The other thread was mostly focused on genocide (rightfully so), so I wanted to start a thread discussing all the preconceptions of that line of thought that the Canaanites were some demon race. I also wanted to point out the flaws in the "literal" account of creation as interpreted by most YEC.

Let's start simple. When were Adam and Eve created by God? The "literal" reading of YEC advocates that Adam and Eve were created on Day 6. After all Gen 1:26-29 are set in the 6th day and clearly describe the creation of humanity.

There are a few problems with this. In Gen 2:4-6 we have set the stage for the creation of Adam. We have mentions of both water and ground, but we specifically have no plants. This is stated explicitly in these passages. Fitting this to a timeline of Genesis 1, Adam was created on Day 3, between the gathering of the water and the creation of plants. It is impossible to reconcile Adam's creation to the creation of humans in Day 6. The timeline is just off. Adam was made, then the Garden full of plants. Then God created animals, and Adam even named them! In Genesis 1, people came after animals!

When does the Bible turn from allegory to history? After Moses but before David?

The Sons of God

I don't know. I've heard quite a few interpretive options however personally have not found enough contextual evidence to make case.

The Day
We use the term "day" to refer to the following:

• daylight hours when the sun is up
• 24 hr period
• and indefinite period of time. (ie. when talking to highschool buddies, "remember back in the day when we played in tournaments") over a 6 year period of time.

All three of these uses of "day" are found in the first 2 chapters of Genesis. This should help in clearing things up.

So if Adam was made Day 3 and humans were made Day 6, then who were these humans? We have to guess, because the Bible doesn't say. It could be that the fall happened on Day 6 of creation, and the humans who were told to multiply and subdue the Earth are the progeny of Adam and Eve. After all, according to the timeline Eve was made after animals, so she was created on Day 6. So that could be the start of humanity. It is pretty close to the understanding above, but it causes some textual problems. The one obvious to 5 year olds is Gen 4:17. If God created Adam and Eve who bore Cain and Abel, then where did Cain's wife come from?

There is also the possibility that Adam and Eve were created differently from those other humans. In other words, Adam was created Day 3, and these other humans are unrelated to him and were created Day 6. Then Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden and now lived in proximity to these other humans. I tend to favor this interpretation for 2 reasons. First, it easily explains where all these wives came from without resorting to incest and unmentioned daughters. Second, it gives a different context to the term Sons of God.

In the previous threat, the assumption is that the Sons of God were angels fallen from heaven. There is a problem with this identification of the Sons of God. Coming only from the text of Gen 1 through Gen 6, there is absolutely no way anyone would make that identifcation. You absolutely must carry that bias into the text. After all, there is only one mention of an angel in those versus, and that angel has a fiery sword and guards the Garden of Eden after Adam and Eve are expelled. It is called an angel, not a Son of God. There is also nothing in early Genesis that says anything at all about fallen angels. You could loosely interpret God's punishment of the Serpent as the fall of Satan, but he would hardly be referenced in verse 6 as a Son of God. From a literal, Sola Scriptura reading of Genesis, saying the Sons of God were fallen angels is completely out of left field. There are certainly apocrypha written at the end of the BC period that make this assertion, but certainly nothing approaching authoritative texts.

So if the Sons of God aren't fallen angels, then who are they? Well, if Adam was created directly by God and other humans were created later, then the Sons of God would be the sons of Adam. And when Adam's descendents had offspring with "normal" humans, they were great heroes the Nephilim. It was previously stated that Adam's and his descendents lived extraordinary long lives, and so God's decision to limit the lifespan of all humans to 120 years makes sense. After all, sooner or later Adam's heritage would spread throughout the rest of humanity making them all remarkably long lived as well. So God limited the human lifespan. It also makes sense of the idea of Israelites running into Nephilim after the Exodus. They weren't half-breed fallen angels, but the term Nephilim was used to draw a parallel of these men encountered at that time to the heroes and men of great reknown. Sort of like calling Bill Gates a Founding Father of the information age. It's not literal, but gives context based on our own national history.

The only ethical implication to this is that if God created men twice, then there is no reason to believe that all men are equal. However, only Noah and his family survived the flood in Genesis, and according to this literal reading everyone is derived from them. So there are no humans now not descended directly from Adam.

Quote:

---

When does the Bible turn from allegory to history? After Moses but before David?

---

Who said I'm not a literalist?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

When does the Bible turn from allegory to history? After Moses but before David?

---

Who said I'm not a literalist?

---

You're an annihilationist, no?

Fair point

To answer that question honestly, I'd say the time of Moses.

After all, traditional Christians and Jews believe the Torah/Pentatuech was written by Moses or at the very least during the Exodus. So Genesis was written by someone around the time of Moses, and they were not present for those events. Maybe God told them exactly what happened without using allegory or metaphor, but even then I feel free to question how they understood what God was telling or showing them. From the Exodus onward, the historical narrative is (traditionally) written by contemporaries of the text.

