Q&A: How do Genesis 1 and 2 relate? Tim Keller
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 фев 2011
- Timothy Keller was born and raised in Pennsylvania, and educated at Bucknell University, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and Westminister Theological Seminary. He is pastor of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, which he started in 1989 with his wife, Kathy, and three young sons. Today Redeemer has nearly six thousand regular attendees at five services, a host of daughter churches, and is planting churches in large cities throughout the world.
This is a free download from Redeemer.com
Gen 1 is not a poem or a song, but a chronological summery of creation. Gen 2 & 3 is the break down of the creation of man.
exactly! thank you!
Could it be narrative poetry? Or, 'exalted prose' as C. John Collins would say? A story written in poetical style? Is there more than one option here?
I have appreciated Keller's ministry over the years. But agreed, Genesis 1 is not a poem or a song - it is historical chronological account of creation.
It clearly says earth in chapter 1 and in chapter 2 its talking about the field. Am i the only one that sees these are 2 different things?
Actually, I think Keller is on to something. In Genesis 1, the birds and the beasts are created on the fifth day, before man on the sixth. However, if we take your interpretation, it seems as though Genesis 2 would contradict the Genesis 1 narrative. That's why it's so important to understand writing styles. A) These people weren't as strict chronologically as we were and B) Genesis 1 seems to be written in a poetic refrain.
The "grass," "herb yielding seed," & "tree yielding fruit" of Genesis 1:11 are different from the "plant of the field" & "herb of the field" of Genesis 2:5. The "plant of the field" and "the herb of the field" are also described in Genesis 3:18 as "thorns and thistles" and "the herb of the field," respectively. Genesis 2:5 is simply stating "the plant of the field," same as "thorns & thistles," and "the herb of the field" came after man and as a result of the curse. Genesis 2:5 states, "plant of the field before it was in the earth" because it was not in the earth until Adam disobeyed God as evidenced when the Lord God said in Genesis 3:17-18, "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of they life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field."
Also, vegetation before rain did not have a water source problem. Genesis 2:6 clearly says, "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."
There is not a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. It is very sad and disturbing that Tim Keller would cast doubt on God's Word because he heard somebody offer an explanation that contradicted the plain reading of Scripture. There is not a contradiction problem, only a basic reading and understanding issue with Tim Keller.
I agree with Tim Keller in understanding the two narratives to be different literary genres. It is clear that the Author invites the reader to harmonize the two accounts. But I think it is unnecessary to assume that the first account is non-literal. However, the days need not be temporal or any specific length. Clearly, the days of the first account are divine days, not human. They may not be temporal at all!
What if we're totally missing the point of the creation story in Genesis? What if it's not really meant to describe the creation of the world in detail, but rather it is a religious manifesto for monotheism?
The Jews lived in an age of paganism. Pagans worship nature. The earth and the sky are gods. The sun and the moon are gods. The water, plants, and animals were gods. What if Genesis 1 is really saying those things aren't gods, rather, they were created by the one true God. Romans 1:23;25.
But what if it is meant to tell us the truth... not too crazy of a concept considering it is the introductionary book to the Word of God.
@@djbrazz1 Jews live in monotheistic... there surrounding are pagan... not them... they already received revelation from God, to Abraham... even to Noah... it just God reminded Abraham that God of Heaven is the one and only God.
Genesis is can be literal but with poetry, because it is not a science book.
Genesis 1 is the TRUE Gods creation where He created ALL things to be good. Genesis 2 is yahweh/LORD God/satans deception where apparently one tree leads to death contradicting Genesis 1 where God created ALL things good. Hebrews 2:14 says only satan has power of death, not God. God gives life and restores.
so in Genesis 2 Eve thought she was hearing God when it was really satan (2 Corinthians 11:14 satan can disguise as an angel of light). then satan comes as a serpent to decieve her into eating it. Eve for the first time in life felt guilty and lost her innocence as she feels she disobeyed God. the ultimate deception of satan was causing us to doubt and lose faith in God. this would line up with Romans 14
Romans 14:23
But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
Day two "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. "Gen 1:6
waters before plants.. it can be literal
And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. (Genesis 2:8, ESV)
Gen 2 deals with the very separate event of God planting the garden. Gen is universal creation, Gen 2 is the account of the garden. Simple, no?
