What is the Relationship between Chapter One and Chapter Two of Genesis?

 What is the Relationship between Chapter One and Chapter Two of Genesis?

How does the answer relate to the view of this forum - that all things in all the universe were created within the Six Days of the Creation week, about 6000 years ago?

Views: 97

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Very good, profound, question.

Many may get the impression that there is little or no relation between (a) YEC and (b) the relation between Genesis 1 and 2.

But I am committed to all four propositions that:

(i) Genesis 1 universally normally, unassumingly, and correctly, is understood to be authorially describing six normal-length contiguous terrestrial days totaling 144 hours;

(ii) The Bible, plus certain other essential historical documents, normally and correctly is understood to teach that the planet Earth, all matter, and natural universe is less than seven thousand years old;

(iii) planet Earth, all matter, and natural universe, therefore actually is less than seven thousand years old; and

(iv) Genesis 1 and 2 is an irreducibly complex pair of accounts, namely, exactly analogous to the sexual-reproductive man-woman bond (the core of human society).

Unfortunately for me, at the present nutritionally-functionally poor state of my brain, a valid answer to the prime (ordinally second) question posed by the OP does not occur to me. So I am, at present, left as if an experimental pilot of an aircraft with which I am unfamiliar: left to run through basic diagnostic routines; or else to figure out, on the fly, as it were, as to what are all of the parts of such a routine, from the few parts of which I am sure and ever-familiar.

This deficiency of mine is exactly how I too often experience my life in this world among other people and their ideas both of things and of me. I relate deeply to The Bourne Identity movie, the DARYL movie, and the pilot episode of Quantum Leap. But I generally prefer the short-running BBC sitcom, CLONE.

Unfortunately for me and for my own relationship to most YEC's, most YEC's both (x) do not see that Genesis 1 and 2 as an irreducibly complex pair, and (y) do not see that Genesis 1 is itself irreducibly complex.

For most YEC's, certain parts of Genesis 1 make little sense to what they think consists in the account's main point. That is, when those parts are hypothetically left out of the equation, most YEC's do not see how the account suffers any loss of its main power. By analogy, in the mind of the kind of car-lover who cares mainly only for the appearance of the car, if the engine is missing or malfunctioning, the car is respectively still a car or still a 'good car'. Accordingly, the most complex, most dynamic, part of the car is of too little consequence to such a 'car lover'.

Yes, this analogy to 'most YEC's' puts that category of YEC's in a very poor light. But the analogy here exactly matches the historical relegation to 'junk' of most DNA by evolutionists. So my own point is that, if the author of Genesis 1 deemed every part of the account so important as to include it in the account, then there is no good in presuming that certain, seemingly odd, parts of the account are less important to the author's main point than are any 'big' or 'outstanding' parts. For, we ought not presume upon our admitted ignorance that we know what parts of the account are integral to the author's main point. This is because we ought not easily deem ourselves to knowing all that in which that main point itself consists. It is not wise to presume that Genesis 1 has anything that is analogous to, say, a windshield. For a car, if it has no windshield, or if its windshield is broken, that does not constitute damage to the engine. I can ruin your modern high-tech car's paint job, and that will not constitute any damage to its brakes, or to its fuel injection.

So imagine, for the 'prehistoric' world presumed by evolutionists, that one of that world's many brutish 'caveman' tribes is given a 1950's car, complete with a good engine. That presumed world's brute premodern humans have start out with no concept that this wheeled artifact is auto-motive. So, none of them know what it really is that that one tribe has been given. And the car has no fuel, and no key. So by the time the engine rusts out, these premodern 'humans' do not suspect that this glorious wheeled artifact ever was designed to auto-motate. And the recipient tribe just pushes it around, happy to show off its glorious appearance to those other tribes who reject the car. The recipient tribe claims that the car is by far the most profound artifact in the world. And those other tribes allow, at most, that the car is the most exquisitely clever set of metaphors. Of course, most of those other tribes are happy to perceive little of the car except inferiority: to them, it makes little sense; to them it does not cohere, nor to a profoundly useful main point. 'So,' those many tribes say, 'those who push it around are just brainwashed, superstitious, and shallow.'

