Where did the fouls of the air come from? The waters or the Earth?
- Thread starter know1
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I cannot get to this on my work computer, but Ken Hamm does a great job with the book of Genesis. Can someone look at this and explain?
My bottom line: I believe in creation by our living God. Are there things that we do not yet understand fully, by all means yes! I think that is where the death part comes in. Humankind used to live for 100's of years, with the "garden incident" we all started to die, physically, mentally, spiritually. Enter: Jesus, to give us life everlasting! I know I can't wait for that time, no more creaky knees, stiff neck, wrenched back.....A new glorious everlasting body for those who choose to believe and receive Jesus in their lives.
Long bottom line...lol
Interested to see thoughts on the link below.
Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?
https://answersingenesis.org › contradictions-in-the-bible
Sep 3, 2010 — The issue that people have with Genesis 2 is that the order of the creation of man, animals, and trees seems to be contrary to the order ...
My bottom line: I believe in creation by our living God. Are there things that we do not yet understand fully, by all means yes! I think that is where the death part comes in. Humankind used to live for 100's of years, with the "garden incident" we all started to die, physically, mentally, spiritually. Enter: Jesus, to give us life everlasting! I know I can't wait for that time, no more creaky knees, stiff neck, wrenched back.....A new glorious everlasting body for those who choose to believe and receive Jesus in their lives.
Long bottom line...lol
Interested to see thoughts on the link below.
Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?
https://answersingenesis.org › contradictions-in-the-bible
Sep 3, 2010 — The issue that people have with Genesis 2 is that the order of the creation of man, animals, and trees seems to be contrary to the order ...
I favor (not closed to more literal interpretations) the idea that God uses evolutionary processes, per His brilliant design, to bring forth life forms of incredible variety, including reasonably intelligent bi-peds. Making Adam's physical form similar, but likely perfect, form plus granting him a "living soul" makes some sense to me. This makes Adam the first of mankind in the kind that is important - children of God.
There is some fossil record supporting evolutionary modeling. It's been obvious to all that only under certain rare circumstances will fossils form.
Darwin was never aware of Mendel's work, which was the only solution to his nagging problem of how traits could be transferred as required for his theory. It took genetics to convert the evolutionists of his day to switch from the other, more popular, models. So it is reasonable that he may have had some negative opinion on his death bed.
Remember, that science isn't about opinions even from the author of a new discovery. Science is self-correcting when more science is employed.
There is a big difference, however, between faith and science. Science has serious self-imposed limits on itself, which keeps it strong within its realm. Thus, faith is something special that transcends science. It is incredibly special to God as it what brings salvation. It may be just as valuable as love.
I'm only clarifying my viewpoints, btw, not trying to sway anyone.
There is some fossil record supporting evolutionary modeling. It's been obvious to all that only under certain rare circumstances will fossils form.
Darwin was never aware of Mendel's work, which was the only solution to his nagging problem of how traits could be transferred as required for his theory. It took genetics to convert the evolutionists of his day to switch from the other, more popular, models. So it is reasonable that he may have had some negative opinion on his death bed.
Remember, that science isn't about opinions even from the author of a new discovery. Science is self-correcting when more science is employed.
There is a big difference, however, between faith and science. Science has serious self-imposed limits on itself, which keeps it strong within its realm. Thus, faith is something special that transcends science. It is incredibly special to God as it what brings salvation. It may be just as valuable as love.
I'm only clarifying my viewpoints, btw, not trying to sway anyone.
Thank you for your response,
Respectfully:
I am by no means denying science. However, evolution is certainly another story. In college I had an assignment, was the flood localized or global? Every society has a history of the flood in their story line. There is scientific and archeological proof of the change of life and of the earth, (carbon dating in science and math can be manipulated to give whatever results the author wants, I've been in those jobs, I don't like lying.) Scientifically if you look geologically at the globe, there is physical evidence to prove the global flood of Genesis. (Gen 7:11 the great deep was broken up.. there is a fault line that circumferences the earth in the depths of the seas). Think of all the dead animals, humans, ALL dead things floating around (Gen 7:21). The waters subsided, ALL the dead things gathers in the high mountain tops, covered in whatever was floating and sinking. This is where Darwin found his theory, too many different bones in one place..hmmm. So many deposits of human, animal remains, possibly where oil reserves are today???
Keep in mind, there is a difference from micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution. Micro, in my thoughts may be changes at the cell level to combat a virus, naturally not man made vaccine. Macro to me is growing wings to fly to the top of the tree.
I am not sure why a just and true God would not leave this story behind, yet leave proof of Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho, King David, and so many other physical pieces and people that proves the Bible to be true.
Interesting article on Sodom and Gomorrah, physical proof, something hot happened there...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericma...smote-by-an-exploding-meteor/?sh=4908c8785c67
I just don't see an evolutionary process in the Bible, the breathed Word of God.
Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law
I just don't see evidence of evolution like there is physical evidence of cities, places and people written about in the Bible.
Maybe you will call me doubting Thomas, then show me primordial ooze turning into us today....God showed us his story in the Bible, why would He leave this out?
I truly hope this is a logical debate and not something that is/will turn to anger, I enjoy debating, just not the hostility and anger some people may have.
Abba, keep us in your arms, safe, give us the wisdom we need to continually You and Your truth. We know that some things we will never know until we are with you, until then keep us safe in your love and grace. Amen
There isn't a harmonizing of them. There are two creation accounts. The first is about early humans that were hunter gatherers, and the second is modern man who were farmers and no surprise Adam would be made to til ground because no one else did that yet.
