Re: Genesis One that Fits

From: robert6625 (
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 15:35:26 EST

  • Next message: Keith B Miller: "Re: Genesis One that Fits"

    Welcome to the ASA Jim. It is a fun group.

    I would like to make 2 general points about reading Genesis 1 and 2.

    1. It has been pointed out on this list in the past that Genesis 1 has a
    structure - day 1 and 4, 2 and 5, 3 and 6 are paired. The first pair, day 1
    and 4, are both about the creation of of the lights in the sky, with day 1
    introducing the topic and day 4 expanding the topic with more detail. And so
    on for the other 2 pair. This should relieve somewhat the concern about
    which thing was created first.

    2. Our need to read Genesis 1 and 2 in chronological order is a cultural
    thing. We are a logical sequential people, but that does not mean the that
    the ancient Hebrew society was. Read the rest of the OT and you will find it
    is quite common for events to NOT be in chronological order, even when they
    are reporting history.

    Bob Miller

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jim Eisele" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:04 AM
    Subject: Genesis One that Fits

    > Hello, everyone. I just sent my membership in for the ASA. My name is
    > Eisele. I live in Rockville, MD. I've been fascinated by a lot of what
    > I've read on the ASA website.
    > So far, numerous attempts have been made to reconcile Genesis One with
    > science. Many are impressive. But something is missing.
    > Day 3 overlaps into day 6. And so does day 5. I guess that you could
    > day 2 does also.
    > What I've read seems very unwilling to accept this reality. I'm not sure
    > exactly when fruit trees began, because this information is avoided. But
    > Genesis 1:29 indicates that fruit trees are for human food. So pretending
    > they are some other type of primitive trees is an effort to reconcile
    > without reconciling. Real fruit trees come after reptiles.
    > Likewise, birds (day 5) come after reptiles. Some try to say the text
    > refers to insects. At best, that is an unnecessary stretch. I couldn't
    > help but laugh at a God who would mention insects but not birds. (Even if
    > didn't laugh out loud, He would know that I was laughing on the inside).
    > Look, the text indicates fruit trees on day 3, birds on day 5, and
    > (including the unpleasant reality of the serpent) on day 6.
    > Does the "day of Adam" come before the "day of Seth?" Of course it does.
    > Do they overlap? Of course they do. Does day 3 belong before day 5 which
    > belongs before day 6? Of course. Is each day a grouping? Of course. Do
    > they overlap? Of course. Does God care too much about the ordering of day
    > 6? Apparently not. Otherwise, why would Gen 1:24 carry a different order
    > than Gen 1:25?
    > Is Genesis One a prophetic foretelling of future scientific knowledge?
    > been stunned by the evidence. I feel much more secure on the Yes side of
    > that than I would feel on the other side.
    > However, I am uncomfortable mashing the Bible with science. Let the Bible
    > be the Bible.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 14 2002 - 15:35:05 EST