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

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

afaithfulone4u

New Member
Dec 7, 2012
1,028
32
0
California
there were certain named rivers and places such as Ethiopia already on the earth? Could it be because the earth is far older than our Adamic race? And notice that the man and woman created together in Gen 1:26 were not placed in Eden, but were told to RE-plenish the( rest of the) EARTH in Genesis 1:28. But the 1st Adam created alone, yet male and female in one body before the LORD removed Eve from Adam's bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, yet they were not ever told to replenish the earth for they were naked and not ashamed because they had no genitals for they were holy beings and did not reproduce. It was only after they fell to the lower level(sin nature) that they were given skin with reproductive organs and now EVE was to bare the children for part of her punishment.... and in pain.

Gen. 2 is the history of the generations of Adam beginning in 1:1 being the old world before the flood before Genesis 1:2.
Then you have those created after all of the animals were created and named in Genesis 1:26. The first Adam had no partner so the LORD created the animals which Adam alone named but could find no partner for him, because Adam was holy, not of a fallen nature.

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
KJV
Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
KJV
 

Grump

New Member
Feb 13, 2013
22
5
0
33
US
The first three chapters of Genesis show some overlap - they are not separate accounts of the creation story; they just showcase different details. The named rivers were probably given names AFTER Adam and Eve were around, but when spoken of in divine revelation were already addressed by the Lord as what Moses knew them to be called.

If you will, the first Biblical "wedding" took place in Genesis chapter 2, before the serpent tempted Eve. This would have happened right before the "blessing" in which Adam and Eve were told to "be fruitful and multiply".

I believe the "bearing children in pain" statement comes not just from the act of childbirth, but also the sin-stained human nature that would follow. If sin had not entered the world, you wouldn't have rebellious teenagers and such as we do now (and as they did - look at Cain). I'm not an expert in Hebrew though, so I can't know the original statements and intended messages:(

Summary: Chapters 1 - 3 tell the same story, just focusing on different details. The only gap for an "older earth" theory falls inbetween verses 1 and 2, and possibly between verses 2 and 3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: forrestcupp

afaithfulone4u

New Member
Dec 7, 2012
1,028
32
0
California
Grump said:
The first three chapters of Genesis show some overlap - they are not separate accounts of the creation story; they just showcase different details. The named rivers were probably given names AFTER Adam and Eve were around, but when spoken of in divine revelation were already addressed by the Lord as what Moses knew them to be called.

If you will, the first Biblical "wedding" took place in Genesis chapter 2, before the serpent tempted Eve. This would have happened right before the "blessing" in which Adam and Eve were told to "be fruitful and multiply".

I believe the "bearing children in pain" statement comes not just from the act of childbirth, but also the sin-stained human nature that would follow. If sin had not entered the world, you wouldn't have rebellious teenagers and such as we do now (and as they did - look at Cain). I'm not an expert in Hebrew though, so I can't know the original statements and intended messages:(

Summary: Chapters 1 - 3 tell the same story, just focusing on different details. The only gap for an "older earth" theory falls inbetween verses 1 and 2, and possibly between verses 2 and 3.
Hello Grump
Thank you for your response. Can you explain why the Adam in Gen.2 was created BEFORE the plants, animals, trees, and even EVE and knew God as LORD, meaning personally by name?
And why the male and female in Genesis 1:26 were created AFTER all the plants, trees, animals being created on the 6th day and only knew Him as God?

And yes, I do agree that ALSO her pain would not be just physical in her body from birthing children, but emotional as in heartache over them due to sin as well as her husband being unfaithful in his heart towards her. God is the one who did this He says so it was not just due to sin nature, but a curse upon her which we have been redeemed from in Christ, for he paid the ransom for them that believe. We now are to birth spiritual children rather it be a new born in the natural or 50 yr old in the natural they are all spiritual babes when they first come to Christ.
Gen 3:16
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
KJV

No the older earth is not just a theory for it is not really a different earth, just remade, just as we are awaiting ANOTHER new earth:
2 Peter 2:6
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
KJV
 

Grump

New Member
Feb 13, 2013
22
5
0
33
US
afaithfulone4u said:
Hello Grump
Thank you for your response. Can you explain why the Adam in Gen.2 was created BEFORE the plants, animals, trees, and even EVE and knew God as LORD, meaning personally by name?
And why the male and female in Genesis 1:26 were created AFTER all the plants, trees, animals being created on the 6th day and only knew Him as God?

And yes, I do agree that ALSO her pain would not be just physical in her body from birthing children, but emotional as in heartache over them due to sin as well as her husband being unfaithful in his heart towards her. God is the one who did this He says so it was not just due to sin nature, but a curse upon her which we have been redeemed from in Christ, for he paid the ransom for them that believe. We now are to birth spiritual children rather it be a new born in the natural or 50 yr old in the natural they are all spiritual babes when they first come to Christ.
Gen 3:16
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
KJV
Well, the Hebrew words used in the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 representations of plant are different, so I believe it's safe to assume that some types of plants were there but not others. This could explain why it appears like the order differes.