How are you making the case for Adam being created on day 3?

Gen 2:5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Gen 1:9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place,and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.

The first passage is the creation of Adam. The second is the overall account of creation.

Bene ha Elohim the sons of God, literally angelic created beings who took wives of the daughters of men---see Genesis 6. At least that is the reference in most of the OT.

Says who? As I stated above, you won't find a reference to a fallen angel anywhere in Genesis, and certainly not in the first 5 chapters before this reference was made.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Says who? As I stated above, you won't find a reference to a fallen angel anywhere in Genesis, and certainly not in the first 5 chapters before this reference was made.

---

The lone chapter of Jude's epistle parallels much of the second chapter in Peter's second epistle, both referencing a specific sect of fallen angels that's currently chained in darkness (while Satan and the rest of the demonic principalities and powers still roam this Earth, even tonight). The connotation of both of these passages includes sexual perversion and the judgment of intermingling between the celestial order and humankind.

Jude 6 and 7 reads:
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.


2 Peter 2:4-6 reads:
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

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;

And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;


Genesis 6:4 presents itself as relatively unambiguous that an unholy union took place, and every verse after this for the entire chapter (5-22) reflects on the necessity for God to destroy the old world except for the 8 (Noah and family). Naphal in the Hebrew is "fallen" and is an accurate delineation of this amalgamation race, the Nephilim. Holding to the inerrancy of scripture, Genesis, Jude, and 2 Peter all bear a unified keynote, in terms of a fallen angelic order.

(I have a great interest in the pre-flood world, the Nephilim sort, and how it relates to eschatological prophecy, so though our views differ, I appreciate your starting this thread. I was grateful for the thread UTexan created as well There are some fine Christian brethren that I know holding to perspectives regarding the fallen angels, corrupted bloodlines, and such that run antithetical to mine. If we share the same soteriology, I am okay with rivaling various points of Biblical antiquity. This place needs some topical diversity, so I appreciate the discussion).

I'm not contesting the presence of fallen angels. Doesn't it seem strange to you that the only other Biblical reference that can be loosely tied to this subject was written about 1100 years after Genesis 6?

If indeed Jude is directly referencing Genesis 6, how were people supposed to correctly interpret this passage for the intervening 1000 years?

Learn Hebrew. The controversy should disappear.

Care to enlighten those of us who won't have enough free time to become fluent in Ancient hebrew in the next decade?

The chapters, verse numbers, page breaks, sections breaks can often be misleading and do interpretations for us if we are not careful. I think the main idea of chapter 1 ends with verse 4 of chapter 2. My opinion is that Chapter 2 verse 5 is speaking of a specific garden/place verse offering a contradictory account. Notice the highlighed words...

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. 5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Chapter 1: Creation of all
Chapter 2: Creation of a specific garden/field

Woody2006 said:

---

When does the Bible turn from allegory to history? After Moses but before David?

---

Does it really matter?

Quote:

---

When does the Bible turn from allegory to history? After Moses but before David?

---

In my opinion it doesn't. My reasoning has everything to do with the way Jesus treated Genesis. P.S. You can still be a Christian and believe it's an allegory, old earth, etc.

BusterAg said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

When does the Bible turn from allegory to history? After Moses but before David?

---

Does it really matter?

---

Does it really not?

Why did God make his text so dang difficult to parse? Seems like the God of the universe could have made things a little less cryptic.

Just FYI, all those "of the fields" you bolded don't show up in my translation (NIV). May want to check the original languange, strongs, or a concordance to see how important that phrase really is

Quote:

---

Why did God make his text so dang difficult to parse? Seems like the God of the universe could have made things a little less cryptic.

---

I can sypathize with this statement in that there are passages that I've wrestled with for months and years. Some passages like this one have the answers right in front of us, however we often don't take the time to pay attention to the details or read to fast.

What is the greatest commandment and what does the Lord appear to value? To love the Lord your God with all of your soul, strength, and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Also, being able to read Genesis distinguishes and to coomprehend what we read may be another piece of evidence that we are distinct from all other created animals.

NIV is a great translation for reading entire books at a time however it's not a word for word translation like NASB or NKJV.

Right but i mean couldnt he have at least given us one single, internally consistent creation story? Dont other religions have way more clarity in that respect?

Quote:

---

Right but i mean couldnt he have at least given us one single, internally consistent creation story? Dont other religions have way more clarity in that respect?

---

I think He did give us 1 internally consistent story.
Chapter 1: The big picture: Creation of everything
Chapter 2: A small picture of the creation of a specific garden.

Quote:

---

Do other religions have way more clairy in that respect?

