (even in the Ten Commandments) is apparently up for reinterpretation. Genesis one says God created in 6 days, and this is comfirmed by Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:14-17. But apparently it does not mean this at all. But God says it does!

Some would have us believe that what man has written (the Traffic Act) is to be taken as written but what God has written doesn't mean what it says! Surely God would disagree.
---Warwick on 1/30/11


Jerry, a further comment. Some may say that lawyers actually do argue that the law does not say what it appears to say. And sometimes win. And we call them shysters.
---Warwick on 1/30/11


Warwick,You make it look like you're defending scripture and God's word when you are actually defending your personal interpretation, any one who disagrees with your interpretation is trashing scripture..NOT SO!
My interpretation is just as valid as yours! (interpretation=opinion)which also takes into account "logic and reason"
All that you say took place on the 6th day is niether logical nor reasonable!
---1st_cliff on 1/30/11


Please visit the Prayer Needs blog

We should pray for others as well as arguing.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/30/11


StrongAxe the plain fact is that they are not two different accounts of creation at all because Chapter 2 doesn't mention the creation of the earth, sun, moon, stars, seas, land, sky, sea creatures, creeping creatures etc.

For this reason chapter two isn't in a different order as it is not a creation account.

The logical conclusion I draw from your comments is that God structured His creation account in chronological order with considerable detail because the order and detail aren't important!

Can you give me a Scriptural quote which even hints at this?

You confuse those who strain at a gnat with those who respect and defend revealed truth. Truth which comes under passionate attack daily upon these pages.
---Warwick on 1/29/11




Steve I agree. Some people truly wonder whether they are two creation accounts.

But chapter 2 isn't an account of creation as it doesn't mention the creation of the earth, sun, moon, stars, seas, land, sky, sea creatures, creeping creatures etc.

See also Mark 10:6-8 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one"

The two bold quotes show that Jesus the Creator joined Genesis 1:17 and 2:24 in one quotation regarding the sanctity of marriage. And with no hint that ch. 1 and ch. 2 are two conflicting creation accounts.
---Warwick on 1/30/11


Warwick: Speaking of recaps, God Himself wrote a recap in Exo 20:8-11 of a six literal day creation. The ONLY way that His account could be anything but six literal days is if God were intentionally deceiving us. But, scripture says that God cannot lie. So why do some so vehemently deny the plain word of God and adhere to the conjectures of men? I can't understand their thinking. What's wrong with simply taking God at His word?
---jerry6593 on 1/30/11


Strongaxe, I agree with you. The book of Genesis as a whole was given to us so that God could reveal Himself and a world view to Israel which contrasted at times with the worldview of Israels neighbors. The author made no attempt to defend the existence of God or to present a systematic discussion of His person and works. Rather, Israels God distinguished Himself clearly from the alleged gods of her neighbors. Theological foundations are revealed which include God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, man, sin, redemption, covenant, promise, the serpent and angels, kingdom, revelation, Israel, judgment, curses and blessings. Genesis covers all of those things. It is the little things not detailed that others really want to talk about.
---Mark_V. on 1/30/11


StrongAxe: Possible, certainly

Maybe we should leave the whole subject
---Peter on 1/30/11


//I don't think people who ask are trying to undermine things,I just think people are trying to understand-Steve on 1/29/11//

Agreed.

Point them to the Only One who knows All truth-Comforter-God.We all fall short.
Seeking Wisdom From God--Humbles a man.
Jm 3:15-17
Many have come out of a false doctrine that condemned them for leaving-some still-convinced they will be cut off from God if they start to turn.
Only the annointing of God can break this yoke
Phil 2If there be therefore any consolation in Christ-comfort of love-fellowship of the Spirit,if any bowels and mercies...be likeminded-same love-one accord-one mind.Let Nothing be done through Strife or Vainglory-esteem other better than themselves...
Matt 18:19
---char on 1/30/11




Warwick:

Perhaps the fact that there are two different accounts that show different orders is put there specifically to demonstrate that the EXACT order itself is of little importance - the fact that these things were created is MUCH more important than WHEN they were created - and those who worry about such details overmuch are choking on gnats.
---StrongAxe on 1/29/11


Mark I agree with you. There are those obvious ones who are deceivers. They have an agenda and dismiss God's word if it conflicts with their worldly ideas.