If you've ever taken a class in building digital databases, one of the first things you're taught is that you first create the form (i.e. structure, relationships, etc) of the database, then you populate it with objects or data.
That is very much what I see in Genesis 1. It begins by telling us the earth had no form and it was empty; it had not been populated with objects because there was no structure to hold or intelligence to define relationships among them.
Then, in Days 1 - 3, God creates forms: Light, Waters Above and Below with an Atmosphere, and Dry Land with Vegetation.
On Days 4-6, God populates the forms with objects of his creation: Sun, Moon, Stars; Creatures of the Sea & Air; and Land Animals, Man, respectively.
Days 1 & 4 are paired, as are Days 2 & 5 and Days 3 & 6.
Gen 1:2 - Earth formless and empty
Day 1 - Light Day 4 - Sun, Moon, Stars
Day 2 - Waters, Atmosphere Day 5 - Creatures of the Sea & Air
Day 3 - Vegetated Land Day 6 - Land Animals, Man
This form/object understanding of Genesis 1 is similar to Plato's focus on form and idea vs Aristotle's focus on objects and empiricism. It echoes the philosophical concept of the One and the Many. And this does not require a commitment one way or the other to whether the days are figurative or literal.
Read Ezekiel Chapter 31, it will show anyone that Awdawm wasn't the first human, and that family trees were in the garden before he was placed there. God does not open everyones eyes but we all do see..
All of Gods Word is tried and true...
Does the plant only rely of rain? Or God can bring water to land without rain?
Tim is underestimating God.
Also disagree with Tim Keller on this point as Genesis 1 and 2 are just different perspectives of the same story. One can tell an account in many different ways and there is no conflict here. God was the light for the creation including the vegetation just as He will be our light in the New Jerusalem described in Revelation 21:23 "And the city has no need of sun or moon, for the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its light."
vegetation before rain? Adam and Eve before mommy? Who could imagine?
p kilgore Noah's flood was the first rain
Can someone explain how in genesis 1 god started creating animal on the 5th day but in genesis 2 he created man before all animal of the earth?
A mist was watering the land therefore no need for rain. As a matter of fact it didn't rain till the days of Noah, so you're saying there was no vegetation until the days of Noah? John MacArthur said Genesis chapter one is a miracle and cant be tested. All of chapter one was God spoke and it was. If Genesis one was just a poem, then you have just given evolution a foot in the door to their theory. By the way Moses wrote Genesis Jesus said when he said moses wrote of me. It couldn't of been after the promise land cause Moses was already dead.
Keller misinterprets Genesis 2 by claiming there was no vegetation on the earth before God created Adam. It says in Gen 2:7 God formed man from the dust of the ground, and verse 8 speaks of the garden God planted eastward in Eden. The east section of Eden didn't have a garden until after Adam was created, but that certainly doesn't make the claim that the rest of the earth had no vegetation. Keller is in error by reading into the text.
+kjvwolfslayer Genesis 2 has no time frame and I don't know why Tim Keller thinks it does whereas Genesis 1 is all time frame. There cannot be any time frame errors between Gen 1 and 2 because Gen 2 doesn't give us one. Thinking Gen 2 has a time frame puts Tim in the uncomfortable position of having a contradiction where none exists and then he forces himself to take Gen 1 as allegory. Gen one is the order of creation and in Gen 2 the focus is not on the creation of the heavens and the earth. Gen 2 picks up the story on the beginning of day 3 and then jumps to day 6.
There is no order to Gen 2 and Tim has it backwards.
Gen 2-5 "Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
Gen 2 has no timeline to speak of.
The focus of Gen 2 is different than Gen 1.
It's focuses in on the man (Adam) , the Garden of God and the creation of Eve.
Tim has to justify his belief that the earth was not created in 6 literal days and uses bad Biblical exegesis to do it.
+Robert Sparks: I would say Gen 2 is an overview of Gen 1, to put it simply. It helps the reader recap the creation account events.
kjvwolfslayer "It helps the reader recap the creation account events."
Not really. It's a different perspective. Gen 1 is the God centric perspective and Gen 2 is the earth centric perspective. Another way of looking at it is Gen 1 is God the Father's perspective and Gen 2 is the perspective of Jesus on earth. We have both the Father's view from space and Christ's view from earth starting with day 3.