Genesis 1: 9-12 parallel quite perfectly with Genesis 2:5 - 8 in that first he called the waters forth (which would then enable the plants to come forth) and he placed the man down in Eden in 2:8. The accounts also say that God created the animals out of the dust in Eden. It's quite possible, I think, that the LORD created these animals elsewhere first.

It's also curious - Genesis 1 and 2 do indeed use different identifiers for God, but it doesn't say how the man/men/people knew the Lord. I wonder if this is the Holy Spirit inspiring Moses to combine the two widely-held creation stories of the time, most likely because they are both true, and the two stories used differing naming conventions? (The Yahweh creation story and the Elohim creation story).
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well, my study and view suggests that we have "over-literalized" the book of Genesis when it comes to the creation account. If the ending of the world age is written in allegory, then why should creation be so contrastingly different?

First and foremost, I think the account of Adam and Eve (creation, the fall, etc.) must be taken literally. I do not apologize for that statement, and I will not back down from it. I believe when Paul and Jesus referred directly or indirectly to Adam, their statements are predicated upon the existence of a real Adam and a real Eve. I believe the gospel falls flat if these aren't real people.

With that said, there is sufficient non-Biblical evidence that the world is very old. The Bible never makes a statement about the age of the Earth. Instead, we've reckoned the age based off of the ages given in the Bible. It's a noble idea and may be accurate, but it is also using the Bible to build a construct that it never explicitly says. The best case scenario for 7-Day 6,000-year-ago-Creationism is that it is the Christian foil of the secular theory of evolution. While Genesis certainly contains history, it differs from some of the other historical books in that it contains the spiritual as well.

I have other problems with a young-earth Creation account as well. For instance, how was Adam able to name all of the animals in a single day?

Where did other people come from? We like to talk about numbers and probability when it comes to secular accounts of evolution, yet why do we make the same level of assumption when it comes to radically exponential growth of Adam's family in a very short 6,000 year period? I've never seen someone take the creation account from that angle, but I don't think the math would hold up.

The questions go on.
 

the stranger

New Member
Mar 12, 2011
134
14
0
49
Grand Rapids, MI
With that said, there is sufficient non-Biblical evidence that the world
is very old. The Bible never makes a statement about the age of the
Earth. Instead, we've reckoned the age based off of the ages given in
the Bible. It's a noble idea and may be accurate, but it is also using
the Bible to build a construct that it never explicitly says. The best
case scenario for 7-Day 6,000-year-ago-Creationism is that it is the
Christian foil of the secular theory of evolution. While Genesis
certainly contains history, it differs from some of the other historical
books in that it contains the spiritual as well.
I believe the biggest problem for many Christians is they believe current science to be fact, thus differing from the Gen account. The problem with this thinking is understanding science is based on theories and test are done from there to see if they could be considered fact. A few things to look at. Weather men cannot even often get a 12 hour forecast right yet scientist call it fact that the earth is billions of years old? How is that? When starting a test with a theory we start at default with an assumption or base for our test is factual. If this is untrue than our conclusions are untrue. It has been proven many times that when a known rock age (such as from a recent volcano) is secretly placed beneath grounds of digging, when found, a rock known to be just a decade or two old is tested and said, concluded to be billions of years old. This is fact. Also it is fact the believed time frame of the earth has so much difference, as to 2 million to 14 billion or more years old!!! We call this factual science???? Also do study on these test yourself and you will see by the test beginnings that they could not get a young earth answer based on false starting bases. Fact is, there is much more evidence pointing toward a young earth than an old earth, speaking scientifically.

Evolution theory falls apart before it ever gets started. It is true the bible does not give exact dates, so certainly there can be a varied amount of years, but I will stick to the 6 to 8 thousand believable year span versing the 3 million to hundreds of billions of years time span.

It also should be noted. It is said when God created the earth, all creation was good. That is, with out sin. If other life was on this earth before humans starting with Adam and than died, and sin causes death, than sin and death was around before the creation of Adam which is unbiblical.

I should also note that the "light" problem is being resolved by new testing showing that as everything else on earth and creation is slowing down, thus the speed of light does and has as well.

