The Missing Links in the Fossil Record

iouae

iouae

Well-known member
2003cobra said:
We will have to agree to disagree.

I find the idea that plants were seeded on Day 3 but had not grown on Day 3 as a complete denial of the text of Genesis 1. The text could not be more clear that all kinds of plants grew on Day 3:
Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
Click to expand...

2003cobra I could have written all the above like this "And on Tuesday, God created Angiosperms, and was very pleased with Himself". All the repeating of seed in itself simply means Angiosperms or seed bearing plants with seeds produced in ovaries inside a flower receptacle, which later turns into a fruit.

The writer is not interested in which came first, the seed or the tree. The writer is painting broad strokes.
Angiosperms are new in Geological time, and domestic crops which have to be cultivated arise at the same time as mankind, as do domestic animals. God is painting a picture of how He is creating a world suited to mankind.

And the text of Genesis 2 could not be more clear that man was formed before any plants were growing:
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.


I ask you to think about this: if you only had the second creation story (starting in Genesis 2.4b) and did not have the first creation story, would you take the position that man was formed before plants were growing?

And if you only had the first creation story, would you argue that the earth brought forth all kinds of vegetation on Day 3 and God saw it was good?

Thanks for your comments.
Click to expand...

I am a Bible literalist as much as any writing can be taken literally. If there are two stories I have to take both into account and reconcile them together. And if they are dictated by God and written by Moses, even more so. So the stories are accurate and true, we just have to see why stories are told differently.

Take the Gospels, they tell the life of Jesus, but in completely different order. If you read only one, you would swear He, for instance only chased the moneychangers once, and that was at the beginning of His ministry. Read the other Gospels, and you see He also chased them out just before the Crucifixion.

And I take science also as pretty Gospel, especially cosmology and palaeontology. If I have these to help, and two Bible stories then I will not deny there were previous eras with dinosaurs and plants which had seeds not in themselves such as Gymnosperms. These I have to fit into the Bible narrative too. So I fit these in before Genesis 1:2.


I believe in the beginning beginning beginning was the Word and the Word was with God.
Then in the beginning beginning was the Big Bang when God created the heavens 13.75 billion years ago.

Then in another beginning, God created life on an earth now cool enough, about 3.8 billion years ago.

Then in another beginning, God created the Mesozoic biome with dinosaurs.

Then 6000 years ago, in the beginning (of the story of man) God created (the present) heaven and (the present) earth and the (present) seas and all (the present flora and fauna) that in them dwell.

Genesis does not have to tell us the back story. It starts the very old story at a time 6000 years ago.

To answer your question, if I only had Genesis 2 I would probably think man came before plants.

And, if I did not have cosmology and palaeontology, I would probably believe, like 6days, that everything was created 6000 years ago.

But the Psalmist tells us to listen to what the heavens and the earth have to say about God.
Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
 
Last edited:
V

Veritas veritate

New member
2003cobra said:
The five Hebrew scholars who translated the Torah for the NET Bible have excellent credentials.
Click to expand...

And this makes them correct. Why don't you go to a few Rabbis and ask them what 2:5 means, I bet you will be surprised that it isn't what you would expect, and I trust those who have been trained in the Torah from birth over the credentials of 5 Hebrew scholars who translated a bad copy of the Hebrew Torah, which I will not get into because it is out of place in this thread.
 
6days

6days

New member
iouae said:
Thanks for posting on this thread. I had not even noticed that the order of Genesis 2 was different from Genesis 1.
Click to expand...

Genesis 1 and 2 are consistent with each other...it is the creation account.

You can go on atheist web sites where they have long lists of Bible contradictions. For example, people who want the Bible to be wrong will say that the Gospels contradict each other on who was at the tomb. People who trust God's Word can easily see the Gospel accounts are consistent with each other, and compliment each other. Likewise with the creation account... we have people who want it to be wrong so they can insert vast amounts of time into God's Word. However, for those who trust what God's Word plainly says, we see that the creation account and science are consistent and complimentary. For in six says, God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them.
 
J

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
6days said:
Genesis 1 and 2 are consistent with each other...it is the creation account.

You can go on atheist web sites where they have long lists of Bible contradictions. For example, people who want the Bible to be wrong will say that the Gospels contradict each other on who was at the tomb. People who trust God's Word can easily see the Gospel accounts are consistent with each other, and compliment each other. Likewise with the creation account... we have people who want it to be wrong so they can insert vast amounts of time into God's Word. However, for those who trust what God's Word plainly says, we see that the creation account and science are consistent and complimentary. For in six says, God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Genesis 1 and 2 are not consistent with the real world.
 