+Robert Sparks: Since Jesus is the Lord God of the old testament who did the creating of the heavens and the earth, and is the one who Moses wrote about, and has the same perspective as the Father, and who is also omnipresent, they can't possibly disagree, so I would disagree with your assumptions.
kjvwolfslayer "Since Jesus is the Lord God of the old testament who did the creating of the heavens and the earth, and is the one who Moses wrote about, and has the same perspective as the Father, and who is also omnipresent, they can't possibly disagree,"
God.
I was only talking about the perspective differences between Gen 1 and Gen 2.
"so I would disagree with your assumptions."
Based on what you said, I would too but I never said what you said.
Great to read that many of the comments support a literal reading of the Genesis 1,2 and through the bible. I agree there is no contradiction between 1 and 2 and I am surprised that someone like T Keller one call Genesis 1 poetry. Saddened by such non belief in God's word.
There comes a time when the Christian must acknowledge that the Bible was compiled and written by humans, who are by their very nature were flawed and made mistakes. All Christians must simply admit at this point that the Bible is not inerrant, because the errors are plain as day for laymen and non-laymen alike to see.
Deliverance02x Hi Thank you for your human and flawed comment on scripture. K
Kenneth Bate lol
I wonder at what point does Tim Keller start believing the Bible means what it actually says...
This is my problem with Tim Kellers reasoning here. If we r not to take Genesis 1 literally, then why take any of the OT literally? See it doesnt work. You either accept it all (when not poetry or prophecy of course) as literal, other wise, u have man taking out parts that dont suit him. Btw Genesis 1 & 2 dont contradict each other, it depends they way u read it.
What do you mean, "depending on the way you read it?" For example: In the first creation story, humans are created after the other animals and man and woman were created simultaneously. In the second account, the man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib. They don't say the same things. If one version is true, then the other version must be false- I can not believe both are true. Do both stories seem true to you? How do you read it differently so that you "accept it all"?
@@colibriverde btw if you ACTUALLY read genesis 1 and 2 word for word. You'll notice its is not the same creation so there is no need to assume one part to be true and the other not
if your not going to take parts of the bible literally just because it would contradict and undermine the bible if you do, it would make your argument in favor of the bible all the more unbelievable. No matter if you take any chapter literal or poetical, it doesnt change the fact that in genesis 1 man was created after all animals and in genesis 2 man was created before all animals. its clearly contradictory, poetical or not.
So when two Biblical passages contradict each other, one of them is the inerrant word of God, while the other is just poetry.
Idolatry has funny consequences, such as this ridiculous argument.
What does a “ world view” have to do with obtaining knowledge and understanding the scriptures? "World view" is ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth! First, there are NOT two creation accounts. Genesis 1 and 2 compliment each other, they were written by the same author simultaneously, though the two chapters ARE amply set apart. Why they’re set apart becomes apparent, and without question they synthesize one in the other. Nevertheless, I’m not your teacher. But I strongly suggest when reading chapter 2 begin with verse 4 and applying a form of reading comprehension higher than that of Tomothy Keller. Why? because it will reveal the first “mystery of the kingdom of heaven” to an avid reader.
How unkind your comment is to Tim Keller who devotes his goodness to inspiration on Bibical Knowledge.. Addressing this comment from BR
I believe bible is true, but not every interpretations . .
At 4:02ff, Keller states regarding Gen 2:5 that "there was no vegetation because it hadn't rained yet," and then goes on to state that w/o Gen 1 being "poetic" that Gen 2:5 contradicts Gen 1:11-13 (3rd day, creation of vegetation) because we "can't" (really??) have vegetation before the creation of weather on Day 4.
That is an absolutely absurd argument -- made possible only via the thorough indoctrination from the Darwinist/secularist infiltrators within our churches.
This is so easy to refute...here goes....
Before the fourth day, God Himself sustained Creation directly via His own divine power. He had created Light on Day One and was undoubtably using His power to provide this light (and heat) directly to the pre-Day-Four earth to sustain life. The literal reading of the text leads to no other conclusion. Otherwise, the plants would have instantly shriveled up, frozen solid, etc within their first micro-second of existence--well before "weather" arrived on the fourth day. [Side Note: How will God sustain His New Heavens & New Earth in Revelation without a sun, moon, weather, etc? Answer: Via the Light of His own presence....but I guess the Keller-ites will allegorize that away too.]