Though far from a salvation issue, I believe it hard to take parts of Gen literal and other parts not so much when it is a fact, that is, a book of historic fact.
I have other problems with a young-earth Creation account as well.
For instance, how was Adam able to name all of the animals in a single
day?
He had to name only the cattle, beast and birds, all which were directly brought to himself by God. At this time in history I am sure there was not all of the branches of the main, like domestic dogs or maybe house cats as all the animals were formed and were of the basic limited structure of each kind. Have you ever been to a parade? A lot can pass by you quickly. Also, it may have been names of just the various kinds or types which would really limit the amount. There are many details left out as presumably Moses just wanted to give us a simple basic account of actual history and where in which we came from. I would rather take Gen literally and know my history plainly rather than rely on science which changes every years.

Where did other people come from? We like to talk about numbers and
probability when it comes to secular accounts of evolution, yet why do
we make the same level of assumption when it comes to radically
exponential growth of Adam's family in a very short 6,000 year period?
I've never seen someone take the creation account from that angle, but I
don't think the math would hold up.

My family started with two gerbils and in less than two years we had 25. Humans are not gerbils but can increase fast. In our life span the probability for children is only 50 years or less for woman but in these time frame it was different. Already fully woman and man, even going with one child per year, that is at least 900 children.

http://www.ldolphin.org/pickett.html http://www.mybiblestudiesandcomments.com/world-population-prior-to-the-flood-of-noah.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html

These links may be helpful to you as they show the charts of probable and actuall population growth of older and modern times as well is the pre flood years. I like the last link the best

God bless
 

Groundzero

Not Afraid To Stand
Jul 20, 2011
819
35
0
29
Australia
afaithfulone4u said:
there were certain named rivers and places such as Ethiopia already on the earth? Could it be because the earth is far older than our Adamic race? And notice that the man and woman created together in Gen 1:26 were not placed in Eden, but were told to RE-plenish the( rest of the) EARTH in Genesis 1:28. But the 1st Adam created alone, yet male and female in one body before the LORD removed Eve from Adam's bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, yet they were not ever told to replenish the earth for they were naked and not ashamed because they had no genitals for they were holy beings and did not reproduce. It was only after they fell to the lower level(sin nature) that they were given skin with reproductive organs and now EVE was to bare the children for part of her punishment.... and in pain.

Gen. 2 is the history of the generations of Adam beginning in 1:1 being the old world before the flood before Genesis 1:2.
Then you have those created after all of the animals were created and named in Genesis 1:26. The first Adam had no partner so the LORD created the animals which Adam alone named but could find no partner for him, because Adam was holy, not of a fallen nature.

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
KJV
Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
KJV
I know I'm jumping in the convo here, but I thought I'd address the OP. As to the name of the Ethiopia, we must keep in mind that Genesis was written by Moses. Under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Moses gave a generalized description of where Eden was BASED ON THE CURRENT GEOGRAPHY. Henceforth the names of nations such as Ethiopia and Syria.

Now as to your second question/proposition, you have completely mixed up what Scripture is saying. In the first account, Genesis 1, God runs through Creation quickly in the order he did. And yes, he did make male and female on the same day. Once we start reading Genesis 2, it should be more than clear that Moses, after giving a general description, now proceeds to re-examine the creation of man even closer. Notice that there is NO contradiction - just more detail. Please, for your own sake, stop trying to make things so complicated.

As to this thing about Adam and Eve not having genitals, I have NO idea where you got such a foolish notion from. Since when did it become acceptable to form conclusions that have NO basis in Scripture? Because there's absolutely no proof that they didn't have genitals, in fact, I find the opposite:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

If Adam and Eve didn't have genitals before the fall, then how in the world did God expect them to multiply?????

HammerStone said:
Well, my study and view suggests that we have "over-literalized" the book of Genesis when it comes to the creation account. If the ending of the world age is written in allegory, then why should creation be so contrastingly different?

First and foremost, I think the account of Adam and Eve (creation, the fall, etc.) must be taken literally. I do not apologize for that statement, and I will not back down from it. I believe when Paul and Jesus referred directly or indirectly to Adam, their statements are predicated upon the existence of a real Adam and a real Eve. I believe the gospel falls flat if these aren't real people.

With that said, there is sufficient non-Biblical evidence that the world is very old. The Bible never makes a statement about the age of the Earth. Instead, we've reckoned the age based off of the ages given in the Bible. It's a noble idea and may be accurate, but it is also using the Bible to build a construct that it never explicitly says. The best case scenario for 7-Day 6,000-year-ago-Creationism is that it is the Christian foil of the secular theory of evolution. While Genesis certainly contains history, it differs from some of the other historical books in that it contains the spiritual as well.

I have other problems with a young-earth Creation account as well. For instance, how was Adam able to name all of the animals in a single day?

Where did other people come from? We like to talk about numbers and probability when it comes to secular accounts of evolution, yet why do we make the same level of assumption when it comes to radically exponential growth of Adam's family in a very short 6,000 year period? I've never seen someone take the creation account from that angle, but I don't think the math would hold up.