2

2003cobra

New member
Jonahdog said:
Unfortunately, Genesis 1 and 2 are not consistent with the real world.
Click to expand...

They aren’t consistent with each other, and they aren’t consistent with the evidence that God has given us in creation, so that is evidence from both the Bible and from God’s creation that we are not to view either story as literal history.
 
2

2003cobra

New member
iouae said:
Thanks for posting on this thread. I had not even noticed that the order of Genesis 2 was different from Genesis 1.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should elaborate on this a little more.

When I realized that the second creation story had a different order and method of creation than the first, I wondered “why do people insist the first creation story must be taken literally when they don’t insist that about the second?”

No one was there (in the first creation story) to see what was going on. In the second creation story, Adam was there when plants and animals were there but nothing was written down anywhere near the time of events.

So we have accounts written later that may or may not me literal history. Both can’t be literal history, since they literally disagree in order and method of creation.

And we must remember that while these texts may have been written for us, they were not written to us. They were written to ancient Israelites with different mindsets. There are reasons to believe that their willingness to tell stories in greatly exaggerated or even barely recognizable ways.

One example is very helpful. In the OT, we have the stories of David’s protection from Saul. The methods were believable and normal: Jonathan helped, David fled, people helped David, etc.

When David recorded his protection in a psalm or poetry, the story became quite different. This can be found in 2 Samuel 22 and in one of the psalms. Here is part of it:

In my distress I called upon the Lord; to my God I called. From his temple he heard my voice, and my cry came to his ears. 8 Then the earth reeled and rocked; the foundations of the heavens trembled and quaked, because he was angry. 9 Smoke went up from his nostrils, and devouring fire from his mouth; glowing coals flamed forth from him. 10 He bowed the heavens, and came down; thick darkness was under his feet. 11 He rode on a cherub, and flew; he was seen upon the wings of the wind. 12 He made darkness around him a canopy, thick clouds, a gathering of water. 13 Out of the brightness before him coals of fire flamed forth. 14 The Lord thundered from heaven; the Most High uttered his voice. 15 He sent out arrows, and scattered them —lightning, and routed them. 16 Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare at the rebuke of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.


The Lord did not really fly down on cherub with smoke coming from his nostrils while shooting arrows and lightning.

There are literalists who claim “it’s literal or it’s a lie.” This is not an ancient Near East philosophy.

We know the Lord did not fly down on a cherub because we also have the actual history recorded.

For creation, we do not have the actual history recorded. We have two stories like the song in 2 Samuel 22, texts that tell of creation in ways that recognize that creation is God’s work but which tell the events in ways that we should not take as literal history.
 
iouae

iouae

Well-known member
2003cobra said:
Maybe I should elaborate on this a little more.

When I realized that the second creation story had a different order and method of creation than the first, I wondered “why do people insist the first creation story must be taken literally when they don’t insist that about the second?”

No one was there (in the first creation story) to see what was going on. In the second creation story, Adam was there when plants and animals were there but nothing was written down anywhere near the time of events.

So we have accounts written later that may or may not me literal history. Both can’t be literal history, since they literally disagree in order and method of creation.

And we must remember that while these texts may have been written for us, they were not written to us. They were written to ancient Israelites with different mindsets. There are reasons to believe that their willingness to tell stories in greatly exaggerated or even barely recognizable ways.

One example is very helpful. In the OT, we have the stories of David’s protection from Saul. The methods were believable and normal: Jonathan helped, David fled, people helped David, etc.

When David recorded his protection in a psalm or poetry, the story became quite different. This can be found in 2 Samuel 22 and in one of the psalms. Here is part of it:

In my distress I called upon the Lord; to my God I called. From his temple he heard my voice, and my cry came to his ears. 8 Then the earth reeled and rocked; the foundations of the heavens trembled and quaked, because he was angry. 9 Smoke went up from his nostrils, and devouring fire from his mouth; glowing coals flamed forth from him. 10 He bowed the heavens, and came down; thick darkness was under his feet. 11 He rode on a cherub, and flew; he was seen upon the wings of the wind. 12 He made darkness around him a canopy, thick clouds, a gathering of water. 13 Out of the brightness before him coals of fire flamed forth. 14 The Lord thundered from heaven; the Most High uttered his voice. 15 He sent out arrows, and scattered them —lightning, and routed them. 16 Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare at the rebuke of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.


The Lord did not really fly down on cherub with smoke coming from his nostrils while shooting arrows and lightning.

There are literalists who claim “it’s literal or it’s a lie.” This is not an ancient Near East philosophy.

We know the Lord did not fly down on a cherub because we also have the actual history recorded.

