RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy

I didn't find Bethany's response in my inbox so apparently I missed it
and Gordon's answer works for me. All I would add is that the man in
the garden is Adam, not generic mankind who is busily foraging for food
all over the planet. This is the problem trying to line up a specific
man with the human species whose origin vastly precedes this point in
time.

Yours faithfully,
 
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
www.historicalgenesis.com
 
 

On Thu, 15 May 2008, Bethany Sollereder wrote:

> One more questions Dick. How do you look at the vast difference in
> order between Gen 1 & Gen 2. In Gen 1, plants all come first. In Gen

> 2, there are no plants until there are humans to till the ground.
> "When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of
> the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had
> yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and
> there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the
> earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed

> the man."
>
> God creates man first in Gen 2, and then makes plants, or plants the
> garden (despite the horrid NIV mistranslation, as you know, in v.8
> where they translate it "The Lord God *had* planted a garden" rather
> than the Hebrew which should be translated "The Lord God planted a
> garden" after the previous event of creating man.)

Bethany,

I believe that you have assumed that Genesis 2 says more than it
actually
does. In particular, it appears to me that Genesis 2 presupposes the
existence of many plants and animals.

Taking the sections of Genesis as being marked off by the toledoth
clauses, the section beginning in 2:4 continues through 4:26 and gives
the
account of the Fall together with background and consequences. It is
taken
as a given that the heavens and earth already exist. These events take
place in a region of the middle East, not over the whole planet. This is

evidenced by the geographical references and the fact that no seas or
marine creatures are mentioned. Thus 'earth' in vv. 5,6 would better be
rendered 'land', which is the usual translation of this word.

To say that no plant of the field had yet sprung up due to
meteorological
conditions is different from saying that they had not been created. The
author presumably expects them to spring up when the conditions are
favorable. Furthermore these plants are mentioned in 3:18 without there
having been any discussion of their origin.

The only plants said to have been planted in the Garden of Eden are
trees.
Furthermore planting is not normally thought of as creating but rather
placing in the ground something that already exists.

It seems to me that the biggest problem for concordism is the forming of

the animals. However even here we note that the origin of the livestock
is
not mentioned even though Adam gave names to them. There is also no
mention of the origin of the snake even though he is prominent in the
story.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 25 09:37:34 2008