---

First, I'm not sure how one could get more clear than the Genesis acct. We also must not judge soley on clarity but what's reasonable with what we observe in the world.

P'an Ku went to work right away making the world, with a hammer in hand. He dug out valleys, made way for rivers, and piled up mountains. But the earth was not complete until passed away. It wasn't until death that his flesh became soil and his bones the rocks. His eyes became the sun and moon and his head the sky. From what was once his sweat and tears was now rain and the fleas that covered his body became mankind.

P'an Ku according to it's own creation story is dead. What would be the reason for worshipping a dead god?

Even looking at big picture and small picture they are inconsistent

Care to elaborate in order to prevent the following?

No they are not...
Yes they are...
No they are not...

If they were actually consistent, we wouldn't still be debating it in the year 2017.

Let's just make it simple. Lay out a timeline of what you think happened. Day one this, day 2 that and so on. Nothing long or complicated just a short list.

Day 1:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

• beginning - time
• heavens - space
• earth - matter

Light
Day 2:
Expanse - funny that we say our universe is 'expanding'
Day 3:
earth (dry land) seas, vegetation
Day 4: Observable today:
"Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also
Day 5:
Sea Animals and birds created after their kind - obersrvable today
Day 6:
Cattle, creepies, man
Day 7:
Rest

DirtDiver said:

---

Day 1:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

• beginning - time
• heavens - space
• earth - matter

Light
Day 2:
*Expanse - funny that we say our universe is 'expanding'
Day 3:
earth (dry land) seas, vegetation
**Day 4: Observable today:
"Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also
Day 5:
***Sea Animals and birds created after their kind - obersrvable today
Day 6:
Cattle, creepies, man
Day 7:
Rest

---

* Yes, funny, since the Bible was originally written in English.
** Yes, made by God in such a way that it can in fact be measured by the humans he created and determined to be very, very old
*** Does this include the swimming and flying dinosaurs that went extinct millions and millions of years ago? Which day were giant reptiles created?.

Quote:

---

* Yes, funny, since the Bible was originally written in English.

---

Just an observation. Not a point of contention as words typically to not change definitions when translated accurately across languages.

Quote:

---

** Yes, made by God in such a way that it can in fact be measured by the humans he created and determined to be very, very old

---

This is off topic and takes away from the conversation at hand. Addressed on the other threads at length. A mature creation is described vs God making seeds, infants, fetus', etc.

Quote:

---

*** Does this include the swimming and flying dinosaurs that went extinct millions and millions of years ago? Which day were giant reptiles created?.

---

This is off topic and takes away from the conversation at hand. Addressed on the other threads at length. If you are now agreeing that there are no inconsistencies between the two accounts then we can move onto these other questions.

So just to be clear, you're saying that the entirety of Adam's creation happened on Day 6. Therefore, the formation of plants in Genesis 1 was for everywhere but the Garden, and the formation of plants in Genesis 2 was just the garden. The fact that land, streams and water are followed by plants in both Genesis 1 Day 3 and Adam's creation in Genesis 2 is just coincidence. Also the fact that animals are created after Adam in Genesis 2 but before humans in Genesis 1 is not contradictory?

And you are able to make all these deductions based on the phrase "of the field" referring to plants in Genesis 2? Just making sure I'm not missing something.

Quote:

---

So just to be clear, you're saying that the entirety of Adam's creation happened on Day 6. Therefore, the formation of plants in Genesis 1 was for everywhere but the Garden, and the formation of plants in Genesis 2 was just the garden. The fact that land, streams and water are followed by plants in both Genesis 1 Day 3 and Adam's creation in Genesis 2 is just coincidence. Also the fact that animals are created after Adam in Genesis 2 but before humans in Genesis 1 is not contradictory?

And you are able to make all these deductions based on the phrase "of the field" referring to plants in Genesis 2? Just making sure I'm not missing something.

---

Chapter 1 is naming days and order of events.
Chapter 2 is not in any sequential order.

Chapter 1 tells us the order of the created animals
Chapter 2 tells us Adams role.

Quote:

---

18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,

---

2 interpretive options:
1: is that animals were created after man in chapter 2
2: that He's just telling us that He created them out of the ground and he brought them to man.

Notice how many sequential words are used in Genesis 1 and how they are not a focal point in Genesis 2. Also notice the context of the message being communicated. Wide picture vs close up picture. Chapter 1 details when he created the animals in relation to man, chapter 2 tells us a snippet of how he made them and what he did with them in relationship to man.

Summary: God creates animals then man. We get insight in chapter 2 how He did it, "out of the ground". Chapter 2 is missing the sequential queues in chapter 1 namely the word "Then"

The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field,

There's no indication that naming all of the animals happened before the creation of woman. It could have, but sequence is not the focus of the account in this chapter.