So, I say, consider carefully your critics. Though they are foolish to ridicule the claim that the testimonial value of Genesis 1 is inestimably great, they are ridiculing, also, something else.

...And now I've come to a slightly clearer state of mind. Upon first reading the OP, I had taken for granted that the question was 'How does the relationship between Genesis 1 and 2 (help) establish that the planet, matter, and the cosmos, began to exist only several thousand years ago?'

I now see that that is not necessarily what Jim means to be asking.

Hopefully my above answer will be seen to suggest that there are things that the author of Genesis 1 means thereby that are far beyond what the account merely, most explicitly, spells out. An engine does not spell itself out. One has to realize, to begin with, what an engine is. The account consists not in language, but in a point. And it is a very human point, at that.

Now let me begin to break down the OP by way of part of my answer to its own parts.

I believe that I have cause to state that the relationship between Genesis 1 and 2 is that of Predictor and Predicted.

Genesis 1, beginning with the first verse in isolation, is predictive of the main point of Genesis 2. Specifically, that the humanly most basic, universally normal, deduction of Genesis 1:1 is such a thing that only reinforces the universally unassuming interpretation of the whole account.

As to what is the prediction that Genesis 1:1 makes regarding Genesis 2. I will not address that until a future post.

Unlike the merely Young EARTH YEC's, who are happy to believe that Genesis 1 is strictly about the biosphere, the account's universally normal interpretation includes that its chronological measure and span is 24 hours, six of these, these six contiguous, and the first of which beginning with the ex nihilo creation of (1) at least a minimum of space and (2) ('pre')matter/planet Earth.

But, contrary to most YEC's today, I am convinced that the universally unassuming interpretation of the whole account is the one that includes, in part, assuming nothing of the account but what is universally normal for humans to understand of the manner in which the Earth-focused cosmos coheres, is properly conceptually ordered. This, therefore, is unlike that kind of YEC who would that this Sole Prime Account of Cosmology itself begin by telling us of nothing more central than the creation-and-formation of a life-indifferent level of universally trivial space-matter-energy.

Effectively all YEC's admit that the account is not a completely detailed blow-by-blow, but is merely the 'high points'. But my claim is that the account is far, far, more than a simple list of these 'high points'. My claim is that the account, even to its smallest detail, is irreducibly complex, and this in the same manner in which a flesh-and-blood body is irreducibly complex. Unlike for a car, for which a damaged or absent paint job does not constitute damage to its power plant, there is not one living part of the human body that, by being damaged by external or internal causes, does not immediately, adversely, effect the core organs. I can shop of your little toe, and despite that this does not ruin a healthy heart, the total adaptive capacity of your remaining body has been reduced by those kinds and extents of adaptive capacities that is contributed, compoundingly, by the relationship between your little toe and the rest of your body.

Offense in one part of Law is offense in the whole Law, but not because God decided arbitrary as to what shall be included as parts of the Law. Rather, offense in one part of Law is offense in the whole Law is precisely because the Law perfectly addresses the naturally integral whole that God originally created.

So, it is one thing to have a limited understanding of Genesis 1. It is quite another thing to insist that this limited understanding is sufficient to identifying all that in which the account's main point consists. The main point has not necessarily, thereby, been properly identified.

Like in the Boy Scouts, there is a crucial difference between, (A) what may, at a distance, appear to be a particular kind of knot and (B) a 'proper execution' of that kind of knot. The emphasis here is on a dynamic relationship between (A) the person who thinks he knows the kind of knot, and (B) the kind of knot.

So this knot analogy is that to what I said at the end of my first reply post to this thread: there are things that the author of Genesis 1 means thereby that are far beyond what the account merely, most explicitly, spells out. And the problem for seemingly everyone on all sides is that of the exact relationship between (X) what the author universally normally may be seen to imply and (Y) what the author's every word may seem most explicitly to spell out.

John Walton happily overlooks (X), and this in order to resolve what he finds of (Y) that seems to him to contradict (X). That is a perfectly ridiculous move. For, it is universally normal for humans to want to know how everything in the observable cosmos came to be. But I am convinced that it is not the only perfectly ridiculous move. In fact, I partly fault the just-alluded-to move for the fact that some would rather make the clearly hasty-and-ignorant move that Walton makes.

