I actually wrote this about 3 years back. However, I had very few visitors to my blog back then and no one seems to ever goes back and read the archives. While I was online the other day, this subject came up again so I thought it might be a good idea to revisit this.
One criticism often used by critics of the Bible is a supposed contradiction between the creation account given in Genesis, Chapter 1 and a “second creation account” given in Chapter 2. When people view Chapter 2 as a second creation account, there is some confusion. The creation of plants for example, doesn’t match up with the creation of plants in Chapter 1.
I’ve read commentaries from some Christians who try to explain that Chapter 2 as a summary - highlighting different events but not given in chronological order. They don’t seem to understand Chapter 2 at all. Frankly, I’m a little surprised at the confusion since it’s really rather simple: Genesis, Chapter 2, beginning in verse 5, is NOT a second account of creation - it is a detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden on the 6th day of creation.
Let’s look at the Chapter verse by verse.
Verses 5-6, “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.”
At this point, God has not created Adam. It has not rained on the earth during the creation. God seems to be preparing the ground where He is going to put the Garden.
Verse 7, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
God creates Adam.
Verse 8, “And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."
God creates the Garden of Eden and puts Adam in it. Verses 9-25 which follow expound on this a little.
Verse 9, “And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
God makes trees grow in the Garden which are meant for food. He also creates the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He later tells Adam not to eat of it.
Verses 10-14, “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.”
This is a somewhat detailed description of the Garden of Eden.
Verses 15-17, “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’"
God puts Adam in the Garden and gives him instructions. He specifically tells him not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Later, He tells Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. These are the only 2 commandments God gave at the beginning of His creation.
Verse 18, “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”
God has already decided that He will create Eve.
Verse 19-20, “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”
Here, Adams names the animals. I don’t believe God intended Adam to find a mate among the animals. Rather, I believe God was showing Adam that he was a unique creature. He was not like the other animals but was made in the image of God.
Verses 21-22, “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”
God creates Eve from Adam’s rib.
Verses 23-25, “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
Adam meets Eve.
If you read Genesis, Chapter 2 while keeping in mind it is a description of day 6 of the creation, it is really impossible to miss the meaning of it. So anytime you hear someone claim there are 2 creation accounts, you’ll know he is wrong. There are no contradictions in the Bible. God’s word is sure (Psalm 19:7)
3 comments:
Hello,
Is this the RKBentley that recently responded to a post on CARM written by 'Gorn'?
Where you ranted and raved about how poor the argument was and such?
Well, I am Gorn. And I have to say that your response demonstrates something about you, and that something is none too flattering.
Had you taken a mere 5 minutes to peruse the thread titles on the CARM evolution forum, you would have seen exactly why I started that thread.
As it seems too much for you to handle, allow me to direct you to the easiest means by which to understand the impetus for my thread:
Nouveau's forum posts.
Although I am not confident that you would find, as most rational people will, Nouveau's 'arguments' absurd, unfounded and unsupported, at least you may actually understand why I started that thread.
But I dout it.
Gorn,
Thanks for visiting my blog.
You asked, “Is this the RKBentley that recently responded to a post on CARM written by 'Gorn'?”
I am he.
You said, “Where you ranted and raved about how poor the argument was and such?”
I wouldn't call it a rant nor a rave. I did say, and will say again, though, it is a bad argument.
You said, “Well, I am Gorn. And I have to say that your response demonstrates something about you, and that something is none too flattering.”
Evos on CARM seldom flatter me. However, even many of those there who disagree with me will still usually vouch for my character. I try to be honest and objective.
You said, “Had you taken a mere 5 minutes to peruse the thread titles on the CARM evolution forum, you would have seen exactly why I started that thread.”
As it turns out, I only had a few minutes. I had not even lurked on the creo/evo board for a while and when I clicked on it, your thread was the first on the list. If you had a point to make other than the seeming obvious one, it wasn't made clear in your OP. It seemed to be the same canard that I've often heard.
You said, “As it seems too much for you to handle, allow me to direct you to the easiest means by which to understand the impetus for my thread: [Nouveau's forum posts.]”
That link was to a thread started after your thread. However, at your prompting, I did look at the other threads and saw one started with a similar subject a couple of hours before yours.
You said, “Although I am not confident that you would find, as most rational people will, Nouveau's 'arguments' absurd, unfounded and unsupported, at least you may actually understand why I started that thread.
But I dout it.”
In my response on CARM, I said, “Let's face it: Darwin was a racist. Hitler used evolution to justify his ideas of a master race. Marx used evolution as a scientific principle behind his radical world view. But none of this is evidence against evolution. If evolution is true, it's true regardless of the nut jobs who espouse and abuse it.”
Just in case I wasn't clear, I will say it again: saying, “Darwin was a racist” is not evidence against evolution. It is a bad argument. Evolution is wrong but it's not wrong BECAUSE of any moral implications associated with it.
Thanks again for visiting my blog. God bless!!
RKBentley
This is very interesting, You're a very skilled blogger. I've joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your magnificent post. Also, I've shared your website in my social networks!
Post a Comment