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
-
1
- Show all
A great article from Answers in Genesis......
Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?
by Tim Chaffey on September 3, 2010; last featured May 16, 2016
Featured in Feedback
Also available in Español
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis.
Genesis 1:1–2:3 provides us with a chronological account of what God did on each of the days during Creation Week. Genesis 2:4–25 zooms in on Day Six and shows some of the events of that day.1 Let’s take a look at what happened on Day Six, according to Genesis 2, and we’ll see there is no discrepancy here.
Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of man.
However, this Hebrew word may also be translated in its pluperfect form. In this case, it would read that God “had formed” these creatures, as some other translations have it (e.g. ESV, NIV, etc.) For example, Genesis 2:19 in the NIV states:
I would recommend a book entitled Nothing But the Truth by Brian Edwards. It explains the issues of translation and inerrancy in good detail, and would address your husband’s questions (also see “Why 66?”).
To automatically assume that this is a contradiction portrays the author of Genesis in a pretty dim light. Was he so inept that he couldn’t keep from contradicting himself in the first two chapters or were these chapters written with two different focuses? Rather than immediately assuming that the writer could not get his facts straight in the first two chapters, one should dig a little deeper (as you have done by asking us) to see if there is a better explanation.
While man and the devil often do attempt to muck up God’s Word, we can have confidence that God’s Word is true and accurate from the very beginning.
In Christ,
Tim Chaffey, AiG-US
Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?
by Tim Chaffey on September 3, 2010; last featured May 16, 2016
Featured in Feedback
Also available in Español
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis.
My husband recently had a discussion with one of his professors regarding Hebrew scriptures in Genesis. My husband has concluded that because there seems to be contradition between the order of creation in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 that the Bible is not flawless. I do not share his conclusion and would like to have an answer for him. The scriptures in question are Genesis 1:1-2:3 vs. Genesis 2:4-22.
This is a common argument used against the traditional understanding of Genesis (i.e., God created everything in six normal-length days approximately 6,000 years ago). This argument attempts to show that inconsistencies exist between the first two chapters in the Bible. Critics and skeptics use it in their efforts to show the Bible cannot be trusted. Some Christians who believe in billions of years use it in trying to show that these chapters should not be understood in their plain sense. However, the argument is based on a misunderstanding of Genesis 2.Genesis 1:1–2:3 provides us with a chronological account of what God did on each of the days during Creation Week. Genesis 2:4–25 zooms in on Day Six and shows some of the events of that day.1 Let’s take a look at what happened on Day Six, according to Genesis 2, and we’ll see there is no discrepancy here.
- Adam is created (Genesis 2:7)
- Garden of Eden created (Genesis 2:8–9)
- Description of river system in Eden (Genesis 2:10–14)
- Adam put in Garden and given instructions (Genesis 2:15–17)
- Adam names some of the kinds of animals (Genesis 2:18–20)
- God creates Eve (Genesis 2:21–22)
- Description of Adam, Eve, and marriage (Genesis 2:23–25)
Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of man.
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)
Following the creation of man, Genesis 2:9 mentions that God created trees, including the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9)
Then Genesis 2:19 mentions the creation of certain land animals.Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. (Genesis 2:19)
At first glance this seems to be a contradiction because Genesis 1 has the animals and trees created prior to the creation of man; however, both issues can be resolved by an understanding of the original language and the translation process.2 The Hebrew word for formed in both passages is yatsar. The New King James Version (quoted above) translates the verb in its perfect form.However, this Hebrew word may also be translated in its pluperfect form. In this case, it would read that God “had formed” these creatures, as some other translations have it (e.g. ESV, NIV, etc.) For example, Genesis 2:19 in the NIV states:
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them. (emphasis mine)
This rendering eliminates any problem with the chronology because it refers to what God had already done earlier in Creation Week. This would mean that the plants (Genesis 2:9) and the animals (Genesis 2:19) had already been formed by God earlier in Creation Week. William Tyndale was the first to translate an English Bible directly from the original languages,3 and He also translated the verb in its pluperfect form.And after that the Lord God had made of the earth all manner beasts of the field, and all manner fowls of the air, he brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them. And as Adam called all manner living beasts: even so are their names. (Tyndale, Genesis 2:19)
(For more information on this topic, please see “Two Creation Accounts?”)He has claimed to be a believer for 10 years, but now believes that man has mucked up the Word of God and that the Bible is not completely accurate and has flaws. Could you help me?
This seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which is clearly spelled out in our statement of faith.The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science. (emphasis mine)
It is important to notice that inerrancy only applies to the original autographs (manuscripts). It does not extend to every copy and translation. As a result of this misunderstanding, people have sometimes come across an error in one of the translations and mistakenly assumed that the Bible must contain errors. In truth, the error was made by either a translation committee or a scribe responsible for copying the manuscript.I would recommend a book entitled Nothing But the Truth by Brian Edwards. It explains the issues of translation and inerrancy in good detail, and would address your husband’s questions (also see “Why 66?”).
To automatically assume that this is a contradiction portrays the author of Genesis in a pretty dim light. Was he so inept that he couldn’t keep from contradicting himself in the first two chapters or were these chapters written with two different focuses? Rather than immediately assuming that the writer could not get his facts straight in the first two chapters, one should dig a little deeper (as you have done by asking us) to see if there is a better explanation.
