How is it that in the beginning in Genesis 2 when God created the 1st Adam and Eden....

[aspen]

I think this OP is the most literal interpretation I have ever read regarding the Creation Story - congrats!

 

[veteran]

We must remember that God "Spoke everything into existence"

He just said the words and voila .... there it was

At least that is how creation is described in the genesis record.

I do not feel God had to speak , and then wait for a long time for something to happen.

He said "let there be light" .... and from that moment on there was an "entity" called light ..... he could make the sun three days later to give us the light we are most familiar with .... and that would not be in conflict

I don't think wonderings about how long it took has anything to do with what our Heavenly Father is showing us in Genesis 1. That argument is more of a thing between believers on a limited age for the creation vs. those who believe the creation is billions of years old. One will never discover the Truth our Lord laid out in Genesis by dwelling on that argument.

But one will discover a timeframe of reference, not to be understood in literal days nor thousands of years. The timeframe reference I speak of is about changes with the creation, and the fact that Genesis 1 backed by other Scripture reveals a gap of unknowable time between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2.

 

[Rex]

But one will discover a timeframe of reference, not to be understood in literal days nor thousands of years. The timeframe reference I speak of is about changes with the creation, and the fact that Genesis 1 backed by other Scripture reveals a gap of unknowable time between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2.

And If I understand you correctly it is in this place "between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2" that Satan first rebelled as you say?


http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/16358-when-did-the-devil-first-rebel-against-god/


I don't know why you just don't come out with your full story instead of beating around the bush.

 

[veteran]

And If I understand you correctly it is in this place "between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2" that Satan first rebelled as you say?


http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/16358-when-did-the-devil-first-rebel-against-god/


I don't know why you just don't come out with your full story instead of beating around the bush.

What full story? I've already laid it out many times on this forum, some simply don't care to listen and go study it for theirselves; they're too busy listening to other things, like men's traditions, and use men's traditions like some political campaign argument.

The earth is older than 6,000 years. That idea originated by some preachers taking what 17th century Christian theologian James Ussher covered in his Annals of The Word. He used Bible history from the time of Christ back to the time of the man Adam, and set the date as 4004 B.C. Problem with that is he had... to stop at 4004 B.C. for Adam, because there is no more begats further back than Adam. And I agree very much with his dating of 4004 B.C.... for the man Adam, but not for God's original perfect creation at Genesis 1:1.

At Genesis 1:1 God is showing us His original pefect creation. At Genesis 1:2 He is showing us how it had become a waste and a ruin (Hebrew tohuw va bohuw, which is mistranslated as "without form, and void".)

Jeremiah 4:23-28 is the follow up to that, as Apostle Paul also describes the creation being put in a state of vanity and bondage for this world, seeking a release along with the manifesting of the sons of God. And Apostle Peter also gave a hint about when he described the "world that then was", standing out of the water and in the water, a direct pointer to the waters on the earth in Genesis 1:2 forward until God moved the waters to cause the dry land to appear (re-appear actually).

A deeper study of just what it was that Satan did to rebel against God in the beginning, and grasping how for this world he has been in the role of adversary starting with Adam and Eve, well, how much more leading does our Heavenly Father need do of when he did that? God showed us, it's in His Word (for those who study It), and it's not a popular teaching in the Churches simply because it's not taught. Yet it is in God's Word. It's that event which explains the mystery of the "world that then was" which God destroyed by waters of a flood, long before the flood of Noah's time.

 

[forrestcupp]

What full story? I've already laid it out many times on this forum, some simply don't care to listen and go study it for theirselves; they're too busy listening to other things, like men's traditions, and use men's traditions like some political campaign argument.

The earth is older than 6,000 years. That idea originated by some preachers taking what 17th century Christian theologian James Ussher covered in his Annals of The Word. He used Bible history from the time of Christ back to the time of the man Adam, and set the date as 4004 B.C. Problem with that is he had... to stop at 4004 B.C. for Adam, because there is no more begats further back than Adam. And I agree very much with his dating of 4004 B.C.... for the man Adam, but not for God's original perfect creation at Genesis 1:1.

At Genesis 1:1 God is showing us His original pefect creation. At Genesis 1:2 He is showing us how it had become a waste and a ruin (Hebrew tohuw va bohuw, which is mistranslated as "without form, and void".)