Sadly there are many others, most likely some who read these pages but do not comment, who have been confused by the rhetoric of the deceivers.

I do separate the two in my mind and hope to help those who want to know what God actually says in His word.

I debate with the deceivers, not that I imagine I will change their thinking, but to show their beliefs do not come from Scripture.

Know the truth and the truth will set you free.
---Warwick on 1/29/11


MarkV: I find it more likely (instinctively) that Gen 1 is literal, and Gen 2 is a recap indicating more about the creation of man

I am still interested, though... If I were to tell you: I believe Gen 2 is literal, and Gen 1 is allegorical (I DON'T believe that), how would you answer me

I am trying to find out WHY I consider Gen 1 literal and Gen 2 'allegorical', but I'm not sure!
---Peter on 1/29/11


Warwick: 'I believe those who push this idea do so as to cast doubt upon the truth of Scripture.'

Personally, I disagree. I suspect these are people who 'feel' that when they read two stories that are not exactly the same, just maybe, there may be some 'allegory/methaphor/something similar' in both

If they do that, they are honest, asking because they are not sure what it literal, and trying to work out what is and is not literal

I don't think people who ask are trying to undermine things, I just think people are trying to understand
---Steve on 1/29/11


Warwick, I have a different way of looking at people who answer. Some do have an agenda and come to hate you, and you can tell by their answers. But most everyone who answers have many questions, and speculate on things they do not understand and let me say many things are hard to understand unless the Spirit helps us and we study hard. Many shows on tv influences a lot of what we think. Just take what you said about many accounts of creation, I just saw that on "Fringe" last night. They said 6 accounts. I know many will now speculate there is six. And again, many love to just talk about Scripture. Which is great to search for the Truth. Some others are just beginning to know about God. Not everyone is real bad, just a few.
---Mark_V. on 1/29/11


Everyone seems to be stuck on Gen 2:19 which simply says every beast of the field and every fowl of the air that God created, He brought to Adam to name...
Everything else falls into place..
Adam named the animals before Eve was created.. This all happened on day 6...the animals, Adam, the garden planted (not created as on day 3), and Eve...
Gen 2 finishes the creation week (seventh day) and details day 6...
As was said in a prior post, nothing about days 1-5 are mentioned with the exception of the creation of birds (v.19) and the creation of plants and their seeds (v. 5) and they just recap those days so that the garden and the naming can be explained well...
Nowhere even close to 2 different creation accounts...
---micha9344 on 1/29/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


Mark if I remember rightly I said Genesis 1 is a chronological, day by day, account of creation. And that Genesis 2 is not another creation account but man-centered, recapping the creation of the man and woman, providing details not provided in Ch.1. It is not another creation account as it doesn't mention the creation of the earth, sun, moon, stars, seas, land, sky, sea creatures, creeping creatures etc.

Some would have us believe that these are two different creation stories which conflict, but that is not so. I believe those who push this idea do so as to cast doubt upon the truth of Scripture.

One such person said there were 10 or more creation accounts in Scripture but could not give references when requested.
---Warwick on 1/29/11


Peter, thanks for answering. The only way you can find out which is a allegory or which one is a parable, or which one is a metaphor is to learn what those topics mean. Allegories are extended metaphors. We cannot just say that Genesis 2 is an allegory because most of it is written explicitly. As fact. A metaphor is different, it is an unexpressed comparison. Jesus used metaphors when He said, "I am the bread of life" He was not real bread but He is the source of life. Although the subject and its comparison are identified as one, the author does not intend his words to be taken literally: Christ is no more a piece of bread than Christians are lighted candles.
---Mark_V. on 1/29/11


Mark V: What you agree with (Gen 1 is a chronological description) sounds good to me as well

BUT the question remains, as the chronological order differs between Gen 1 and Gen2, HOW do we decide which we take to be correct, and which allegorical.