While man and the devil often do attempt to muck up God’s Word, we can have confidence that God’s Word is true and accurate from the very beginning.
In Christ,
Tim Chaffey, AiG-US
-
1
- Show all
Hi, Shakey. Thanks for your response. I hope you won't mind me clarifying my view point of these difficult topics. I am open to change, of course.
I tend to view addressing science in the general sense as "mainstream science". Some science is not mainstream and some is ATM (Against The Mainstream).
I would view evolutionary science as mainstream. To say it is wrong, even if one accepts microevolution, is regarded as ATM. ATM doesn't mean, however, it is necessarily wrong, and in some cases, more evidence could make it mainstream. BBT, for instance, was ATM originally. [The mainstream world of science was stuck on a static universe, and rejected the idea of an expanding one even if the math suggested it. The priest Lemaitre, who introduced it, had his work ignored until he stepped-up and put it in the proper hands.] Darwin's model was also rejected for decades until genetics was understood.
Carbon dating is only accurate to several thousand years, perhaps around 5k or a little more, IIRC. Other radioactive decay products especially confined ones (in resins) seem to be very effective for the extremely distant past.
In science, on method of obtaining object evidence (facts) is far more reliable if other methods and be employed to corroborate their reliability. Dendrochronology, ice core samples, etc. do a lot to support, not counter, most of the results from dating even older periods. Their degree of accuracy doesn't seem to be in great debate. Or is there solid evidence to hold significant doubt of their results?
Floods are very real, even major ones. The evidence seems to be in great doubt that it was global. This wouldn't change the story of Noah, at least for me, since an account of what was actually observed might indeed suggest that everywhere was water, but not for all 25,000 miles around the globe. Elevations may have risen and dropped due to crustal shifts, etc. The age of the Grand Canyon being young has been debunked using objective evidence, not just opinions.
I don't think fossils are primarily found atop mountains, so what I'm missing your point, I think. Significant understanding of fossils came from a quarry superintendent, Smith, who noted the difference in types of fossils with depth of cut.
Darwin and others well-understood that fossils are very rare as too often they simply decompose. His theory only had limited support from the fossil evidence. This has improved with time.
Yes, this distinction is important. When Lord Kelvin, in Darwin's day, calculated the age of the Earth to about 100 million years -- this was based on the temperature gradient found in deep mines -- Darwin called him an "odious specter". Darwin understood that 100 million years of micro changes (ie varieties) is too short to become a new, perhaps similar, species. It was Lyell's geological book that helped him realize the Earth was older. But this is another reason Darwin's theory struggled in the past. Kelvin was not aware of extra heating by both convection and radioactive decay. Rutherford was in England giving a speech, with the great Kelvin in attendance, noting that Kelvin was wrong. I wish I could have seen that one.
I often wonder that if the Bible were more scientific, beyond just archeological supporting evidence, then more believers would abound. But, faith is something, IMO, incredibly special. Just a mental likelihood viewpoint is not what is desired.
] All theories are "only" theories. Understanding how powerful they are, or are not, is what is important. Engineering school uses only the theories that present laws they can use. But scientific theories are very special; they require objective evidence as their basis and objective tests of their predictions. "Theories" of biblical interpretations are not scientific ones, usually, because objective tests are not possible, we have to use reason and logic (e.g. hermeneutics) to reach our subjective conclusions. This explains so many different opinions. This is also true for philosophy.
If I may, I like to think using the metaphor of science as work that is done on an island. Religion and philosophy having residence in the vast sea. There is a place where they both meet (shore and estuaries) that affect one another. The overlap can make for either turbulence or serenity.
A city would be something factual that either supports or diminishes whatever theory might address them. Evolution is a broad and powerful theory, so it makes many testable predictions. Every theory must have predictions that can be tested, though sometimes in principal. The Multiverse idea, for example, is not a theory since no one can produce anything close to a test for another universe somewhere beyond. Of course, that doesn't stop its proponents from abusing the claim that it is a theory.
[quoteMaybe you will call me doubting Thomas, then show me primordial ooze turning into us today....God showed us his story in the Bible, why would He leave this out?[/quote] It is interesting that no one has every advanced abiogenesis to the level of hypothesis or theory. Both require specific tests and no such test exists, so far. So, IMO, abiogenesis is not yet a true theory, but it is a powerful idea.
I can't explain why God would use evolution as I think he likely has, but I have some ideas on it. Many were convinced God would not place stars so far away that if the Earth did move around the Sun that we wouldn't notice the change (i.e. parallax). Venus was placed by Ptolemy between us and the Sun because God wouldn't waste the space by putting outside the Sun. We don't really appreciate the cultural climate of the not too distant past. Teleology ruled the day and purpose was needed to support any argument, so a lot claims of what God did or didn't do were erroneously made.
One of the great quotes from Galileo is, "It is clear from a churchman who has been elevated to a very eminent position that the Holy Spirit’s intention is to teach us how to go to Heaven, and not how the heavens go."
Same here. As I've stated elsewhere that I think YEC folks, not that you're one, are often the best folks because faith is that much more meaningful and important to them. It's rare that a love-based faith will exhibit hate. However, in stronger debates at dinner with a YEC friend, we are subject to being pulled away by our wives.
Amen.
I tend to view addressing science in the general sense as "mainstream science". Some science is not mainstream and some is ATM (Against The Mainstream).