Here, now, is Part II of my effort to break down the OP by way of part of my answer to its own parts.

The OP asks, 'What is the Relationship between Chapter One and Chapter Two of Genesis?'

The relationship between the two includes the relationship between the initial pre-Eve Adam and the fulfillment of that Adam.

Surely Adam noted, at least within the first hour of his life, that he, of all animal life forms, as yet had no mate. This surely, at the very least, caused him to wonder some things.

Unfortunately, most who read Genesis 1, including effectively all YEC's, think that Adam was little more than a passive lump that had to be commanded to do things, and to be outright told specific things to think or to 'know'.

This is why even Henry Morris Sr. in his book, Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches about Creation and the Flood, deduces nothing more for Adam's sense of his own lack of a mate than that (1) one of the purposes for God's 'assignment' to Adam to name the animals 'was to show Adam that he needed a companion that would be like him', and (2) that the means by which Adam knew whence the material from which God had made Eve (Genesis 2:23) was that of God's having outright told Adam 'latter'. (http://intelmin.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/BiblicalCreationismL...   pgs. 23, and 22)

So here Morris deduces things from Genesis 2 that are not spelled out in it, yet he will not deduce the sort of things that are the most natural between (a) God and (b) an unfallen creature made in God's image. The emphasis here is on 'made in God's image'. The kind of relationship between God and such a creature is that TO such a creature.

And it is to such a creature that Genesis 1 is addressed. Hence, long story short, all things in all the universe were created within the Six Days of the Creation week, about 6000 years ago. It is not because of whatever the account 'conceivably' may have spelled out, but because of how what it DOES spell out is related to that creature. What God did that is properly related to that creature.

Lyrics to What A Feeling, from Flashdance

The End



In sum:

Most of my fellow YEC's are so proud to argue in favor of the idea that the historical Adam is absolutely foundational to the Gospel. But I am here to tell you that, despite the conceptually abstract correctness of that mere idea, effectively all YEC's barely know the first thing about Adam and his relation to Genesis 1 and 2.

CMI's Lita Cosner, in her recent review of Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin: Theological, Biblical, and Scientific Perspectives, reports that 'C. John Collins presents the case that Adam and Eve have an enormous explanatory role to play.'

I am here to tell you that the explanatory power does not belong to a bare YEC conception of that Adam and Eve, but, rather, to every part of Genesis 1 and 2.

Without the complex profound reality of humans as divine-image bearers, there can be nothing but trivia and banality to the Doctrine of Original Sin.

Daniel Pech said:

Unlike the merely Young EARTH YEC's, who are happy to believe that Genesis 1 is strictly about the biosphere, the account's universally normal interpretation includes that its chronological measure and span is 24 hours, six of these, these six contiguous, and the first of which beginning with the ex nihilo creation of (1) at least a minimum of space and (2) ('pre')matter/planet Earth.
I have never been satisfied with the YEC Denomination.
First of all to use the term "young" to refer to 6000 years (or even 10,000 or 20,000 years for those nervous about taking the lists in Genesis 5 and 11 as sequential) is to bow down to a certain extent and admit some level of validity or sense to the proponents of the mythology of 13.7 billion years.
The Bible says that the earth is ancient - but that language is use with full acceptance of the chronologies of the Bible and thus the Bible identifies 6000 years as "ancient" and "old" (Heb. 1:10-12; 102:25-27).
SECONDLY, it is not about the Earth - but about the creation of ALL THINGS, it is the beginning of the creation of God, the beginning of all things in heaven and earth (which means the universe) and in heaven and earth and the seas, and the host of heaven. It refers to all things that were made.
Jesus is the One who created all things and without Him was not anything made that was made. Beginning (Gen. 1:1.1) means beginning.  Jesus includes the creation of Adam and Eve along with the institution of marriage as being something that is part of the beginning of the creation of God (Mark 10:6). This is the beginning began in the beginning - in the inception act of verse 1 - and all of the creative work of God (not just the Earth) was completed within the Six Days (Gen. 1:31; 2:1-3; Ex. 20:11) - and that fact of revelation disallows any beginning before the beginning. If there is another beginning before the beginning of Genesis 1:1, then the beginning is not really the real beginning - that is if it is not the beginning of the beginning.
So, the Y of YEC is incorrect.
And the E of YEC cannot stand for just "Earth" - or it is not biblical creationism. The E must stand for Everything.