Jeremiah 4:23-28 is the follow up to that, as Apostle Paul also describes the creation being put in a state of vanity and bondage for this world, seeking a release along with the manifesting of the sons of God. And Apostle Peter also gave a hint about when he described the "world that then was", standing out of the water and in the water, a direct pointer to the waters on the earth in Genesis 1:2 forward until God moved the waters to cause the dry land to appear (re-appear actually).

A deeper study of just what it was that Satan did to rebel against God in the beginning, and grasping how for this world he has been in the role of adversary starting with Adam and Eve, well, how much more leading does our Heavenly Father need do of when he did that? God showed us, it's in His Word (for those who study It), and it's not a popular teaching in the Churches simply because it's not taught. Yet it is in God's Word. It's that event which explains the mystery of the "world that then was" which God destroyed by waters of a flood, long before the flood of Noah's time.

I also believe in the Gap Theory. In verse 1, God created the heavens and the earth. In verse 2, the word "was" is also translated "became" a lot of times, which would say, "The earth became formless and void". The gap between verses 1 and 2 could be millions or billions of years, with the rest of chapter 1 being a recreation of the earth.

I know we've debated these things before, but if you take Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 to be talking about the story of the fallen Lucifer, who was the spirit behind the actions of the Kings of Tyre and Babylon, then it's not a long shot to think that the fall of Satan took place during that gap. It's speculation that doesn't really matter, but it's not a long shot to think that God gave charge over his original earthly creation to Lucifer and the angels that he was in charge of, which could partly be why he's now called the god of this world. Then when he rebelled, which resulted in chaos, it's not hard to imagine the earth becoming formless and void. Since the earth was covered in water, if God removed His glory from the earth as a result of rebellion, it's not hard to see how an ice age could come from that. Then at some point in time, maybe around 4000 BC, God recreated the earth as we know it.

It's all speculation that doesn't really matter. But it's a great way to look at the Bible literally, and it still can coincide with scientific findings. If you look into the studies of the "Mitochondrial Eve", there have been some findings that the first "Eve" was closer to 10,000 years ago, rather than 200,000 years ago.

 

[Rex]

IMO it's a rabbit hole that leads to all sorts of other trails after you enter into it. do a bit of searching and you see what I mean
I was simply trying to encourage veteran to define just which way he goes after entering the magic "hole" in Gen 1:1 & 1:2

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Enlightenment 101

There's nothing literal about the events of Eden, or Creation or the Flood for that matter. Adam and Eve are mankind, and the children they birth are tribes. The serpent is a metaphor for haveing fallen from grace, the Tree of Knowledge represents the evolutionary branches of us becoming superior in knowledge, our curse was the stunning realization that we exist, and the world is unforgiving, which animals have little recognizance of.

God created light before the stars, which is reminiscent of the Big Bang theory. God created life in an order reminiscent of evolutionary theory. The flood was local- the cultures in the Orient all have ancient writings about a flood. People warred with each other during the flood over necessities, which is why Noah sent out a dove, the symbol of peace, in search for a land with vegetation (the olive branch). God commanded Noah to save the animals from extinction, as mankind was suffering in the flood and would have wiped them out.


These stories were oral traditions long before they were written. They are anachronistic and poetic, this is how all legends are. Peoplw consume themselves with scripture to the point where reality just sort of goes away. People beleived the stories were literal because they didn't have anything else to go on. They are tailored by God for all men to understand. It works for the bronze age man just as the modern man, and the modern man does not have to interpret as a bronze age man to conclude it's validity.

 

[forrestcupp]

Enlightenment 101

There's nothing literal about the events of Eden, or Creation or the Flood for that matter. Adam and Eve are mankind, and the children they birth are tribes. The serpent is a metaphor for haveing fallen from grace, the Tree of Knowledge represents the evolutionary branches of us becoming superior in knowledge, our curse was the stunning realization that we exist, and the world is unforgiving, which animals have little recognizance of.

God created light before the stars, which is reminiscent of the Big Bang theory. God created life in an order reminiscent of evolutionary theory. The flood was local- the cultures in the Orient all have ancient writings about a flood. People warred with each other during the flood over necessities, which is why Noah sent out a dove, the symbol of peace, in search for a land with vegetation (the olive branch). God commanded Noah to save the animals from extinction, as mankind was suffering in the flood and would have wiped them out.