I would view evolutionary science as mainstream. To say it is wrong, even if one accepts microevolution, is regarded as ATM. ATM doesn't mean, however, it is necessarily wrong, and in some cases, more evidence could make it mainstream. BBT, for instance, was ATM originally. [The mainstream world of science was stuck on a static universe, and rejected the idea of an expanding one even if the math suggested it. The priest Lemaitre, who introduced it, had his work ignored until he stepped-up and put it in the proper hands.] Darwin's model was also rejected for decades until genetics was understood.
Carbon dating is only accurate to several thousand years, perhaps around 5k or a little more, IIRC. Other radioactive decay products especially confined ones (in resins) seem to be very effective for the extremely distant past.
In science, on method of obtaining object evidence (facts) is far more reliable if other methods and be employed to corroborate their reliability. Dendrochronology, ice core samples, etc. do a lot to support, not counter, most of the results from dating even older periods. Their degree of accuracy doesn't seem to be in great debate. Or is there solid evidence to hold significant doubt of their results?
Floods are very real, even major ones. The evidence seems to be in great doubt that it was global. This wouldn't change the story of Noah, at least for me, since an account of what was actually observed might indeed suggest that everywhere was water, but not for all 25,000 miles around the globe. Elevations may have risen and dropped due to crustal shifts, etc. The age of the Grand Canyon being young has been debunked using objective evidence, not just opinions.
I don't think fossils are primarily found atop mountains, so what I'm missing your point, I think. Significant understanding of fossils came from a quarry superintendent, Smith, who noted the difference in types of fossils with depth of cut.
Darwin and others well-understood that fossils are very rare as too often they simply decompose. His theory only had limited support from the fossil evidence. This has improved with time.
Yes, this distinction is important. When Lord Kelvin, in Darwin's day, calculated the age of the Earth to about 100 million years -- this was based on the temperature gradient found in deep mines -- Darwin called him an "odious specter". Darwin understood that 100 million years of micro changes (ie varieties) is too short to become a new, perhaps similar, species. It was Lyell's geological book that helped him realize the Earth was older. But this is another reason Darwin's theory struggled in the past. Kelvin was not aware of extra heating by both convection and radioactive decay. Rutherford was in England giving a speech, with the great Kelvin in attendance, noting that Kelvin was wrong. I wish I could have seen that one.
I often wonder that if the Bible were more scientific, beyond just archeological supporting evidence, then more believers would abound. But, faith is something, IMO, incredibly special. Just a mental likelihood viewpoint is not what is desired.
] All theories are "only" theories. Understanding how powerful they are, or are not, is what is important. Engineering school uses only the theories that present laws they can use. But scientific theories are very special; they require objective evidence as their basis and objective tests of their predictions. "Theories" of biblical interpretations are not scientific ones, usually, because objective tests are not possible, we have to use reason and logic (e.g. hermeneutics) to reach our subjective conclusions. This explains so many different opinions. This is also true for philosophy.
If I may, I like to think using the metaphor of science as work that is done on an island. Religion and philosophy having residence in the vast sea. There is a place where they both meet (shore and estuaries) that affect one another. The overlap can make for either turbulence or serenity.
A city would be something factual that either supports or diminishes whatever theory might address them. Evolution is a broad and powerful theory, so it makes many testable predictions. Every theory must have predictions that can be tested, though sometimes in principal. The Multiverse idea, for example, is not a theory since no one can produce anything close to a test for another universe somewhere beyond. Of course, that doesn't stop its proponents from abusing the claim that it is a theory.
[quoteMaybe you will call me doubting Thomas, then show me primordial ooze turning into us today....God showed us his story in the Bible, why would He leave this out?[/quote] It is interesting that no one has every advanced abiogenesis to the level of hypothesis or theory. Both require specific tests and no such test exists, so far. So, IMO, abiogenesis is not yet a true theory, but it is a powerful idea.
I can't explain why God would use evolution as I think he likely has, but I have some ideas on it. Many were convinced God would not place stars so far away that if the Earth did move around the Sun that we wouldn't notice the change (i.e. parallax). Venus was placed by Ptolemy between us and the Sun because God wouldn't waste the space by putting outside the Sun. We don't really appreciate the cultural climate of the not too distant past. Teleology ruled the day and purpose was needed to support any argument, so a lot claims of what God did or didn't do were erroneously made.
One of the great quotes from Galileo is, "It is clear from a churchman who has been elevated to a very eminent position that the Holy Spirit’s intention is to teach us how to go to Heaven, and not how the heavens go."
Same here. As I've stated elsewhere that I think YEC folks, not that you're one, are often the best folks because faith is that much more meaningful and important to them. It's rare that a love-based faith will exhibit hate. However, in stronger debates at dinner with a YEC friend, we are subject to being pulled away by our wives.
Amen.
Yes, that is plausible.
There are estimated to be over 1 million asteroids that are between 30 meters and 140 meters in size. Some are NEOs - Near Earth Objects. About 1/3 of the known objects are NEOs.
The average frequency of impact for a 30 m object is one every 100 years. These, if porous like the Tunguska meteor, will not leave a crater. The 140 m objects will leave a crater. These impact about once every 10,000 years.
More at Hazard by the Number. [I strangely am singing a heartache song.]
There are estimated to be over 1 million asteroids that are between 30 meters and 140 meters in size. Some are NEOs - Near Earth Objects. About 1/3 of the known objects are NEOs.
The average frequency of impact for a 30 m object is one every 100 years. These, if porous like the Tunguska meteor, will not leave a crater. The 140 m objects will leave a crater. These impact about once every 10,000 years.
