Jump to content
IGNORED

Does Gen 2 fit INTO Gen 1 ?


Mike 2

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  499
  • Content Per Day:  0.19
  • Reputation:   277
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/06/2016
  • Status:  Offline

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately and am not finding any writing on this.

There are 2 accounts of creation  Gen 1 and Gen 2 with some significant differences (or so it seems).

It seems obvious to me that the time line set out in Gen 2:5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, indicates the story of Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:5 and on) actually  STARTED before Gen 1: 11,  it's like it should be an aside like; "by the way, this was done at this point"

It indicates that Adam was created before the rest of Gen 1:11 and on.

That would seem impossible... UNLESS...  Gen 2:8...... Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed........ It sure looks like God intentionally took some time to set up this garden off to the side, almost like a green house away from the harsh outside environment....Then.....

He continued from Gen 1:11 and on

This would indicate that God had created Adam first, set him in this pre-created garden oasis while He created the rest of the world and then involved Adam as he created the animals. God then ....created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them  Gen 1:27
.

The implications are rather profound, not only were there really two creations, one within the other, but when we look at the obvious differences such as how God is referred to, the lineage of the chosen (Israel) and separate people and where the wives of Adam and Eves children came from it becomes easier to understand how that is not only possible but logical.

This idea is not adding to or changing the story, it is just bringing to light what the writing can be saying.

I can't believe there are no writings on this.

Has anyone heard of this or know where I can find something on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  3,776
  • Content Per Day:  1.29
  • Reputation:   4,746
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/31/2016
  • Status:  Offline

Maybe this will help.

Genesis 2, beginning in verse 5,  is a repeat of Day 6 with added details.

The plants referred to on that day are plants that had not been created yet.  The Bible calls them "of the field" or crops grown in a man-made field.  One version, I can't remember, calls them "cultivated" plants.  Why?  Because the Bible says no humans had been created to cultivate and tend them.  Plus the Bible says there had been no rain.

All kinds of plants had already been created: trees, flowers, grass, herbs.  But "crops" were not here because there was no farmer to till them.

 

Edited by Jayne
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  17
  • Topic Count:  344
  • Topics Per Day:  0.13
  • Content Count:  7,393
  • Content Per Day:  2.70
  • Reputation:   5,320
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  09/27/2016
  • Status:  Offline

Genesis 2:4 (KJV) These are the generations [the history] of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, [emphasis added]

These verses are a further detailed explanation of the creation week, an addendum or parenthetical insertion. 

I have questions myself about Genesis chapters 1 & 2. There are no contradictions anywhere in the Bible, it's our perception or understanding in the way. Some claim the Hebrew words 'asah' and 'bara' are synonymous. There's a long discussion on these words in a recent thread so won't get into it again. If these two words 'made' and 'created' are taken literally by most Hebrew translations, and are not synonymous, it personally makes more sense to me. But anyway, I take Gen. 2: as filling in some blanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  28
  • Topic Count:  338
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  15,673
  • Content Per Day:  2.46
  • Reputation:   8,494
  • Days Won:  39
  • Joined:  10/25/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/27/1985

Not really...one creation, just repeated itself. It's actually quite common in Hebrew writing-to give a overview first then repeat the story in greater detail.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  499
  • Content Per Day:  0.19
  • Reputation:   277
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/06/2016
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, Jayne said:

Maybe this will help.

Genesis 2, beginning in verse 5,  is a repeat of Day 6 with added details.

The plants referred to on that day are plants that had not been created yet.  The Bible calls them "of the field" or crops grown in a man-made field.  One version, I can't remember, calls them "cultivated" plants.  Why?  Because the Bible says no humans had been created to cultivate and tend them.  Plus the Bible says there had been no rain.

All kinds of plants had already been created: trees, flowers, grass, herbs.  But "crops" were not here because there was no farmer to till them.

 

I don't think this is a repeat of day 6 with added details because...

Gen 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

This tells me that plant life was created on the third day

Gen 2:5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up,

This tells me that NO plant life was on the earth yet

Gen 2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground

This tells me that even when no plant life had yet appeared on the earth... the planet, God created a man, not man and woman, a man only. 

How did he survive with no plants or animals?

Gen 2:8  the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed

The garden is separate from the world and created prior to the rest of the created plants in Gen 1:11. Why?..God did not put mankind (the man and woman) of Gen 1:27 in the garden He created it to put the man in Gen 2:7 in the garden

This appears to be a parallel story with distinctions between the two. One indication is how the man was formed in an intimate way in Ch 2 compared to created man and woman in Ch 1  just as the name for God is more intimate in Ch 2 than in Ch 1. The whole distinction seems to point to the "man" in the garden being set aside from "mankind" outside the garden for some reason.

 

Edited by Mike 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  18
  • Topic Count:  940
  • Topics Per Day:  0.35
  • Content Count:  13,412
  • Content Per Day:  5.02
  • Reputation:   8,957
  • Days Won:  6
  • Joined:  12/04/2016
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/03/1885

12 hours ago, Mike 2 said:

almost like a green house away from the harsh outside environment....Then.....

What harsh outside environment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  499
  • Content Per Day:  0.19
  • Reputation:   277
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/06/2016
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Neighbor said:

What harsh outside environment?

If what is written     Gen 2:5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth ,  there would be nothing but dry earth and water for an environment (Gen 1:10) nothing else had yet been created, pretty desolate and harsh for the man He had formed      Unless.....

Gen 2:8 .... the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed

Putting this in the chronology where it is seems to indicate it should be, for one, explains how Adam took part in naming the animals.

It also explains where satan and the fallen angels were. It's possible with this that satan and the fallen angels were outside the garden having their influence on mankind that was "created".... and satan eventually came into the garden to entice the man that was "formed". 

We do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before the fall, obviously ADAM was from day 3 until after day 7. Eve must have arrived before Adam had his first son. It's possible the first son arrived shortly after leaving the garden. Seth was born when Adam was 130+ years old. In that time there could possibly be 7 generations born to mankind outside the garden. Think about this...scientists believe mankind originated in Africa, yet the garden was in the east (Gen 2:8) near Iraq(?). 130+ years would probably be enough time for mankind to spread that far and make wives available for Adams sons.

This all fits without guessing. It comes together just by looking at what the text says about the timing of when "the man" was formed.

Does anyone know of any study on this?

Edited by Mike 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

16 hours ago, Jayne said:

Maybe this will help.

Genesis 2, beginning in verse 5,  is a repeat of Day 6 with added details.

The plants referred to on that day are plants that had not been created yet.  The Bible calls them "of the field" or crops grown in a man-made field.  One version, I can't remember, calls them "cultivated" plants.  Why?  Because the Bible says no humans had been created to cultivate and tend them.  Plus the Bible says there had been no rain.

All kinds of plants had already been created: trees, flowers, grass, herbs.  But "crops" were not here because there was no farmer to till them.

 

You are basically right, but let  me ad my 2 cents worth that might help.  Man was started on the 6th day, but not completed until the Sabbath.  Notice in Gen 1:27 - God only created man's image of God.  Image refers to man's invisible attributes, mind, compassion, humor etc.  Then in 2:7 God God completes Adam by forming, not creating, out of dust., giving him his visible attributes. breathing into him, making him a living being.

Now the word for "field" means a specific area and can refer to  cultivated ground.  IMO the Garden of Eden  is the field in Gen 2.  The animals and plants of the earth are not the animals and plants  of the field.  IMO Adam could not have given names to all the cattle, birds and beast(2:20) that God has created, but he could have named all  God put in the Garden.

It is hard to be dogmatic that the "field" refers to the Garden of Eden, but IMO, it does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...