I, as you, take Gen 1 to be correct, and Gen 2 alegorical

BUT WHY?

Ideas?
---Peter on 1/28/11


Warwick, I believe what you said about only one account of creation, that chapter 1 is only a chronological account and not a detailed chapter.
If you notice that (v. 1:31) "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good" Chapter 1 did not give detail that every single thing was very good, but that the whole of Creation was very good. Because later in ( 2:7) God form man out of the dust of the ground, and (v. 2:18) then tells us "It is not good that man should be alone" And since (v.31) says it was very good, here we find out that it was not good that man should be alone. So in Chapter 1 we were not given details of everything only those details God wanted us to know.
---Mark_V. on 1/28/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


It follows from what you are saying that God created a race of humans knowing they could never be saved? Surely not!---Warwick on 1/28/11

It is stated some will never rise from the grave.
You say...surely not? (Universalism exhibit b.) The initial mark of honoring GOD (athough it seldom is,as in my youth)....is realizing GOD will do and can do whatever he wants to.
He does not exist to please warwick....or ur fuzzy logic,in understanding.

Example,animals die. He created them. Your dog died. He is dead. He had a great life. He does not know anything now being dead.
He was your dog, for your purposes. You had his life and death in your hand to a point.
Even GOD was in absolute control of...his/your dog.
---Trav on 1/28/11


\\Cluny there is no mention of preAdamic races in Scripture.\\

Which doesn't mean one didn't exist.

I think that's the most likely explanation of where Mrs. Cain came from, though I don't stay up nights worrying about it.

As you know, I don't bind God to an earthly and mortal reading of Genesis like you do.
---Cluny on 1/28/11


Learn the beauty of the Ancient Hebrew-its poetic form-opens the eyes to the fact-man falls short.
Modern day translations are written from a westernized perspective causing-original Hebraic, Eastern, perspective of the original words in the text erased.Stay humble to Yehovah-he defined each letter.

Does this change the 24 hr or six day thought?--No--It tells beginning a new cycle.
Souls in flesh-for the purpose fo God pleasure-Plan of salvation-Process of ilimination towards complete function(next cycle)
Example(compare)
*Gen(bk of Beginning)-Apocalpse-Rev-(bk of end)
*Gen1(earth created)-Rev 21:1 (earth passed away)
*Satan 1st rebellion-Rev his final rebellion
*Sun to govern day-No need of sun(Rev 1:23)
etc...
---char on 1/28/11


There is not room for evolution.
Gen 6:3
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Gen 6:5-6
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

We adapt but we don't evolve.
In the day we were created-then formed it was in the image of Elohim-
He is not an ape.
---char on 1/28/11


Send a Free Happy Birthday Ecard


Why the difference? It's more like what's the difference.
Our modern languages are the product of a Greco-Roman world where abstract words are prolific. Abstract-a word or thought that cannot be related to one of the five senses,hearing,sight, touch,smell-taste. However, each Hebrew word is related to a concrete idea, a substance of action.
First evidence of Greco-Roman infleuence is the Word Genesis-a greek word meaning generations.
This is not the origin of the Hebrew Title which is simply-Bereshth-Inbeginning or In-Summit..

Elohim fattened...
---char on 1/28/11


Warwick ... Why should folk here not know that you wrote to me privately?

You say English are not known for plain speaking. Perhaps in the present state of the quarrel you are promoting, that is a good thing.

We do though have enough experience of bigotry in order to be able to recognise it.

As for God being interested in what we beleive, most of what you say does not conflict with what I said. However, I would still disagree with your statement "He is not interested in our opinions about His word" He is interested, as He is in what we do and say, and in the way we treat other folk, and in how we live our lives.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/28/11


Trav, you still haven't told me what you mean by me having universalist one world views. An answer would be nice!
---Warwick on 1/28/11


Cluny there is no mention of preAdamic races in Scripture. And as you know, because I have often reminded you, the Creator says Adam and Eve were made on day six, at the beginning of creation, that in which we still live. No room for any preAdamites.

