Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3

From: Jim Eisele (
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 07:35:02 EST

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"

    Hi George.

    In response to the two different creation accounts you wrote

    >There's no conflict if they are read as theological accounts with
    >different emphases. But they don't match up if you try to read them as
    >chronologically accurate descriptions.

    Where is Dick Fischer when you need him? He directly addresses this in his
    "Historical Adam" articles and his book The Origins Solution. In a
    nutshell, he says Gen 2 is the "details of Adam, Eve & the garden of Eden."
    Like you say, they are separate accounts. Here's my best quick stab at the
    chronology - "no shrub in the field" Gen 2:5, refers specifically to the
    garden of Eden, not the world. The Hebrew translated as "earth" could just
    as easily be translated "land" depending on context. Adam was one special
    guy (also detailed by Dick). He was specially created by God. The animals
    either had been created in the past, or were specially created (similar to
    Adam & the special trees) for the garden.

    Additionally, George writes in response to the question of the sun's

    You've omitted my "&c" after "sun". This is just one problem, which
    is not resolved by the creation of "light": Photosynthetic plants on earth
    adapted to the solar spectrum. But more broadly, the order of creation
    in Gen 1 doesn't match the geological record in which - among other things -
    there were sea creatures before land plants. & even more broadly, the earth
    didn't exist before the first stars.

    Sorry about the omission, George. I place the "&c" with the heavens of Gen
    1:1. I'm not sure what you're saying about the photosynthetic plants. Your
    point about the sea creatures before the land plants is a good one. I don't
    pretend to know everything, but here's my take on that -
    I agree that primitive sea creatures come before land plants. If that's all
    that matters, I lose the argument. I suppose that will just come down to
    individual belief. I have to give a nod here to the folks who say there is
    some poetry in Gen One. Gen 1:24-25 shows that God's purpose is not a 100%
    chronology. But nonetheless, the chronology is excellent. The "great sea
    monsters" of Gen 1:21 (NASB) aren't detailed. But the Bible calls Leviathan
    (crocodile) a great sea monster. And Encarta 98 places crocodiles at 200M
    ago. God could have mentioned the great sea monsters specifically for that
    purpose, as sort of a "placemark." To me, the rest of Gen One matches
    science/chronology/logic far too well to expect much more chronological
    precision than that.

    In my first e-mail, Genesis One that Fits, I base my arguments upon grouping
    within days. I think it is fair to say that the fish/great sea monsters
    belong more after the land plants than before them.

    One last thought about giving up on Gen 1 as a fair historical/scientific
    account. A lot of people for a long time thought that it was a creation
    account. It, arguably, presents itself as a creation account. I want to be
    very sure that it's not before giving up. I don't want to force more
    chronology on the text than it is trying to present.

    Thanks for your comments, Jim

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 12:34:14 EST