Yes, it is a mistake to rely on a mere nominalism to effectively communicate to everyone one's position. I have rarely encountered the shortfall myself, as I do not find myself interacting with people who use these names for things which are far from an unassuming reading of the Bible.

Here below is a reply I gave to one Paul Sandhu on the issue:

Hi Paul,

In regard to your video, entitled, Genesis: The Book of Origins / Gen. 1:2 ...Darkness was upon the face of the deep ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbpAbZerzss )

I am sorry that there is much error in people's teaching as to what they think the Bible says. It can be confusing. It has been no picnic for me either.

But I have been listening to your video here, and at its time 09:00 you begin to talk about Proverbs chapter 8, beginning at verse 22, about Wisdom.

First, you quote that verse exactly:

 ' "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way, before His works of Old." '

As I just said, you have quote that verse exactly.

But, then, right after you quote that verse exactly, you reason:

'So, this is speaking to us that these times that is going to be describing now, they are times *of old*. They are not just a few hundred years or a few thousand years, they are times of old. And this idea of that, you know, Creation is very old, will also be supported by the passages of Scripture.'

I think you [Paul Sandhu] have made a mistake in this claim. The verse that you just quoted exactly says, "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way, *before* His works of Old."

...before His works of old.

What does the author of this proverb mean by "His works of old"?

You seem to be claiming that "His works of old" constitutes the things that this proverb is describing after verse 22.

Verse 22 says (as you have quoted it exactly):

"The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way, before His works of Old."

...before His works of old.

Suppose I said to you, 'Hi Paul, I want to tell you about something-that-I-did-before-something-else-that-I-did'.

What would you think I meant here by 'before-something-else-that-I-did?

Say I did x. And say that your great-great-great-great-great grand parents were eye witnesses to my having done x.

So now when I say, 'Hi Paul, that I want to tell you about something-that-I-did-before-I-did-x', you would not think that I meant that the 'something-that-I-did-before-x' is x.

Say your great-great-great-great-great grand parents were eye witnesses to my having saved them, with signs and wonders, from their bondage in Egypt. Would this not be what I would mean by 'times of old' in regard to something else that I did prior to that same 'times of old'?

But you go on to also mistake how to read what you are reading in the verses after verse 22. Those verses clearly are describing the processes of God's working to create the world in six days. Thus you think, mistakenly, that verse 31 is describing some millions of years ago that was PRIOR to the final human habitation of the Earth. Of this verse's reference to 'delight', Psalm 16:3 says:

"As for the godly who are in the land, they are the excellent, the noble, the glorious, in whom is all my delight."


As for the issue that you, Jim, bring up of the beginning of everything that God created, including angels and such. I admit dunce-hood on the issue. I know only of what Genesis 1 and 2 spell out about, and therewith also imply of, the human realm. There is so little about the angelic realm in the Bible, and I fail to perceive that the Bible makes much about that realm. Clearly, is not the Bible centrally about the human realm? What good to us is Genesis 1 and 2 if not primarily and comprehensively about our own realm?

What I mean here is that I lack any particular inclination to deal with the kind of Biblical Creation thinking that seems to me to drive some of the human account out of the human account. The above Paul Sandhu seems to me to do that, but in his case for an eons-long paradigm that he hinges on his impression that 'God does not create a wasteland'. Sandhu concludes that Genesis 1:2 implies a destruction of a prior perfect state of everything. I told him that the general point of the whole account is to show us the way in which the Earth, as a life-support system, both functions, and was specially made, as irreducibly complex.

Sandhu, apparently, grew up seeing the account only in what it spells out on its purely most explicit level. On that level, it is little more that its sequence of words: a text to rote memorize. And this is the most meaningful level at which most people ever see Genesis 1.