More at Hazard by the Number. [I strangely am singing a heartache song.
]
Imo i believe they were formed in the waters as well. As we know its like a second nature for birds to dive seamlessly into water or settle on it naturally. Its like a second home to them. Also notice that both fish and birds are the only 2 types of creatures on this earth whose flesh/meat are white, as if they originated from the same substance almost. Just my opinion.
lol, if you don't like what the bible says, just change it! No one has the right to change the form that is in the manuscripts. He is also wrong on what form the verb is in as it's imperfect not perfect.
The Aspect/Form (or verb tense as we say in English) is in the imperfect which means it was not a completed action but one taking place currently in the verse so God indeed was creating animals out of the ground right there in front of Adam.
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Some ignore this verse proving there were no animals in the newly planted garden so God would make them for Adam which we see happening in the next verse.
He also doesn't comment on why birds are created from water in Gen 1 but birds in Gen 2 are created from the ground. Clearly not the same creating in both.
The Aspect/Form (or verb tense as we say in English) is in the imperfect which means it was not a completed action but one taking place currently in the verse so God indeed was creating animals out of the ground right there in front of Adam.
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Some ignore this verse proving there were no animals in the newly planted garden so God would make them for Adam which we see happening in the next verse.
He also doesn't comment on why birds are created from water in Gen 1 but birds in Gen 2 are created from the ground. Clearly not the same creating in both.
Hi, Shakey. Thanks for your response. I hope you won't mind me clarifying my view point of these difficult topics. I am open to change, of course.
I tend to view addressing science in the general sense as "mainstream science". Some science is not mainstream and some is ATM (Against The Mainstream).
I would view evolutionary science as mainstream. To say it is wrong, even if one accepts microevolution, is regarded as ATM. ATM doesn't mean, however, it is necessarily wrong, and in some cases, more evidence could make it mainstream. BBT, for instance, was ATM originally. [The mainstream world of science was stuck on a static universe, and rejected the idea of an expanding one even if the math suggested it. The priest Lemaitre, who introduced it, had his work ignored until he stepped-up and put it in the proper hands.] Darwin's model was also rejected for decades until genetics was understood.
Carbon dating is only accurate to several thousand years, perhaps around 5k or a little more, IIRC. Other radioactive decay products especially confined ones (in resins) seem to be very effective for the extremely distant past.
In science, on method of obtaining object evidence (facts) is far more reliable if other methods and be employed to corroborate their reliability. Dendrochronology, ice core samples, etc. do a lot to support, not counter, most of the results from dating even older periods. Their degree of accuracy doesn't seem to be in great debate. Or is there solid evidence to hold significant doubt of their results?
Floods are very real, even major ones. The evidence seems to be in great doubt that it was global. This wouldn't change the story of Noah, at least for me, since an account of what was actually observed might indeed suggest that everywhere was water, but not for all 25,000 miles around the globe. Elevations may have risen and dropped due to crustal shifts, etc. The age of the Grand Canyon being young has been debunked using objective evidence, not just opinions.
I don't think fossils are primarily found atop mountains, so what I'm missing your point, I think. Significant understanding of fossils came from a quarry superintendent, Smith, who noted the difference in types of fossils with depth of cut.
Darwin and others well-understood that fossils are very rare as too often they simply decompose. His theory only had limited support from the fossil evidence. This has improved with time.
Yes, this distinction is important. When Lord Kelvin, in Darwin's day, calculated the age of the Earth to about 100 million years -- this was based on the temperature gradient found in deep mines -- Darwin called him an "odious specter". Darwin understood that 100 million years of micro changes (ie varieties) is too short to become a new, perhaps similar, species. It was Lyell's geological book that helped him realize the Earth was older. But this is another reason Darwin's theory struggled in the past. Kelvin was not aware of extra heating by both convection and radioactive decay. Rutherford was in England giving a speech, with the great Kelvin in attendance, noting that Kelvin was wrong. I wish I could have seen that one.
I often wonder that if the Bible were more scientific, beyond just archeological supporting evidence, then more believers would abound. But, faith is something, IMO, incredibly special. Just a mental likelihood viewpoint is not what is desired.
] All theories are "only" theories. Understanding how powerful they are, or are not, is what is important. Engineering school uses only the theories that present laws they can use. But scientific theories are very special; they require objective evidence as their basis and objective tests of their predictions. "Theories" of biblical interpretations are not scientific ones, usually, because objective tests are not possible, we have to use reason and logic (e.g. hermeneutics) to reach our subjective conclusions. This explains so many different opinions. This is also true for philosophy.
If I may, I like to think using the metaphor of science as work that is done on an island. Religion and philosophy having residence in the vast sea. There is a place where they both meet (shore and estuaries) that affect one another. The overlap can make for either turbulence or serenity.
A city would be something factual that either supports or diminishes whatever theory might address them. Evolution is a broad and powerful theory, so it makes many testable predictions. Every theory must have predictions that can be tested, though sometimes in principal. The Multiverse idea, for example, is not a theory since no one can produce anything close to a test for another universe somewhere beyond. Of course, that doesn't stop its proponents from abusing the claim that it is a theory.
[quoteMaybe you will call me doubting Thomas, then show me primordial ooze turning into us today....God showed us his story in the Bible, why would He leave this out?
I tend to view addressing science in the general sense as "mainstream science". Some science is not mainstream and some is ATM (Against The Mainstream).