And that Adam is the ancestor of all living. And further that only those descended from Adam can be saved. It follows from what you are saying that God created a race of humans knowing they could never be saved? Surely not!
---Warwick on 1/28/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


Predestine before the foundation of the World-
Jn 18:36 Jesus answered,My kingdom is not of this world:if my kingdom were of this world,then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews:but now is my kingdom not from hence.
His kindgom-Not Subject to this World--Yehovah is beyond the Horizon-Hebraic thought for eternity-unknown.Beginning to End-[concrete]thought for Cycle-from one-to another.
Job 38:7-When the "morning stars" sang together, and "all the sons of God" shouted for joy.
Jn1:1 In Beginning was the Word...
1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment,in the twinkling of an eye,at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible,and we shall be changed
---char on 1/28/11


My understanding is that Genesis 1 deals with creation in general, and Genesis 2 deals in particular with the creation of Adam and Eve and the Garden.
---Cluny on 1/28/11


Warwick, I also think you are correct on what a day means in Genesis. Also, a good and honest reader will not speculate and add to the Bible what is not there and say there could have been people before Adam. It's just not there. The carnal mind has many ideas. If there was people before Adam, God would have told us if it was important for us to know. And He didn't. One reason Cluny does not agree is because their religion does not believe on Bible only, and have added to Scripture what is not there. very convenient for them.
---Bob on 1/28/11


Is it really that important?

I just take that we must know and accept that we are God's creation, made by God (for God's purpose/reasons)

Beyond that, we seem to get into arguments
---Karan on 1/28/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


However Scripture does say Adam and Eve were the first humans.
---Warwick on 1/27/11

Well this is an example of the linked issue that keeps cropping up in the here, communicating....that extension in language you inserted. Humans.

The word is man.
He was the first noted "Adamic man" that walked with GOD.
Perhaps there were previous that didn't walk. There is today.
There are different men listed in original language.
---Trav on 1/27/11


\\However Scripture does say Adam and Eve were the first humans.
---Warwick on 1/27/11\\

At least the first humans of spiritual significance.

You cannot disprove the existence of a pre-Adamic race on just the Biblical data on their own.
---Cluny on 1/27/11


Alan I wrote privately so my comments may be private, just between you and me. It is revealing why you need to make this public knowledge.

I don't believe I made accusations but but simply spoke plainly. Plain speaking is not something the English are known for. Maybe I should have clothed my thoughts in some degree of obfuscation.

As regards opinions God's Kingdom, is not a democracy as He is supreme. He does not need our advice nor did He seek the opinions of man before He gave His word to us. We cannot vote about His word or enter into any negotiations. We either accept or reject it. He is not interested in our opinions about His word.

We can pray that He may change His mind but as they say His decision is final.
---Warwick on 1/27/11


Cliff if a man sincerely wishes to find his way somewhere he asks for directions. He is a true seeker.

Conversely you ask questions (often about irrelevancies) as a debating tool. Long experience has shown me you only ask questions hoping you will 'stump' someone. You have no real interest in the answers.

Whether God had instructed earlier generations to work 6 days and rest the 7th is irrelevant. I believe it most likely He did. What we do know (and thank you for bringing it up) is that as recorded in Exodus 20:8-11, and 31:14-17 He codified it as a Commandment for the Israelites. Therein He clearly shows His 7 days of Genesis are the same length as the 7 day week.
---Warwick on 1/27/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


Trav I partly agree with you. Refusal to accept 6 day creation is not the foundational problem, but a symptom of rebellion. Those who reject 6 day creation do so in direct contradiction of Gods word and this rebellion is the disease.

However Scripture does say Adam and Eve were the first humans.
---Warwick on 1/27/11


Be aware that those who campiagn so passionately against 6 24hr days do not do so because of what Scripture says but in direct contradiction of what Scripture says. Why? Because they reinterpret Genesis through long-ages evolutionary 'glasses' ..---Warwick on 1/26/11

One needs to be able to defend his faith against the evolutionary science of today. There are no contradictions in scripture except with some of your objections.
24 hour days is not the defining problem,....the 24 hour days previous to Adam is the doctrinal problem.
It answers easily the earth age,dinosaurs, Cain's marriage etc.
Evolution? Not viable. Men and women before Adam....close to a certainty...with the scripture we have available.
---Trav on 1/27/11


Warwick ... You had already escalated our original discussion into an argument, now you have, by your accusations in the private email, and now here by your insinuations, into a quarrel.