These stories were oral traditions long before they were written. They are anachronistic and poetic, this is how all legends are. Peoplw consume themselves with scripture to the point where reality just sort of goes away. People beleived the stories were literal because they didn't have anything else to go on. They are tailored by God for all men to understand. It works for the bronze age man just as the modern man, and the modern man does not have to interpret as a bronze age man to conclude it's validity.

...and all of our lives are not really real, but we're just a dream within the mind of Charles Darwin's cryogenically frozen head. :)

Meanwhile, for those of us who believe the Bible is literal...

 

[Rex]

I found a rather large site that contains a lot of information about that rabbit hole I was speaking about the gap between Gen 1;1 and 1;2
After going down it and excepting a duel creation as well as duel mankind as some here suggest that men were on earth before Adam and Eve it just doesn't stop.
Be sure to click on the link What Was The Real Sin In The Garden Of Eden? everything here from racism to a different age before this world, to sex between Eve and Satan.

This site covers and teaches the many trails that can lead from interpreting Gen
http://www.biblestudysite.com/creation.htm
Just giving you a heads up as to where unsubstantiated biblical beliefs can lead,

 

[SilenceInMotion]

...and all of our lives are not really real, but we're just a dream within the mind of Charles Darwin's cryogenically frozen head. :)

Meanwhile, for those of us who believe the Bible is literal...

..replace reason and virtual certainty for taking a story that was never literal.. literally.

Take Revelation literally to. See how far that gets you.

 

[Rex]

..replace reason and virtual certainty for taking a story that was never literal.. literally.

Take Revelation literally to. See how far that gets you.

Shaping the written word of God into figurines you can play with is a game for children with big imaginations, and not for those with a heart for God.
Let me show you where it was first played Genesis 3:1 NKJV

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Or we could just go with the fact that the *two separate creaton events* are one in the same, put differently in oral tradition and compiled into a written text.

And we can go a step further in noticing the undeniable similarities between the sequence of Creation and the sequence of evolutionary theory. Heck, we could even see the undeniable symbolism, like the serpent, the tree of knoweldge, and the dove Noah sent out.

Or..

We could take it literaly and be perpetually refuted by science over and over again. The list of refuted arguments is embarrassingly long- it's time to just accept the fact that the literal interpretatoin is wrong.

Oh wait, the Church already did that- at the exact time these observations were brought to light. Young Earth creationists are behind a good century and a half. Why stop with evolution? It was once posited that the Earth was flat to, and a literal interpretation of the Bible concludes that- a big ol' flat circle with the pantheon being the snowglobe.

 

[Rex]

I'm aware of the Catholics embarrassment in dealing with scientist of the past, as well as it current creeping into bed with them today.

I wasn't addressing how the natural world may have come into being but rather how people bend Gen to fit current science by finding great lapses of time between verses. After someone has accepted that bit of bait the rest is sure to follow, an example is the link I gave above.

Just as the catholic church is rubbing up with Darwin, you're not looking in the right direction, and with further discoveries in DNA it's becomes more and more apparent that evolution is a pipe dream. But injecting God into the equation the possibility that, DNA in its simplest form could have happened by chance becomes very possible. So to the secular mind the catholic church and Darwin are a marriage made in heaven and that's just where it's headed. I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old. But I don't discount the fact that God could have simply made the universe look old, but I don't believe that as well.

Now that I have commented on the RCC motives in this topic. I'll say
I merely came over to let people know where this time gap in Gen can lead.
And now as well, where the catholic leadership may be being steering the faithful.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

I'm aware of the Catholics embarrassment in dealing with scientist of the past, as well as it current creeping into bed with them today.

I wasn't addressing how the natural world may have come into being but rather how people bend Gen to fit current science by finding great lapses of time between verses. After someone has accepted that bit of bait the rest is sure to follow, an example is the link I gave above.

Just as the catholic church is rubbing up with Darwin, you're not looking in the right direction, and with further discoveries in DNA it's becomes more and more apparent that evolution is a pipe dream. But injecting God into the equation the possibility that, DNA in its simplest form could have happened by chance becomes very possible. So to the secular mind the catholic church and Darwin are a marriage made in heaven and that's just where it's headed. I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old. But I don't discount the fact that God could have simply made the universe look old, but I don't believe that as well.