Genesis 2 is simply a more "sweeping narrative" (literal, of course) of the literal 24-hour, 6-day creation account given in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 sweeps through the creation of the land, environment, etc and then quickly hones in its focus onto Adam & Eve's creation. Gen 2 jumps rapidly through the multiple days of Gen 1, in its emphasis on man's creation and doesn't necessarily place the creation-timing of various items (for example, man's creation compared with vegetation's or Eden's creation) in exact time-ordering.
He's done the time-ordering for us in Genesis 1 ALREADY, so why worry about that here in Gen 2?
I'll tell you why we have to "worry about that".... Because the incessant false teaching of atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, gap theorists, old-earthers--the whole sordid lot of them!--cannot cease from trying to slice Genesis 1 & 2 to pieces with their apostate knives of doubt and confusion. They leave EVERYONE confused... until one actually humbles oneself before the Living Lord and REPENTS of one's doubt and unbelief. Genesis 1 and 2 are so easy to reconcile after doing so....
Tim Keller is an apostate who passes his folly on to Christians all around the world, sowing weed-seeds of doubt & confusion wherever he treads. Why the writer of the book Keller cites believes that "rain was necessary for vegetation" (cf. Gen 2:5) is beyond me. I see no "direct causal relationship" between the rain and the vegetation in 2:5. God had Moses write 2:4-5 to simply summarize Gen 1:1-2:3.
Here is what I believe to be the proper interpretation of Genesis 2:4-7,...
2:4...
"Here is the historical account ('generation', see Strongs H8435) of Creation...here it is, I've just given it to you.
2:5...
At the very beginning of this historical account that I've just given to you , there was no 'plant of the field,' no 'herb of the field' and thus of course there was no rain and no man yet.
2:6...
Now, let's quickly summarize Gen 1:2,6-10 about the water's (the mist's) relationship with the earth.
2:7...
Okay, let's now jump quickly forward chronologically to Gen 1:26-29 to hone in on Adam & Eve's creation. In 2:7 and following, I will explain Gen 1:26-29 in more vivid detail, giving you the reader a more clear understanding of how I'd created Adam & Eve.
Now, I'll admit that we could quibble about some minor details in my interpretation, but I don't think anyone can deny its complete plausibility. In other words, Christians can LOGICALLY reconcile Genesis 1 and 2 WITHOUT (as the apostate Tim Keller says) by allegorizing Genesis 1 into complete Gnostic oblivion.
Tim Keller is an insidious, false teacher who should be avoided like the plague. I shudder to think of the judgment that awaits him.
These are folktales and that is why they don't make sense and why the stories contradict each other. Some folks need to believe it, and that is why they work so hard to make themselves believe. Free your mind from your indoctrination. If it doesn't make sense, admit that it doesn't make sense.
I agree. You don't make any sense.
who's side is Keller on anyway? It seems Keller is more of a skeptic than a biblical scholar. Although not suprising considering his liberal bent.
Five years late, but no it doesn't:
"Ezekiel 31
New International Version
Pharaoh as a Felled Cedar of Lebanon
31 In the eleventh year,(A) in the third month on the first day, the word of the Lord came to me:(B) 2 “Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his hordes:
“‘Who can be compared with you in majesty?