The questions go on.
How did Adam name all the animals in one day? Well I'll venture to say that firstly, Adam was in an unfallen state, free from genetic imperfections. One can only imagine how amazing the pinnacle of God's creation, Adam, really was. Secondly, as has been illustrated so well by http://creation.com/, the animals back then wouldn't have had so many species as now. There would have been one type of dog, not a poodle, husky, dingo, etc, etc. Once you consider that, it wouldn't have been quite as imposing as some think.

As for the population, https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world%20population, apparently, in the last 50 or so years, earth's population has jumped from 3 billion to 7 billion! And we're talking 6000+ years . . . do the math and it's not actually that far-fetched, especially considering that the early humans lived for some 900+ years.
 

Grump

New Member
Feb 13, 2013
22
5
0
33
US
As mentioned in some of these articles/links, you would really need to take into consideration that the population would need to have a common starting point of post-Flood, since all but Noah and his family was wiped out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: williemac

gregg

New Member
Oct 16, 2009
321
37
0
arab
to hold God to a 24 hour day would be silly-time as we know it didn't start till day 4. So to me before day 4 could of been 10;000;000;000;000;etc years.carbon dating is impossible when the things you are dateing have absorbed the earth which would add these greater number of years to them.and if earth is named earth what was named eden,or where was eden, not the garden it was in eden?God didn't call adam adam untill after he decided to create eve. :p :D had a hurge to type
 

Grump

New Member
Feb 13, 2013
22
5
0
33
US
sogj said:
to hold God to a 24 hour day would be silly-time as we know it didn't start till day 4. So to me before day 4 could of been 10;000;000;000;000;etc years.carbon dating is impossible when the things you are dateing have absorbed the earth which would add these greater number of years to them.and if earth is named earth what was named eden,or where was eden, not the garden it was in eden?God didn't call adam adam untill after he decided to create eve. :p :D had a hurge to type
The phraseology used in the Genesis creation story erases all areas of doubt - it was a 24 hour period. Biblical and non-Biblical Hebrew scholars agree on this point.

Eden was a place on earth. Most educated people are theoryzing it was around current-day Egypt (at the very least, the Mesopotamian area).
 

Groundzero

Not Afraid To Stand
Jul 20, 2011
819
35
0
29
Australia
sogj said:
to hold God to a 24 hour day would be silly-time as we know it didn't start till day 4. So to me before day 4 could of been 10;000;000;000;000;etc years.carbon dating is impossible when the things you are dateing have absorbed the earth which would add these greater number of years to them.and if earth is named earth what was named eden,or where was eden, not the garden it was in eden?God didn't call adam adam untill after he decided to create eve. :p :D had a hurge to type
Wow. Do you even read your Bible???

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

What made up the first day? Remember that it was Moses who wrote it. IF it took more than one day, I think Moses would have said, it took so long, NOT the evening and the morning. And is says it after EVERY day. The six days of Creation were literal days.

I really like the way you said, ". . . . hold God". Ummmm, so let me get this right, you think that we're limiting God? Don't you think people of your persuasion are doing even worse??? Not only do you limit God to creation over a staggering amount of time, but you believe this fable in spite of what God clearly says in his word.

And then when someone replies, instead of using Scripture to back your position, you merely state, "I disagree." I guess you'll say that to this too, since that's the only defence you really have. (sic)
 
  • Like
Reactions: I am Second

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Demanding a hyper-literal account of Genesis is the millstone around the neck of our generation and our children.
 

Grump

New Member
Feb 13, 2013
22
5
0
33
US
aspen2 said:
Demanding a hyper-literal account of Genesis is the millstone around the neck of our generation and our children.
This could be because, as we look farther into science, we find many pieces of evidence that point to a young-earth and to a global flood.
 

gregg

New Member
Oct 16, 2009
321
37
0
arab
moses the one who struck the rock?= :eek: and God called knowledge the beginning' = :D i disagree because if you don't comprehend this you wouldn't understand my answer. :unsure:
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Grump said:
This could be because, as we look farther into science, we find many pieces of evidence that point to a young-earth and to a global flood.
A millstone around your neck is a bad thing.......

Also, the only evidence for a young Earth is from outside the scientific community.

the point of Genesis is that God is sovereign and we are not.
 

Grump

New Member
Feb 13, 2013
22
5
0
33
US
aspen2 said:
A millstone around your neck is a bad thing.......

Also, the only evidence for a young Earth is from outside the scientific community.

the point of Genesis is that God is sovereign and we are not.
I wasn't direct with my intentions. I was skipping past the "millstone around the neck" analogy and just addressing the fact that these sides of the arguments are most strongly held by people of my generation.

Though it sounds like, you may need to refine your current definition of modern scientific thought. Or just look farther into the evidence supporting a young-earth.