I would view evolutionary science as mainstream. To say it is wrong, even if one accepts microevolution, is regarded as ATM. ATM doesn't mean, however, it is necessarily wrong, and in some cases, more evidence could make it mainstream. BBT, for instance, was ATM originally. [The mainstream world of science was stuck on a static universe, and rejected the idea of an expanding one even if the math suggested it. The priest Lemaitre, who introduced it, had his work ignored until he stepped-up and put it in the proper hands.] Darwin's model was also rejected for decades until genetics was understood.
Carbon dating is only accurate to several thousand years, perhaps around 5k or a little more, IIRC. Other radioactive decay products especially confined ones (in resins) seem to be very effective for the extremely distant past.
In science, on method of obtaining object evidence (facts) is far more reliable if other methods and be employed to corroborate their reliability. Dendrochronology, ice core samples, etc. do a lot to support, not counter, most of the results from dating even older periods. Their degree of accuracy doesn't seem to be in great debate. Or is there solid evidence to hold significant doubt of their results?
Floods are very real, even major ones. The evidence seems to be in great doubt that it was global. This wouldn't change the story of Noah, at least for me, since an account of what was actually observed might indeed suggest that everywhere was water, but not for all 25,000 miles around the globe. Elevations may have risen and dropped due to crustal shifts, etc. The age of the Grand Canyon being young has been debunked using objective evidence, not just opinions.
I don't think fossils are primarily found atop mountains, so what I'm missing your point, I think. Significant understanding of fossils came from a quarry superintendent, Smith, who noted the difference in types of fossils with depth of cut.
Darwin and others well-understood that fossils are very rare as too often they simply decompose. His theory only had limited support from the fossil evidence. This has improved with time.
Yes, this distinction is important. When Lord Kelvin, in Darwin's day, calculated the age of the Earth to about 100 million years -- this was based on the temperature gradient found in deep mines -- Darwin called him an "odious specter". Darwin understood that 100 million years of micro changes (ie varieties) is too short to become a new, perhaps similar, species. It was Lyell's geological book that helped him realize the Earth was older. But this is another reason Darwin's theory struggled in the past. Kelvin was not aware of extra heating by both convection and radioactive decay. Rutherford was in England giving a speech, with the great Kelvin in attendance, noting that Kelvin was wrong. I wish I could have seen that one.
I often wonder that if the Bible were more scientific, beyond just archeological supporting evidence, then more believers would abound. But, faith is something, IMO, incredibly special. Just a mental likelihood viewpoint is not what is desired.
] All theories are "only" theories. Understanding how powerful they are, or are not, is what is important. Engineering school uses only the theories that present laws they can use. But scientific theories are very special; they require objective evidence as their basis and objective tests of their predictions. "Theories" of biblical interpretations are not scientific ones, usually, because objective tests are not possible, we have to use reason and logic (e.g. hermeneutics) to reach our subjective conclusions. This explains so many different opinions. This is also true for philosophy.
If I may, I like to think using the metaphor of science as work that is done on an island. Religion and philosophy having residence in the vast sea. There is a place where they both meet (shore and estuaries) that affect one another. The overlap can make for either turbulence or serenity.
A city would be something factual that either supports or diminishes whatever theory might address them. Evolution is a broad and powerful theory, so it makes many testable predictions. Every theory must have predictions that can be tested, though sometimes in principal. The Multiverse idea, for example, is not a theory since no one can produce anything close to a test for another universe somewhere beyond. Of course, that doesn't stop its proponents from abusing the claim that it is a theory.
[quoteMaybe you will call me doubting Thomas, then show me primordial ooze turning into us today....God showed us his story in the Bible, why would He leave this out?
I can't explain why God would use evolution as I think he likely has, but I have some ideas on it. Many were convinced God would not place stars so far away that if the Earth did move around the Sun that we wouldn't notice the change (i.e. parallax). Venus was placed by Ptolemy between us and the Sun because God wouldn't waste the space by putting outside the Sun. We don't really appreciate the cultural climate of the not too distant past. Teleology ruled the day and purpose was needed to support any argument, so a lot claims of what God did or didn't do were erroneously made.
One of the great quotes from Galileo is, "It is clear from a churchman who has been elevated to a very eminent position that the Holy Spirit’s intention is to teach us how to go to Heaven, and not how the heavens go."
Same here. As I've stated elsewhere that I think YEC folks, not that you're one, are often the best folks because faith is that much more meaningful and important to them. It's rare that a love-based faith will exhibit hate. However, in stronger debates at dinner with a YEC friend, we are subject to being pulled away by our wives.
Amen.[/QUOTE]
Excellent, I like that this can be an exchange of thoughts and ideas w/o "getting up in yo face" lol. My references are obviously the Bible, breathed word of God; The Genesis Solution by Ken Ham and Paul Taylor; Answers in Genesis web site. I have others but not with me right now. The portion of The Genesis Solution page 10, Is This an Issue of Science VS Religion?