3 Consider Assyria,(C) once a cedar in Lebanon,(D)
with beautiful branches overshadowing the forest;
it towered on high,
its top above the thick foliage.(E)
4 The waters(F) nourished it,
deep springs made it grow tall;
their streams flowed
all around its base
and sent their channels
to all the trees of the field.(G)
5 So it towered higher(H)
than all the trees of the field;
its boughs increased
and its branches grew long,
spreading because of abundant waters.(I)
6 All the birds of the sky
nested in its boughs,
all the animals of the wild
gave birth(J) under its branches;
all the great nations
lived in its shade.(K)
7 It was majestic in beauty,
with its spreading boughs,
for its roots went down
to abundant waters.(L)
8 The cedars(M) in the garden of God
could not rival it,
nor could the junipers
equal its boughs,
nor could the plane trees(N)
compare with its branches-
no tree in the garden of God
could match its beauty.(O)
9 I made it beautiful
with abundant branches,
the envy of all the trees of Eden(P)
in the garden of God.(Q)
10 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because the great cedar towered over the thick foliage, and because it was proud(R) of its height, 11 I gave it into the hands of the ruler of the nations, for him to deal with according to its wickedness. I cast it aside,(S) 12 and the most ruthless of foreign nations(T) cut it down and left it. Its boughs fell on the mountains and in all the valleys;(U) its branches lay broken in all the ravines of the land. All the nations of the earth came out from under its shade and left it.(V) 13 All the birds settled on the fallen tree, and all the wild animals lived among its branches.(W) 14 Therefore no other trees by the waters are ever to tower proudly on high, lifting their tops above the thick foliage. No other trees so well-watered are ever to reach such a height; they are all destined(X) for death,(Y) for the earth below, among mortals who go down to the realm of the dead.(Z)
15 “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: On the day it was brought down to the realm of the dead I covered the deep springs with mourning for it; I held back its streams, and its abundant waters were restrained. Because of it I clothed Lebanon with gloom, and all the trees of the field withered away.(AA) 16 I made the nations tremble(AB) at the sound of its fall when I brought it down to the realm of the dead to be with those who go down to the pit. Then all the trees(AC) of Eden,(AD) the choicest and best of Lebanon, the well-watered trees, were consoled(AE) in the earth below.(AF) 17 They too, like the great cedar, had gone down to the realm of the dead, to those killed by the sword,(AG) along with the armed men who lived in its shade among the nations.
18 “‘Which of the trees of Eden can be compared with you in splendor and majesty? Yet you, too, will be brought down with the trees of Eden to the earth below; you will lie among the uncircumcised,(AH) with those killed by the sword.
“‘This is Pharaoh and all his hordes, declares the Sovereign Lord.’""
Those six days of Genesis were actual days, and the earth is billions of years old. God created the world in the BEGINNING, Genesis 1:1, billions of years ago. The bible does not say that the earth is 6000 years. There is a separation between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. "And the earth was without form and void." No sentence begins with an "and" unless to mean that it is a continuation of another sentence, yet Gen1:1 is complete. The "And" shows that something had happened to make the world to be without form and void this can be see at JEREMIAH 4:23-26. God had destroyed it, the 6 days were days of RECREATION, that is why God tells Adam and Eve to go and REPLENISH the earth. To PLENISH means to fill something but to REPLENISH means to fill something that was once emptied. The pride of Lucifer made the earth to be destroyed, he was in charge of the earth, this includes the "men" who were in it, look at JEREMIAH 4:25, this shows that men existed, the difference is that those men were not in God's image. God is Spirit and so is His image. The old man had no spirit he only had conscience. ISAIAH 14:12-18 proves that Lucifer ruled over nations, that was long before Adam was created and Lucifer was not yet satan. Look at EZEKIEL 28:14-19, keenly look at verse 17, "..I will lay thee before kings.." nations existed, Lucifer is already a fallen angel by the time Adam comes in the picture, that is why Lucifer tempted Adam as satan through the serpent. These visions and prophesies by Ezekiel and Jeremiah were events that had already taken place because right now we can see the results, Lucifer is no longer in heaven.
That was quite an abundance of assertions, but assertions to the contrary would have equal weight. In fact, there is no concept of 'plenish' and 'replenish' in Genesis 1. 'Replenish' is simply the word used in the King James version, which just conveys the idea of "filling".
The Hebrew is וּמִלְא֥וּ and it's rightly rendered as 'fill'.
"...Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it..."
There is nothing to necessitate it being understand as a re-filling of the earth.
Kawika Mallonee why did God give Noah the same command as Adam? That command was for Noah to refill the earth. Did it mean a different thing for Adam?
Alphonse Ouma it meant the same thing it did for Adam, God commanded them to fill the earth.
If you want there to be a special re-filling, you'll need to write in a new verse, because it's not there in the existing language.
Kawika Mallonee Noah was commanded to refill the earth. It was once full.... same applies to Adam
Alphonse Ouma Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
The word for 'fill' is exactly the same as God used to command the animals, וּמִלְא֥וּ.
Again, there is no 're-filling', it's just plain 'filling'.
How is it that so many people don't understand that Genesis 2 is about the creation of the Jewish people? The point of creating a farmer in God's image out of dirt (rather than just descending from other humans) is to show that the nation of Israel is separate and better than the rest of humanity. In fact, the entire Pentateuch is more about the Jewish people than it is about Abraham, Moses, Joseph, Jacob or anyone else. Of course, humans lived on the Earth before the Jewish people, but if they're not from the Tribe then it's ok to take their stuff because they're a lower species.