Yet, in view of Genesis 2, much is made by Orthodox theologians of the fact that there is much more to Genesis 1 than what it merely most explicitly tells us about the human realm

My contention is that the most crucial things meant by Genesis 1 are those things that each consist in both (1) of the human realm, and (2) are deeper than the rote of the account. Mr. Sandhu missed these, and so, in his own search for profundity in the account, up-ending both the account and Proverbs 8:22-31.

Welcome to the world of connection and conversation and interaction Daniel.

You wrote:

Yes, it is a mistake to rely on a mere nominalism to effectively communicate to everyone one's position. I have rarely encountered the shortfall myself, as I do not find myself interacting with people who use these names for things which are far from an unassuming reading of the Bible.

In this forum you will always be interacting with such people! Every post you make here can be read by dear saints who are almost hopelessly entangled in a snarl of assumptions as they read the Bible. BUT YOU ARE INTERACTING WITH THEM whenever you write - so I want to encourage you to let God use you and your gifts. Make every effort and strive in great labor to BUILD AND COMMUNICATE with people who are not in your brain, who do not know everything that is going on inside that massive library.

This erroneous appeal to Proverbs 8 ("BEFORE His works of old") is a prime example of Christians taking up the assumptions of the deniers of God. It is not that Christians are deniers of God, but those ideas have "informed" their vocabulary and use of language.

SO now they have assumed the position of the secularists that 13.76 billion years is correct - and "everybody knows" that is "OLD" - so they have injected that lie into the meaning of Proverbs 8.

With regard to the relation between Chapter 0ne and Two, they make similar assumptions - like they assume western forms of narrative - the form of finish one topic then go on to the next. The Hebraic form is often State a process, fill in the details, then focus on one detail of that first process, then fill in more detail, then take another detail and fill in that process . . .

I suggest that this is the relationship between one and two.

One tells us primarily how God brought into existence the world for the use of mankind, including a general description of the creation of the first pair.

Two then details how man was placed in that world for the use of God. . . for devotion to God - is shows that God placed man here in a specific way so that man would seek after God, if haply he might feel after Him and find Him.

This verse is true of remote people groups, but only so because it was first true of Adam:

He [God] is not/cannot be served/worshiped by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man [Adam] every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.

Acts 17:25-27

This description of humanity as a whole is exactly (nearly) what is being described in Genesis One and Two. In fact what Paul is saying here is meaningless if Genesis is mere mythology or poetry that describes something non-literal.

Can we see the parallels here between these passages?

Well, of course, Genesis 2 is a filling in of details for the prime part of Genesis 1. I thought we all learn that in Sunday school as kids.

From the few words you use for your specific description, I am not clear on exactly what it is that you particularly find is the relation between Genesis 1 Genesis 2. But I am sure that something by that same description really is there. I even would be horrified if any conservatively Biblical Christians insisted that nothing of the sort is really there. I would want to pull my hair out if they said that.

I had thought you meant to be asking what is the relationship between the whole of (and each and every detail of) G2 and G2. For example, what is the relationship between (a) the five reports in G1 of God naming things and (b) all of G2. In other words, what's the summary of the blueprint of the exact initial authorial tension between them.

I'm not sure there ever was a single initial tension of the entire texts. But that would not preclude a singular initial tension for the author. And my own angle on the pair is toward the latter issue.

In view of your reply, I see what angle you are after, and I would reword your question so that it is not so vague. But, then, if a given question is formulated fully enough, it might thereby be immediately seen to spell out its own answer.

So, it was, for me, like this: you were, as it were, asking how humans walk, and I thought you wanted to know how to program a morphologically human bipedal robot. LOL. The answer to the natural question is by means the same as that to the technical question.

O, I hate math questions that are asked in vague form, and posed in a psychologically tense way, and yet that their asker thinks it's form is perfectly unambiguous.

...Reminds me of being told how to read, and how to ride a bike, so that when I complied exactly with the details of the telling, it didn't work.

