Where did the fouls of the air come from? The waters or the Earth?

Gen. 1 creation order: trees, animals, man and woman at the same time.


Gen. 2 creation order: one man, garden with trees, animals, then one woman.


For simplification ONLY, I will refer to the events after the 7th day as "8th day".

4th day- trees created
5th day- fowls of the air created out of the waters before man and before land animals
6th day- land animals created before man

8th day- man created before garden and trees
8th day- man created before animals
8th day- fowls created at the same time as land animals, from the ground not the waters


6th day- male and female created at same time
8th day- man created first, then animals, then a female is created


6th day- more than just a farmer
8th day- just a farmer


6th day- told to have dominion over everything on the earth and the sea, and to multiply
8th day- in charge of maintaining the garden in Eden only. No mention of fish or the sea and no mention of multiplying.


6th day- fruit bearing trees created before man
8th day- fruit bearing trees created after man

I will not discount anything you mentioned, ALL is the word of God. However, I see we are at an impasse on our interpretations of Chapter 1 and 2.

We can agree that our God is the creator of the heavens and earth and ALL living creatures there within.

I read chapter 2 as a closer look on chapter 1.

From chapter 1: yes man is created after all other creatures on day 6.

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 2, I read it and see more details filled in for support of chapter 1.
To me 2:19 is backing up 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. 1:26-"And God said, let us make man in our image.... 1:27 - "So god created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them. 1:31- "And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

I will still stay with my reading the Chapter 2 is a re-account with more detail supporting chapter 1.
I know we will not see eye to eye on this, it is simply how I am reading it and how I see it from other commentaries and studies I have done.

Abba, Father, I pray for your wisdom in your word, your guidance in our lives. Let us put on the whole armor that we may withstand the enemy, living for you in the love that you have shown to us that we may show and share to one another and as a witness to those who are in need of such love. Amen

Oddly enough....I don't see mention of the 8th day? 7th day, a day of blessing and day of rest? The 8th day???
Just humor here but KISS has a song, And on the 8th day God created Rock and Roll....just chuckle..it's humor....

Peldom10 disagreeing with Scripture yet once again.

8th day = day of circumcision Pentecost is also a day eight.

Here (<= link ) is an interesting page on the Biblical significance of the number 8

That's understandable, just not seeing it in the Genesis account in the creation time line.

Yes, it is a devious way to afflict those of faith.

Yes. But retrodictive science can be very powerful. BBT (Big Bang Theory) became mainstream because the retrodictive predictions were discovered, especially the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).

Yes, but I prefer to see evolution as a model to follow. What we choose to believe about it is up to the person, not the model. The model assembles facts, tries to unify the various phenomena it tries to explain, and makes testable predictions. No theory can be proven, unlike math, but if the connecting of the dots become so obvious to remove the bulk of the doubt, especially when not test of its predictions are found false, then the model (theory) often becomes mainstream.

Only when there is no overlap between science and religious/philosophical claims do they become immune to examination. It is in these overlaps where things become turbulent.

Ironically, when the BBT was proposed and, eventually, the CMBR was discovered, it shook the atheist's world. A beginning was never what they wanted to discover for our universe. A creator may have designed all creation and somehow -- perhaps by sacrificing some spiritual essence -- burst energy, which cooled and formed matter, then obeyed the Creator's laws, many known now due to physics, to form all that we have in this universe. Those laws and parameters are amazingly fine-tuned, as if a designer's hand must have been involved, also to the regret to atheists. The Garden story is the exception. Adam, Even and animals were, IMO, made perfect to last to who knows when. This was limited to the garden, which later required angelic protection.

No. It is a scientific model subject to falsification, or at least requiring tweaking. These are objective tests, not subjective tests. Objectivity means that many scientists can repeat the tests at will and test the tests of others. Religious beliefs have very little in the way of tests that can be made on them. Opinions are required, though dogma may punish those that have ones undesired by others, and this isn't always bad, however. [Bruno was burned at the stake, not for his astronomical opinions, but that he strongly endorsed anti-Christian tenets held by a radical sect. I'm not defending his burning, of course.]

Yes. But these beliefs are separate from the model itself. One can chose to believe whatever they want about any model, including a flat earth model. But a flat earth model has much overlap with science and will make those beliefs appear silly. This is because a flat earth model makes predictions that are easily falsified.

I would agree if we are talking about scientism, which is a belief system that science negates religion, IIRC.

This is why Christian schools are important, and almost always better in overall education for students based on tests, scientific ones.

Nevertheless, science has its own realm. Gould did a nice job defining the differences. He used the acronym, NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) , to help get his point across.

Yes, I do agree if we are talking about anything supernatural. Adam, Eve, the Garden etc. are supernatural events, so outside the purview of science almost entirely.

There are some new findings that suggest abiogenesis, if God uses such things, would find more favorable conditions at certain vents at the bottom of the ocean.

Thanks for your kindness in our discourse.

Your welcome, and thank you for our discussion:

So was Hutton and lyell really saying that revelation from finite man is the key to the past? This concept is an expression of their belief that man is autonomous - that he can determine truth by his own opinion (w/o biblical revelation). But was man present at the very beginning of the world? This question is exactly what the Lord asked Job: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? (Job 38:4)

There is no scientific proof for the belief that hundreds of millions of years shaped the earth, since by their own philosophy no human observers were present during these supposed millions of years. However, the Bible records that God has always existed, and that he has given us a written record of exactly what happened in the past, so that we may come to the right decision about history. Simply put, Biblical revelation is the key to the past, particularly the past regarding origins (Genesis 1-11). Furthermore the past is actually the key to the present.