And then Jesus comes along and says it's not about bloodlines, it's about doing God's will.
Tim Keller is Great?get a grip God is great!Tim is just a fallen man
Genesis 1 is a non literal poem? Pure idiocy. The problem with modern bible scholars is their lack of bible reading. The scriptures teach a 6 day literal creation. Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." This is what happens when you get popular you get puffed up and think the bible needs "scholarship" to be understood. You know better than Moses right Keller?
But what if Exodus draws on the metaphors in Genesis 1 to establish the 1 in 7 rest rule? Have you never heard someone say "Pull the log out of your own eye first" - does someone quoting a metaphor mean the metaphor somehow magically becomes literal? Really? Try the following from Moore College bible lecturer:-
reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/search?q=exodus
***
"The difficulty, is that the NT draws upon the chronology of chapter 2 and not the chronology of chapter 1 to make its points about how to live:
1 Timothy 2:11-15 Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.
1 Corinthians 11:7-9 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
In both passages, implications for how men and women are to live are drawn from the chronology of Genesis 2.
It could be suggested that this is the only part of chapter 2 that is a literal chronology-that in the sixth day of creation, God made man first, some of the stuff of chapter 2 ‘kind of’ happened and then Eve was created. But that kind of speculative exegesis is exceptionally strained and distorts the meaning of both chapters-you’ve essentially fused them together to create your own Genesis chapter 1.5. In other words, even for the Creation Scientist another part of the Bible can appeal to the chronology of a ‘non-literal’ part of Genesis to make authorative demands on God’s people. Exodus 20 appeals to days in chapter one. Paul appeals to the chronology of chapter two. And both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 can’t be historical chronologies, because they can’t be reconciled.
Whichever way you go there, you can’t just point to a passage like Exodus 20 to show that the days are meant to be historical twenty-four days and Genesis 2 is less literal. Because the exact same argument can be derived from Paul to ‘prove’ the historical chronology of chapter 2 and hence the less literal nature of chapter one.
And if the same type of argument can be run twice from the same body of evidence to deduce mutually incompatible results, that indicates that the argument itself is wrong.
One part of the Bible using the chronology of Genesis to establish a point about how God’s people are to live shows that Genesis is designed to tell us how to live. It doesn’t establish that it was meant to offer us a ‘better science’, by telling us what we would have seen if we had been there.
It may do that as well, but the Sabbath command doesn’t prove it.
***
Me again. As a Theistic Evolutionist (TE) I see Creationism as simply poor reading. I personally feel sorry for modern day Creationists, not just because they have to live in such terrible fear of everything 'sciencey' that indicates an old earth, but because they're missing out on the theological *gold* that is in Genesis 1 because of their literalistic reading of it!
www.iscast.org/journal/articlespage/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything
You're so intelligent. No need for men to devote their lives to study and to devotion to scripture! We should all be more like you BR HE. Thanks for the light of your understanding.
@BR HE I agree with you. But let's pray that This man of God would begin to understand where his blind spots are. He is out there doing the Lord's work with incomplete understanding (just like all of us). I know his statements here are dangerous but let's pray that he grows in his faith and belief of God's objective truth of creation!
I love Tim Keller, but he's wrong on this one. If he was right, then the next verse after "because there was no rain" would say "then it rained, and all the plants grew up." But does it rain? No. Instead, water comes up out of the ground (2:6). And to use this to support a Christian view of evolution is hogwash. Right after watering the ground, God forms man in verse 7. Before the trees in the garden in verse 9, before any animals in verse 19. No scientist would say this is the "natural order."
Gen 2:1 says that ''Thus the heavens and the earth were FINISHED, and ALL the host of them''. 2:2 ''And on the SEVENTH DAY God ended his work''....it's in chronicle order or there won't be any need to mention the numbered day. The 3rd and 6th day are the only days mentioned in chapter 2, which means chapter 2, isn't retelling the account of creation which i'm sure Moses wouldn't of contradicted himself. If Gen chapter 1 wasn't a 24 hour 6 day creation but a long period of time, then you got DEATH before Genesis chapter 3. This is the evolutions views.....millions of years