For creation, we do not have the actual history recorded. We have two stories like the song in 2 Samuel 22, texts that tell of creation in ways that recognize that creation is God’s work but which tell the events in ways that we should not take as literal history.
Click to expand...

When I read how God moved heaven and earth to save David, I do believe he came on the wings of cherubs, with flames of fire proceeding from Him. Ezekiel describes how the throne of God is carried on a clear glass-like firmament by 4 spirit beings with the heads of eagle, lion, ox, and man each.

This was a song and a bit poetic, but like a bull snorts steam when its angry, so the Lord did on David's behalf, and at His command, bolts of fire came every time He spoke. I have no problem seeing this as occurring in the spirit realm, unseen to humans, but a literal description of God's intense participation. In the spirit realm, there are battles between demons and angels etc. especially where God's people were waring agains pagan culture and overthrowing their gods.

When Israel left Egypt, it was God vs. the gods of Egypt, and demonstrated in the physical realm by Moses rod eating the snake rods of Pharaoh's magicians. This was a spirit battle being played out. God is very involved. So I personally feel no need to have to explain anything away. It is quite literal to me.
 
2

2003cobra

New member
6days said:
Genesis 1 and 2 are consistent with each other...it is the creation account.

You can go on atheist web sites where they have long lists of Bible contradictions. For example, people who want the Bible to be wrong will say that the Gospels contradict each other on who was at the tomb. People who trust God's Word can easily see the Gospel accounts are consistent with each other, and compliment each other. Likewise with the creation account... we have people who want it to be wrong so they can insert vast amounts of time into God's Word. However, for those who trust what God's Word plainly says, we see that the creation account and science are consistent and complimentary. For in six says, God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them.
Click to expand...
I have seen many people claim that the Bible is “full of errors.”

That is not true.

The error here is in adopting the “it’s literal or it’s a lie” philosophy.

It is very strange, 6days, that you demand a literal reading of the first creation story and completely deny a literal reading of the second.

It is my hope that you mature past that error.
 
2

2003cobra

New member
iouae said:
When I read how God moved heaven and earth to save David, I do believe he came on the wings of cherubs, with flames of fire proceeding from Him. Ezekiel describes how the throne of God is carried on a clear glass-like firmament by 4 spirit beings with the heads of eagle, lion, ox, and man each.

This was a song and a bit poetic, but like a bull snorts steam when its angry, so the Lord did on David's behalf, and at His command, bolts of fire came every time He spoke. I have no problem seeing this as occurring in the spirit realm, unseen to humans, but a literal description of God's intense participation. In the spirit realm, there are battles between demons and angels etc. especially where God's people were waring agains pagan culture and overthrowing their gods.

When Israel left Egypt, it was God vs. the gods of Egypt, and demonstrated in the physical realm by Moses rod eating the snake rods of Pharaoh's magicians. This was a spirit battle being played out. God is very involved. So I personally feel no need to have to explain anything away. It is quite literal to me.
Click to expand...

It may be quite literal to you, but I hope you know that Saul was not hit by the arrows or lightning.
 
6days

6days

New member
2003cobra said:
It is very strange, 6days, that you demand a literal reading of the first creation story and completely deny a literal reading of the second
Click to expand...
The creation account in the few couple chapters of God's Word was accepted as literal history by Moses, Paul... and even an eye witness to the creation...Jesus.


I also believe the creation account in God's Word. The Gospel, and every Christian doctrine is based on the literal creation account.
 
2

2003cobra

New member
6days said:
The creation account in the few couple chapters of God's Word was accepted as literal history by Moses, Paul... and even an eye witness to the creation...Jesus.


I also believe the creation account in God's Word. The Gospel, and every Christian doctrine is based on the literal creation account.
Click to expand...
You don’t really know what Jesus thought about this.

He did not come to correct everyone’s version of history or science.

There are parts of the creation count that you don’t believe, I suspect. Do you believe man was formed before any plants had sprung up?

when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
 
6days

6days

New member
2003cobra said:
You don’t really know what Jesus thought about this.
Click to expand...
We know what Jesus said. We know what His Word says.


2003cobra said:
There are parts of the creation count that you don’t believe, I suspect.
Click to expand...
You suspect wrong.
2003cobra said:
Do you believe man was formed before any plants had sprung up?
Click to expand...
No God's Word tells us 'deshe’ (grass), 'eseb mazria zera' (seed-yielding herbs) and 'etspariy' (fruit trees) were created before man. His Word then tell us that 'siah hassadeh' (plant of the field) and ' eseb hassadeh' (herb of the field) had not yet sprouted, when man was created.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top