For the contraption-of-text, I actually already could read fluently for short portions of appropriate text. But that was being 'cut off at the hips' by the particular kind of specified approach to the text that was claimed to me to be strictly what reading is. So I had to spend enough time NOT trying to 'read' before I began to unlearn enough of the instruction-centric habits-of-approach that was keeping me from handling the text in the dynamic ways that a human naturally, subconsciously would.

I also could already ride a bike, but only the tiny-wheel version that they call a scooter. For the ostensibly only genuine bike, I had been trained to focus on pedaling hard and steering. So I had become palpably and visibly convinced that people who were actually riding the things without falling over were using a levitation-telekinesis magic. When I watched them closely as they rode, it became obvious to me that that was what they must be doing. And I just could not generate such magic, no matter how hard I managed to concentrate during the mere moment before the bike fell over again.

...So in my being 'taught' to read and ride, I was the real boy being turned into a wooden boy. I was like an engine-standard fixed-wing in the despotic hands of a novice pilot who powers it into the ground after having lost sight of the horizon for some hours. (He is convinced he is flying level, so every time he perceives a bank he corrects it.)

Jim Brenneman said:

He [God] is not/cannot be served/worshiped by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man [Adam] every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.

Acts 17:25-27

This description of humanity as a whole is exactly (nearly) what is being described in Genesis One and Two.

Can we see the parallels here between these passages?

I'm not sure what you are saying, but I see here only analogy. Specifically, I see one between (a) the Acts passage and (b) the relationship between G1 and G2.

I would say that G2 is very specific and literal, and the most focused on its final part. And that that final is its ultimate point for Adam the individual. It is pre-fall. The whole human makes little sense except there be a completed pre-fall condition, and that condition originally attained. God's foreknowledge of the Fall only makes that original completion the more foundational.

So all prior parts of G2 are integral to the final condition it describes. And it is to that final condition that I see that Genesis 1 itself implies by the pattern it begins in 1:1: how the human-realm Universe coheres. Even the number of Hebrew words in 1:1 points the way.

So, the pair of accounts can be, as well, to be analogous to God's seeking mankind. And this I suppose not firstly of that of His seeking fallen mankind. I see that Adam's own initiative was integral to it, contrary to how Henry Morris Sr. renders him.

G2's implied initiative of the woman is exactly that: implied. For, G1 makes no special distinction between man and woman, Thus, her own story is properly enveloped in his, as he, not she, is the general in which she is found. So the pair of accounts are like a set of eyes that triangulate to her own position. And, like humans' seeking of the realm of the luminaries, she invites him in in all the most profound and complex ways.

So, unlike how Morris would have it, the pair is not a message, verbatim, that we must passively-dutifully receive as 'authoritative, end of discussion'. It is his sentiment in that direction that causes Morris to misread the clear verbatim of G2:19. Not even the Law of Moses implies such a thing of itself, else there would have been no possibility for lesser and greater wisdom regarding what any and all of it means.

So G1 and G2 allows that not only Adam alone conversed with God in his own first hours, but Eve, too, alone, in her turn. So there is much more to the pair than everything that they most readily may be found to address. What adversely complicates the issue, and distorts our interpretation, is reading into them the 'authoritative' tone that Morris does. Such is a false love of their profoundity, which produces erroneous conflations and false dichotomies. Adding a polemics-centrism, and hyper-theologisim, to God's motives for any of it, and some of its most unassumingly foundational features are blindly, greedily trampled.

For all its beauty and remoteness, the clear night sky is mysteriously lifeless. But Adam and Eve were not created at night, much less indoors in front of a pile of astronomy textbooks. Much less were they created inside a nearly windless, non-rotating space ship in interstellar space.

Adam and Eve were created on planet Earth. Outside. In the daylight. They saw the Sun in its blue sky. And they perceived of that high pair things which few modern Space Age persons ever perceive.

But that first human pair did not first see the daylight sky in each other's company. They each first saw it, individually, with God. Finding themselves, then, the only creature of their kind, in a world full of only mated pairs of all other kinds, they wondered. Their wonder brought them on a journey with God. Only when they completed that journey, and finally came together, did they begin to see the stars.