So I will leave all that aside.

Except that you say " Our opinions are of no interest to Him" Do you really mean that? I somehow thought that we are supposed to be in a presonal relationship with Him, and part of that would I think be an intense interst in everything about us.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/27/11


Warwick, You are continually pitting me against God's word when you know that it's the "translator's" words.
Masoretic text, Septuagint text and Samaritan text do not all agree! Hundreds of years difference in determining Abraham's birth date ,for one example!
God did not dictate the words of Genesis "verbatim"
Did God instruct Adam,Seth,Enosh etc.etc to work 6 days ad rest the 7Th? NO, not for 1500 years, did he institute this rule,to mirror his grand 6 periods of creation and rest the 7th.
putting it on a weekly scale!

---1st_cliff on 1/27/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Alan, I do not need to have opinions about God's word as He spells it out for us. Our opinions are of no interest to Him.

Genesis 1:3-5 reads "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day."

I take this at face-value as I have no ulterior motive therefore do not reinterpret it to fit in with nonBiblical views.

I do not with to reinterpret it or attempt to confuse its meaning because God's word is my authority. It is not yours or you would not write the things you do.
---Warwick on 1/26/11


Warwick, the reason I agree with you is because of the answer you gave on 1/22/11. Concerning Gen. 1 and 2. That is why I agree with you. Gen. 1 was a chronological account, and Gen 2 was the explanation of that account of man. To say there is two accounts different is to speculate so many other things. If there was to different accounts we would have read that somewhere in Scripture. There is very few areas where only one passage is given to us and not explained in others. Normally there is a lot of Scripture to interpret Scripture correctly. I'm very happy with a day been 24 hrs, but can I ask why it is so important to you? I know all Scripture is important, but this one subject is more. you can answer if you want.
---Mark_V. on 1/27/11


Thank you Mark.

You are quite right ... when people disagree with Warwick (or with you)they are not rejecting the word of God, they just have a different interpretation.

And in spite of what Warwick claims, it does not affect salvation
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/26/11


Stavia, it is not about what I know but what is available to me from Scripture, supporting literature and expert friends and associates.

It is also obvious the expert translators of the Bible were convinced God meant 24hr days in Genesis 1.

Be aware that those who campiagn so passionately against 6 24hr days do not do so because of what Scripture says but in direct contradiction of what Scripture says. Why? Because they reinterpret Genesis through long-ages evolutionary 'glasses' attempting to make it conform to nonBiblical opinions.

If the days of Genesis 1 are not ordinary 24hr days then what do Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:14-17 mean? Consider this remembering that the principle is that Scripture interprets Scripture.
---Warwick on 1/26/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


I still don't understand why it makes the least bit of difference how long the days in Genesis were. [??]
---John.usa on 1/25/11

Personally believe days were 24 hours long. And a year was 12 mths. 12, after all is a notable number, most would agree.

The real question is establishing as fact that these 24 hour days were going on long before Adam. The proof is stacking up that it was.
There was no global flood as all evidences are starting to show. Noah and his immediate family were saved...establishing the furtherance of the line of Adam.
Not Catholic or universal popular....but, truth never is.....except to those who look for it.
There would be no questions if the questions were answered...but, they aren't.
---Trav on 1/26/11


Warwick: 'I challenge you to descend to the specifics and show me from Scripture (using verses which refer to creation) that the days are not ordinary 24hr days.'

It is a reasonable challenge, agreed

But do you really know enough Hbrew to be so sure that ARE days of 24 hours.