...The media led many to believe this is a battle between "religion" and "science." This is one of the most widely believed misconceptions of our day! Please note 3 simple points: #1 Science cannot directly deal with the past. Anyone who truly understands what science is about knows that it has to do with what we can deal with in the present-what we can observe, what we can repeatedly test. The rocks, fossils, and other forms of physical evidence that scientist are now studying are in the present, not the past. Scientists cannot go back in time to directly examine the animals and rocks of long ago. They cannot personally observe the past or test it. Scientists are limited to testing and observing things as they exist now..the present. #2Evolution is a belief. Evolutionary theory is a series of beliefs about the past that evolutionists use to try to explain facts that are observable in the present. No scientists can back in time to witness or examine the ancient world of dinosaurs and the early days of mankind. Both Creation and Evolution provide ways for explaining the past that are beyond direct scientific examination and verification. Ultimately, both Creation and Evolution are beliefs. #3 Evolution is a religious belief. Despite the growing evidence against evolutionary theory, many continue to believe in it with great fervency and faith. Since "religion" can be defined as a concept or system of belief that is held to with ardor and faith, ultimately they are both religious views concerning life. Therefore, the conflict is really a battle between two religious beliefs. When the gov't tells Christians that they cannot provide evidence for Creationism in school "because it's religion" but they can teach "science", what are they really saying? "We cannot allow Christianity (Creation) to be taught in public schools; we replaced it with another religion-Secular Humanism (Evolution)
I know I stepped off of our last post/discussion, I think we can agree that they are a belief and that science as we know today cannot prove either one. However I will still go to the fossil records and ask for a "ooze" to fish to land dweller to man fossil record. Yes there are certain circumstances for fossils to be there. But if this happened on such a global scale, there has to be physical proof.
Looking forward to your reply.....
#1 I love the Word of God, I will never add to or subtract from it. I will study the translations and apply to the text to gain understanding. This was an article that I feel explains there is no fault in the time line of creation. Bottom line is God said it and it happened! Each day has it's creation, I think we can agree on that. I'm not afraid to say that I do not understand ALL of Gods Word, however, one day we will ALL understand His words. For now we can debate where and when He created what, bottom line is HE DIT IT! He is our creator, our God, our Savior. He sent his Son to be the ultimate and last sacrifice for us as long as we believe on Him and receive Him in our hearts and lives, we are the Children of God. That's something we can agree on, yes?
Genesis 2:19 in the NIV states:
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them. (emphasis mine)
Genesis 1:1–2:3 provides us with a chronological account of what God did on each of the days during Creation Week. Genesis 2:4–25 zooms in on Day Six and shows some of the events of that day.1 Let’s take a look at what happened on Day Six, according to Genesis 2, and we’ll see there is no discrepancy here.
- Adam is created (Genesis 2:7)
- Garden of Eden created (Genesis 2:8–9)
- Description of river system in Eden (Genesis 2:10–14)
- Adam put in Garden and given instructions (Genesis 2:15–17)
- Adam names some of the kinds of animals (Genesis 2:18–20)
- God creates Eve (Genesis 2:21–22)
- Description of Adam, Eve, and marriage (Genesis 2:23–25)
Yes, that is plausible.
There are estimated to be over 1 million asteroids that are between 30 meters and 140 meters in size. Some are NEOs - Near Earth Objects. About 1/3 of the known objects are NEOs.
The average frequency of impact for a 30 m object is one every 100 years. These, if porous like the Tunguska meteor, will not leave a crater. The 140 m objects will leave a crater. These impact about once every 10,000 years.
More at Hazard by the Number. [I strangely am singing a heartache song.]
There are estimated to be over 1 million asteroids that are between 30 meters and 140 meters in size. Some are NEOs - Near Earth Objects. About 1/3 of the known objects are NEOs.
The average frequency of impact for a 30 m object is one every 100 years. These, if porous like the Tunguska meteor, will not leave a crater. The 140 m objects will leave a crater. These impact about once every 10,000 years.
More at Hazard by the Number. [I strangely am singing a heartache song.
]
The NIV is wrong. These are right, and are true to the form of the verb written in the manuscripts:
Genesis 2:19
(ABP+) AndG2532 God shapedG4111 G3588 G2316 yetG2089 from out ofG1537 theG3588 earthG1093 allG3956 theG3588 wild beastsG2342 of theG3588 field,G68 andG2532 allG3956 theG3588 winged creaturesG4071 of theG3588 heaven.G3772 AndG2532 he ledG71 themG1473 toG4314 G3588 Adam,G* to beholdG1492 whatG5100 he would callG2564 them.G1473 AndG2532 allG3956 whatG3739 everG302 [2calledG2564 3itG1473 1Adam] --G* [2lifeG5590 1 the living],G2198 thisG3778 was the nameG3686 to it.G1473
(ASV) And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(BBE) And from the earth the Lord God made every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and took them to the man to see what names he would give them: and whatever name he gave to any living thing, that was its name.
(Brenton) And God formed yet farther out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the sky, and he brought them to Adam, to see what he would call them, and whatever Adam called any living creature, that was the name of it.
(CEV) So the LORD took some soil and made animals and birds. He brought them to the man to see what names he would give each of them. Then the man named the tame animals and the birds and the wild animals. That's how they got their names. None of these was the right kind of partner for the man.
(ERV) The LORD God used dust from the ground and made every animal in the fields and every bird in the air. He brought all these animals to the man, and the man gave them all a name.
(GNB) So he took some soil from the ground and formed all the animals and all the birds. Then he brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and that is how they all got their names.
(ISV) After the LORD God formed from the ground every wild animal and every bird that flies, he brought each of them to the man to see what he would call it. Whatever the man called each living creature became its name.
(JPS) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof.
(JUB) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living soul, that was its name.
(KJV) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(KJVA) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(KJV-BRG) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(LITV) And Jehovah God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the heavens out of the ground. And He brought them to the man, to see what he would call it. And all which the man might call it, each living soul, that was its name.