Scientists were making claims which contradicted the literal interpretation of Scripture. The Church issued that the Earth was the center of the universe to null anything that might lead people astray.
When Galileo discovered that objects orbited other objects in space, more specifically the moon's of Jupiter, this called into question if the Earth didn't orbit around other objects. In response to this, the Church had him recant his discovery as false.

The Church did this because they were going by the literal interpretation of scripture, and had an entire continent of brutal 16th century to maintain. The Inquisitions were done for the same exact reasons- to keep heresy from causing an uprising.


If people have a problem with that, cry a river, seriously. It was the 16th century. The same can go for the Crusades and everything else- the world wasn't the pipedream it tries to be now.

 

[forrestcupp]

If you take the whole beginning and end of the Bible completely figuratively, then why would you take the middle literally? That means that Jesus' death and resurrection is just a figurative allegory of the evolution of our souls. We may as well throw the entire Bible out. We may as well throw out the entire foundation of Christianity. I'm not willing to do that.

 

[aspen]

I reject the slippery slope construct - it is merely an admonition against thinking outside a prefabricated narrative. God gave us a mind and we should be able to use it without fear of tumbling down a rabbit hole

 

[HammerStone]

Aspen, if you completely allegorize the Genesis account of creation, then where does the line of demarcation set up? If Genesis is a mythic tale, then so obviously would be stories such as Noah, Jonah, etc likely all the way to the miracles of Jesus in the NT. If, then, that is the case, then the logical outflow of that is that when the stories were mentioned in the New Testament, the writers were either totally ignorant of this reality and viewed the stories as true, or they deliberately perpetuated the myth.

If the former, then my initial question stands, because it's difficult to argue divine inspiration. If the latter, then you are effectively illustrating a deceiver god or just a book written by men with no real concept of God, who also didn't seem to have all too much to say or do.

I'm not picking on you or anything, but I don't see a solid line to hold with this approach, as the ambiguity doesn't seem to leave a hill to turn, defend, and hold the line on. In all honesty, I would submit that this is why the mainline denominations are hemorrhaging members. That's not to say that necessarily anyone whom holds this view will inevitably lose faith, but I think it drops the bottom out for a number of perfectly smart and sincere people. Strip miracles, and you're left with a moral figure who the next savvy politician, benevolent star, or charismatic athlete could potentially fit.

 

[Rex]

I'm not surprised many or most catholic don't believe the literal reading.
Heres an example, we see the tree of life in Eden as well as in Rev
Same thing eat fruit
Rev 2:7
Rev 22:14

Watch out here
Rev 22:19
19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.



Other men and women
Acts 17:26

• "And hath made from one blood all nations of men for to dwell on
  all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before
  appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;"

1st Coriunthians 15:22

• "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

If the fruit was a sexual act like some believe "see above link" It would only stand to also reason were going to have sex in the center of the kingdom of God as described in Rev. at the tree of life. If were not actually eating of a fruit from one how could we then conclude that were not eating from the other in the same manner.

 

[forrestcupp]

If the fruit was a sexual act like some believe "see above link" It would only stand to also reason were going to have sex in the center of the kingdom of God as described in Rev. at the tree of life. If were not actually eating of a fruit from one how could we then conclude that were not eating from the other in the same manner.

While I agree that the fruit wasn't just an allegory for a sexual act, I think you have your fruits mixed up. The forbidden fruit was from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is much different than the Tree of Life that is found in heaven. Adam and Eve were allowed to eat of the Tree of Life until they were kicked out of Eden.

 

[Rex]

While I agree that the fruit wasn't just an allegory for a sexual act, I think you have your fruits mixed up. The forbidden fruit was from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is much different than the Tree of Life that is found in heaven. Adam and Eve were allowed to eat of the Tree of Life until they were kicked out of Eden.

Your missing the point, my point is, if as some believe eating was actually an allegory for sex from the tree of knowledge that is described by "eating" then "eating" as in Rev 2:7 from the tree of life, must also be the same allegory instead of the literal "eating" I Hope I have made myself clear.


Both trees were found in the garden and others as well, Gen 2:9


But they never ate from the tree of life Gen 3:22 so it was with held


The implication is that if Satan was the tree of knowledge and Eve had sex with it / him
and Jesus is the tree of life you see where It leads