Can you prove the opposide (in Hebrew?)
---Staiva on 1/26/11


Warwick, I believe you make a mistake in what you say. I agree with you that the day in Genesis is one day. But that is only because I agree on the interpretation. But not agreeing does not mean they reject the Word of God but they reject the interpretation you gave. Though it might be clear to you and I, it might not be clear to them, it doesn't mean they reject the Word of God. Having faith in the Word is one of the essentials of the Christian faith, but God has not revealed His Word to all the same or at the same time. To many it comes right away, while others it comes slowly. What has happened here is that believing that it is a 24 hr day in Genesis is now a law. And if they break the law they are now condemned.
---Mark_V. on 1/26/11


Warwick 2: First, we are saved by Grace through faith, not by our merits. Second, "One day to the Lord is as a thousand years" We know that God understands time much differently from man. From man's viewpoint, Christ coming seems like a long time away (Ps. 90:4). From God's viewpoint, it will not be long. knowing what a day means has nothing to do with the gospel of Christ. The reason I put thousands of passages concerning the Sovereignty of God and the knowledge of who He is, is because that matters a lot. Having the wrong gospel of Jesus Christ is having a false hope. Why I didn't have trouble understanding that, I really don't know. But I do know that many will fight for their right to choose to the point of getting angry.
---Mark_V. on 1/26/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Alan Scripture is perfectly clear that God rejects those who will not believe what He says. He is also equally clear about creation's timescale, and this is confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:14-17. Therefore any doubt does not come from Scripture but from the minds those who prefer the opinions of men over the Truth of God.

Does it say in Scripture that we should trust God, or man? I will answer for you: it says we should not put our trust in any man- for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

God says those who reject His word stand condemned as faithless. What I say or believe is irelevant as God has said it for me, over and over again.
---Warwick on 1/25/11


Warwick ... We know you and I disagree about the timescale of Creation.

But as MarkV has recenlty said, it ill becomes you to say that those who disagree with you can't be proper Christians.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/25/11


I still don't understand why it makes the least bit of difference how long the days in Genesis were. [??]
---John.usa on 1/25/11


Alan, I don't know this, but think you play games. I believe this is just a debate to you, of more interest than the truth.

I also believe you are that curious type of Anglican who will not commit. You feel more comfortable with a certain vagueness.

Our disagreement about the meaning of 'beginning' occurred only after you endeavoured to deflect the debate away from its subject. The point being that the Mark and Matthew verses prove the days are not long periods of time.

I challenge you to descend to the specifics and show me from Scripture (using verses which refer to creation) that the days are not ordinary 24hr days.

I know you cannot but also know that will not change your mind.
---Warwick on 1/25/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


"The manuscripts (what ever that means) makes it clear that God created 'all' the races on the sixth day it was good. He rested the seventh day, on the eighth day (whenever that was) He realized that He had no man to till the soil. SO He created Eth Adam." ---Josef on 1/24/11
Man (the nations) were created in Gen. 1, Adam and Eve were created in Gen. 2 many thousands of years later. See Gen.1:27. He created them male and female. Gen. 1:28 God tells the nations (1st creation) to replenish the earth and subdue it. In Gen.2:15 God places Adam into the Garden to dress it and keep it.
---barb on 1/23/11

Universalist...do not like this. But, the scripture leans to the above. Cain also married someone other than Adam kind.
---Trav on 1/25/11


Waqrwick ... I still beleive that the Creation period may have been longer than 6 24 hour days. I know you won't agree with me about that possibility

So perhaps that is why you will agree with nothing I write, and why you refused before to countenance anyhting I said about the varying uses/meanings of the word "beginning"

But that is up to you?
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/25/11


Warwick ... The discussion, where you disagreed with everything I said about the use of the word "beginning" was quite separate to that about how long the Creation period was.

You must have had the mindset that since you thought I was wrong on that issue, I must be wrong on everything

Anyway, I'm glad we can now agree on this point
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/25/11


Mary . . . I see what you mean . . . I think (c:

I notice how it does not say "Then" God created the animals and the birds. So, I can see that they were made before Adam, then He made Adam and said it is not good for him to be alone, and He paraded them before Adam and none was suitable to be Adam's helpmate.