(MKJV) And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every animal of the field and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
(RV) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(TS2009) And from the ground ???? Elohim formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called each living being, that was its name.
(WEB) Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature became its name.
(WEBA) Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature became its name.
(Webster) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was its name.
(YLT) And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that is its name.
Genesis 2:19
(ABP+) AndG2532 God shapedG4111 G3588 G2316 yetG2089 from out ofG1537 theG3588 earthG1093 allG3956 theG3588 wild beastsG2342 of theG3588 field,G68 andG2532 allG3956 theG3588 winged creaturesG4071 of theG3588 heaven.G3772 AndG2532 he ledG71 themG1473 toG4314 G3588 Adam,G* to beholdG1492 whatG5100 he would callG2564 them.G1473 AndG2532 allG3956 whatG3739 everG302 [2calledG2564 3itG1473 1Adam] --G* [2lifeG5590 1 the living],G2198 thisG3778 was the nameG3686 to it.G1473
(ASV) And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(BBE) And from the earth the Lord God made every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and took them to the man to see what names he would give them: and whatever name he gave to any living thing, that was its name.
(Brenton) And God formed yet farther out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the sky, and he brought them to Adam, to see what he would call them, and whatever Adam called any living creature, that was the name of it.
(CEV) So the LORD took some soil and made animals and birds. He brought them to the man to see what names he would give each of them. Then the man named the tame animals and the birds and the wild animals. That's how they got their names. None of these was the right kind of partner for the man.
(ERV) The LORD God used dust from the ground and made every animal in the fields and every bird in the air. He brought all these animals to the man, and the man gave them all a name.
(GNB) So he took some soil from the ground and formed all the animals and all the birds. Then he brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and that is how they all got their names.
(ISV) After the LORD God formed from the ground every wild animal and every bird that flies, he brought each of them to the man to see what he would call it. Whatever the man called each living creature became its name.
(JPS) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof.
(JUB) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living soul, that was its name.
(KJV) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(KJVA) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(KJV-BRG) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(LITV) And Jehovah God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the heavens out of the ground. And He brought them to the man, to see what he would call it. And all which the man might call it, each living soul, that was its name.
(MKJV) And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every animal of the field and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
(RV) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(TS2009) And from the ground ???? Elohim formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called each living being, that was its name.
(WEB) Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature became its name.
(WEBA) Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature became its name.
(Webster) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was its name.
(YLT) And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that is its name.
Can we not agree that each day has it's creation, instead of "nope that's all wrong, this is how it is, no if's and's or buts, this is it , you're wrong!" Day 1: let there be light, and it was good. Day 2: and God called the firmament heaven. and the evening and the morning were the second day. Day 3: God separated the dry land and the sea, brought forth grass, herb, fruit trees and seeds, God saw that it was good. Day 4: two great lights, one for day one for night, set the stars and the two great lights in the firmament, and God saw that it was good. Day 5: whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after there kind. God saw that it was good. Day 6: let the earth bring forth the living creatures after his kind, and God said let us make man in our image...and it was good.
Chapter 1 give the impression of fowl out of the water along with every living creature that moves.
Chapter 2 I see gives more detail, man from the dust of the earth, out of the ground God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air.
I see we are in agreement with your text above, the funny question is "Did fowl come from the water or the ground?"
So, could we surmise that day 5 was the creation of all sea creatures, the flying fish was mentioned in a previous post, stingrays look to be winged creations.
I can't help but think that Chapter 2 simply goes into more detail on Gods creation.
I am referencing my KJV, published by World Bible publishers, given to me in 1987, funny not finding a publishing date anywhere.
Have a blessed evening, may God our creator and savior keep us safe in his arms tonight.
What chp 2 says does not match what is said in chp 1. That's the issue. Here's another example:
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
This is the 6th day. What does God make first? Land animals!
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Now man is made and has dominion over the animals that were made first.
Gen 1: animals created BEFORE man.
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
God sees no man that would be for tilling the ground, farming. Historically mankind were not farmers but were primarily hunter-gatherers which modern Archeology has also documented. The fact that Adam is a farmer means he is a more modern type of human.
Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And he makes a man, alone. No female is created.
Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
He is in charge of the garden of Eden, working alone.
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
God decides Adam needs help. Adam is alone! No animals are there!
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Genesis 1, animals created before man.
Genesis 2, man created before animals.
Obviously these are two different creation accounts. Gen 2 is a smaller creation account in a smaller place where as Gen 1 details a much larger creation account in a larger area. Also take note that there is no mention of fish being created in Gen 2 because fish were already created in Gen 1.
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
This is the 6th day. What does God make first? Land animals!
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Now man is made and has dominion over the animals that were made first.
Gen 1: animals created BEFORE man.
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
God sees no man that would be for tilling the ground, farming. Historically mankind were not farmers but were primarily hunter-gatherers which modern Archeology has also documented. The fact that Adam is a farmer means he is a more modern type of human.
Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And he makes a man, alone. No female is created.
Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
He is in charge of the garden of Eden, working alone.
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
God decides Adam needs help. Adam is alone! No animals are there!
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Genesis 1, animals created before man.
Genesis 2, man created before animals.
Obviously these are two different creation accounts. Gen 2 is a smaller creation account in a smaller place where as Gen 1 details a much larger creation account in a larger area. Also take note that there is no mention of fish being created in Gen 2 because fish were already created in Gen 1.