It is said that, through the millenia, peoples had supposed that the purpose of the night sky is as powerful upon us as it is attractive. It is said, also, that those people imagined that that power was personified, especially the Sun in the day. Today we know that the power of the luminaries is bound up with the life-critical fine-tuning of the cosmological constants, a fine-tuning that they share with us and our Earth. And we know that the Sun provides our Earth with a special, stable place to act as host to life.

That sun, our own planet's personal and caring star, is known among astronomers by the name 'Sol'. This is the proper reference of the term 'solar system'. Other star systems have their own proper names. But humans did not evolve from lower animals. They were specially created. And this was according to the order of 'General and Special'. Adam and Eve. In that order. The pair were the final creation, which is why they were created on a planet. That planet is their proper original home. They came full circle, cosmically, only after they had come together: then they saw the cosmically General to their own planetary Special. This is just like Eve first saw Adam only at the end of her initial personal journey with God.

If the book of Genesis is real history, then the pagan way of thinking about the sky was one of the later symptoms of humanity's fall into the condition of biological, and therefore biogenetic, neurological, and neurodevelopmental, cumulative mortality. Under the sway of greed, envy, general worldliness, despotism, and subnormal cognitive integrity, a human society creates an increasing superstition out of the poorly-remembered and poorly understood teachings of a person-centric, gender nuanced wise-and righteous set of long-forsaken elders.

The same error-making forces afflicts all social groups, or nations, of fallen humans. But those forces simply are allowed significantly more sway in groups that fail those teachings by rejecting their direct line of records. The complex cultural forces that see empires rise and fall are all bound up with those records, and with those who keep them and teach them.

There are only two subsets of those records. This is because there are only two most basic events in the history of that fallen human race. The first event was under Moses, which actually began with Abraham. The second event was under the Apostles of Jesus Christ, which began with Jesus's first miracle for a poor couple's wedding. (John 2:11)

The first pair of chapters in the book of Genesis have many patterns and themes that are less or more like those found in the remains of the dead pagan cultures of the Ancient Near East. Modern secularist scholarship presumes that the causal direction of this similarity is from the non-Hebrew ANE cultures to that of the Hebrews. This is the presumption of a 'democracy of culture' per se, so that the Hebrews were mainly hapless recipients of it, and so this is how those kinds of patterns and themes are in the Bible. But the events described in, and otherwise implied by, Genesis 1-5 are the only most basic things that have ever been going on in the human realm. This means that the kings and priests of pagan nations since the Flood have had nothing much else by which to enforce their pretenses. God does not envy them, they envy Him. This is seen in the fact that the Hebrew nation was utterly unremarkable in worldly terms, and yet whose culture and religion is the only one that not only still stands, but that can be identified as a true beacon of human dignity. There are only two remotely credible options here. One, the biological Jews are, and were, the world's only basically more evolved human subspecies, and so who invented a truly worthy imaginary God. Two, that God is real, and so are the first five chapters of Genesis. Far too many Christians believe that Moses composed Genesis 1, and that, since it functions as so powerful a polemic against those pagan religions, he surely did so with careful polemic contrivance. But if our second option is the case, then this is like believing that, since basic arithmetic is so powerful a tool against con men, that basic arithmetic is mainly, or even merely, a polemic contrivance.

Jim I m not responding to your negativity here.  I asked you several questions, you asked the reading audience several questions about Genesis 1 and 2, I am trying to establish what is factual with respect to GODs creative works with respect to the geneisis narrative.  There is only a problem with my questions if your asking people to respond, and then you pick and choose lambast others for even asking?  I don't get it?

I asked simple straight forward questions about God and time, Creation and time, and mathematics.  IF you don't have an opinion then just say so but I don't need you to "categorize" my questions in a negative way.

And for your information:  Genesis is biblical in the same sense that GOD's Work in nature is observable, known, and studied by all factions of Christianity including AIG and all spokesmen for YEC teaching.  So there is no foul here, and your clever disenfranchisement of simple questions shows your heart and intent in this matter.... 


About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms

Homeschool Curriculum


Creation Conversations 2017

What's new @ CC for 2017? Stay tuned and keep checking back. More ask the experts, more creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2017   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service