But it appears the Garden of Eden was made after Adam was formed, and those plants in the Garden of Eden were made after him, but all the other plants of the earth were created before he was.

So, there is no difference, but more information.
---Bill_willa6989 on 1/25/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Alan this discussion began when you once said Genesis creation days could be 24hrs or eons long.

I pointed out that Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4 have Jesus saying Adam and Eve were made at the beginning of creation. As these are the words of Jesus I accept that He is in the best position to know what happened, and to report accurately upon it. He surely was aware that man was made on day 6 of creation therefore not at the beginning of creation week but at the beginning of the creation. When He spoke the creation was about 4,000 years old so to all intents and purposes 6 days in relation to 4,000 years is at the beginning.

Jesus words therefore contradict the days of creation being long periods of time. That was the point.
---Warwick on 1/24/11


Warwick "Alan we once discussed Jesus saying that man was made at the beginning of creation. My study showed that He was refering to the beginning of the creation, not the beginning of creation week"
Which is just what I said to start with! I wonder why you disagreed with me then?

"As God has no beginning or end I don't know how we can talk of His beginning"
No we can't and I have never suggested we can. This is why the word "beginning" has to have another meaning. "in the beginning was the Word ... " Now that must refer to the eternal period (which never had a start, because God had always been there) "before" Creation
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/24/11


Christan: I had thought Mary was just wondering which of the two 'orders of creation' was the actual chromological order, and which was an analogy (the two are sufficiently different to give the impression that both cannot be literally correct)

Since God placed both in Genesis, both have great value, but I take it that Mary was interested in which of the two had the chronological order as it was done by God

Important? Maybe no, but some people are just interested
---Peter on 1/24/11


In chapter 2 where it says he created the animals could also be translated the animals that God had created. Translating from one language to another is not always an exact science.
---Harold on 1/24/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


Mary, you seem to have a problem that God created the man Adam first of dust. And then the woman Eve God created by taking the rib from Adam. Wasn't this a wonderful creation? Of course it was.

The woman was created to be the helper of the man when they become one through marriage. This is the creation ordinance as commanded in Genesis 2:24.

What are you seeking to know more of?
---christan on 1/24/11


Barb, Genesis 1:27 says no such thing. Genesis 1 says God created man on day 6. Days are days as Exodus 20:8-11 proves.

The word 'replenish' in the KJV is an archaeic word which once (when the KJV was first written) meant 'fill' not 'refill' as it now has come to mean. Therefore God created Adam and Eve and commanded they reproduce, and fill, not refill the earth, and subdue it via their descendants.
---Warwick on 1/24/11


Mary I believe (as Scripture says) that it is the inspired word of God. Therefore we interpret Scripture via Scripture. My research has proved that Jesus and the apostles alluded to or quoted from Genesis 1-11 107 times! And always as historical realit. Shouldn't that be good enough for any Christian?
---Warwick on 1/24/11


Alan we once discussed Jesus saying that man was made at the beginning of creation. My study showed that He was refering to the beginning of the creation, not the beginning od creation week. That Jesus was there at creation would convince me that He of all persons knows exactly when Adam was made.

As God has no beginning or end I don't know how we can talk of His beginning.
---Warwick on 1/24/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


Genesis 1 tells what was created on each succeeding day: fish and birds were made on the 5th day (Gen.1:21,23), and land animals and man were made on the 6th day (Gen.1:24-27,31): Genesis 2 is a summary, where Genesis 2:19 specifies, lit.Hb: "AND made Yhwh God from the earth all manner beasts of the field, and all manner fowls of the air, he brought to Adam to see what he would call them." Note, it does not read "Afterward" nor "Next" to indicate any succession, but instead reads "And" which is not a consecutive creation. For example, Chapter 1: I made tea First, and I made beans and corn Second. Chapter 2: And I made the beans and corn, and called it succotash, then I drank the tea I poured.
---Eloy on 1/24/11