I have a very difficult time believing in this:
Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex.

The flood of Noah, such a sudden catastrophic event with waters bursting forth from the deep, volcanos, immense heat quickly cooled by water, the explosion of water shooting into the atmosphere raining back down hail and large ice meteors.....That is such destruction that actually formed what we see as mountains, valleys, the deepest parts of the ocean floor.....

I know almost nothing of either of those. Charles Lyell was a lawyer but his geological work became famous. Darwin took his book with him, along with perhaps his favorite "Natural Theology" (Rev. Paley). Lyell was one of the first, I think, to argue the extreme age of the planet. He connected, IIRC, the land masses due to their shorelines and material composition. This helped, IMO, Darwin to think in terms of billions of years for evolution vs. thousands of year or even millions. Hutton is famous, but I've forgot what little I read of him.

Ug, how modern! It fails at so many levels, but not without penalties to all.

) Do you really think he was asking Job a question? The 38:4b reveals better that the "question" was to humble Job.

Again, I prefer not to suggest science can offer any proof whatsoever. It is easier to knock down stiff targets, but science has only powerful and testable arguments that may or may not convince others of its true worth.

Aren't you discounting a lot of strong circumstantial evidence? Ice cores, radioactive decay products in resins, etc. There is a lot out there. Big Bang is shouting out an age of 13.8 billion years for the universe, and one with a beginning. [BBT bullets here.]

Do you like my signature? God has the time to help us because he loves us. He also has time physically; He made it and owns it. It shouldn't be too big a mystery, IMO, how prophets could prophecy so accurately. We really have no idea where to begin to understand time itself.

Agreed, but for some reason, interpretations for many passages are a must due to a variety of reasons, perhaps per His plan as well. We must apply faith. But even "hope that is seen is not hope". Why would one hope to see a movie if they are currently watching it? So, perhaps, some ambiguity has some influence on how we receive or adopt faith.

Yes, I respect that opinion. Abiogenesis is only suppositional at this point. No hard tests exists that would let anyone declare, yep, this is chemicals becoming life.

But, it appears that God designed a universe with having incredible fine-tuning just in things like the strength of gravity. [A tiny fraction more in the strength of gravity would collapse the universe or would cause stars to burn out very quick, too quick for life. A tiny fraction less, stars wouldn't burn at all.] So, if He chose to have a tiny fraction of exoplanets to have life and an even tinier faction of these to have intelligent life, etc., are we ones who can tell Him he didn't? It's not our choice. But science can still seek it for it isn't something purely whimsical, the basic ingredients are somewhat understood at this point.

The biggest argument for me that evolution has merit comes when Cain left to a "city" and married. I cringe whenever someone tells me he married his sister. I doubt God's plan called for us to excuse Him for inconsistent behavior, though others prefer to soften this viewpoint as best they can.

Also, the missing seven generations between the genealogies strong supports, IMO, the view that we don't know the exact number of generations. Interestingly, both of those lists can be argued to be 100% accurate. [Ezra 7 shows Shallum having Zadok. I Chron. 6 has Shallum also having Zadok, but this Zadox had six more generations before another Zadox. Thus, Ezra is skipping seven generations but correctly names the same name but different person, so it isn't wrong. ]

Perhaps. I favor that it was an accurate but local account.

So you think time stopped after the 7th day? Interesting theory. I don't see evidence of that though.

That's just silly talk on your part...... What I was getting at is the 8th of creation is not mentioned in Genesis. Of course time carried on.....
You said:
6th day- male and female created at same time
8th day- man created first, then animals, then a female is created

8th day man created first....lost on this one......yes time moved forward

I'm at work so I will only reply to Job.

Ch 38:1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said V2:Who is it the darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? V3: Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. V4: Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declair if thou hast understanding.

Looks like God is talking directly to Job, yes I believe it was humbling to Job, I do believe that God was talking to him directly.
I will look more at the above comments and reply more later.

Then why are you complaining? Of course there was an 8th day, and a 9th day and a 10th and so on. They don't have to be mentioned. This is a argument from silence fallacy on your part.

There was no "8th day" in Gen. 2. Gen 1 is like a prologue, it sets a basic 6-1 pattern, which will appear throughout the entire bible, Gen 2 just dives into details. This is pretty obvious. Here's a similar example: 2 Samuel 5:13-16, king David took more mistresses and fathered more offsprings, among them were Solomon and Nathan, ancestors of Jospeh and Mary. However, both by Bethsheba. However, David saw Bethsheba bathing in the moonlight must later in 11:2, and Solomon was born in 12:24. So that brief passage of David's family tree was inserted in there. It's not written in chronological order.

Of course there was. Gen 2 is what happens AFTER the 7th day God rested. When your day off is done, you go back to work. Gen 1 is first week, Gebn 2 is the start of second.

No it isn't. It's not written in chronological order.

The entire book of Genesis is written in chronological order.

Not here, it rewinds to Day 6. Everything Adam saw were created in the previous days. Oftentimes this kind of timeline is inserted as a recap and also gives you a heads up.

It doesn't. It starts out with a new week and new creations like the garden and animals from the ground that in first week came from the waters. Also no sealife are created in this second week because there was no need for new ones.