Barb I have heard Pastor Murray teaching something similar to what you are sharing. He said, I quote "The manuscripts (what ever that means) makes it clear that God created 'all' the races on the sixth day and it was good. He rested the seventh day and on the eighth day (whenever that was) He realized that He had no man to till the soil. SO He created Eth Adam." One He obviously believes to be of a different race than the sixth day creation. Which begs the question, one that I asked. What race was he if 'all' the races were created on the six day? Perhaps he meant all the races other than Jews:o) Because He said this Adam was the one through whom Jesus would come. It would have been nice if I could have gotten an answer. I did not:o)
---Josef on 1/24/11


Man (the nations) were created in Gen. 1, Adam and Eve were created in Gen. 2 many thousands of years later. See Gen.1:27. He created them male and female. Gen. 1:28 God tells the nations (1st creation) to replenish the earth and subdue it. In Gen.2:15 God places Adam into the Garden to dress it and keep it. Could one man (Adam) subdue the whole earth? No. God created them male and female in Gen. 1 (the nations) and placed them all around the world.The nations were mislead by Satan into believing that he, Satan was their creator and so God created the perfect man Adam to teach them the truth. Unfortunately, Adam disobeyed God by doing the one thing that God asked him not to do and so here we are.
---barb on 1/23/11


What would you say (mostly Warwick) to someone who says that because there are differences, and I [personally] cannot decide which is geniune, I will take both metaphorically - God creadted everything, man sinned, but the method of creation is unknown to me?
---Mary on 1/23/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


The great benefit to most people here of Genesis 1 is tha lists 'days', so we can claim that we know the age of the world. But if the details of gen 1 are disgreed with by gen 2, what do we do?

It is a serious problem, which requires genuine (not centred on just provingout personal view) study

But I feat little such study is done here
---Jacob on 1/23/11


Warwick ... Do you remember you insisted to me that "beginning" meant exactly the same whenever it was used in the Bible?

I tried to axplain my thoughts that it meant three different things:
1 The beginning ... when God was there, before he set creation in progress
2 The beginning, the very first day
3 The whole of the initial 6 days (or 6 aeons as some will say) of Creation, at the end of which man was created.

You would not have this, but now appear to use some of that argument.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/23/11


Mary, in my other blog I gave the two Scriptures where Jesus says man was made "at the beginning of creation." This can be puzzling as Genesis 1 says man was made on day six of creation week, not at "the beginning." However when reading this we need to understand that Jesus the Creator obviously knows what actually happened. And will not misinform us. He, above all others, is well aware man was made on day six, not day one. This all makes sense when we realize that He was speaking of the creation itself, not creation week. When He said this the creation was about4,000 years or 1,460,000 days old. In this light day six is to all intents and purposes "at the beginning."
---Warwick on 1/22/11


"Genesis Ch. 1 covers the creation of everything, chronologically.

Genesis Ch.2 is man-centered, recapping the creation of the man and woman, providing details not provided in Ch.1. "-Warwick on 1/22/11. I agree.
---Josef on 1/22/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


Mary, Genesis 1 & 2 are not two conflicting versions of creation. In fact as recorded in Matthew 19:4-6, and Mark 10:5-9 Jesus combines Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to say man was made at the beginning of creation and that Adam and Eve became one flesh. No suggestion there that He the Creator thought they were two conflicting versions of creation.

Genesis Ch. 1 covers the creation of everything, chronologically.

Genesis Ch.2 is man-centered, recapping the creation of the man and woman, providing details not provided in Ch.1. It is not another creation account as it doesn't mention the creation of the earth, sun, moon, stars, seas, land, sky, sea creatures, creeping creatures etc.
---Warwick on 1/22/11


They seem to be two different allegorical stories written at different times, and then inserted in the text together at a later time.
---John.usa on 1/22/11


They are different because they are different creation accounts the account starting at Genesis 2:4b is much older tribal story. The 6 day account of creation is newer tribal story. There are more that 6 different creation accounts in the Bible the common involvement in all of them is God. The old Testament accounts are oral traditions that were finally recording blended an edited particularly the two Genesis accounts.

So in reality we don't know how God started the creation process but he did, it works and that is really all that matters.
---Blogger9211 on 1/22/11


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.