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

[ewq1938]

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

 

[Shakey]

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.

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

 

[Shakey]

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

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....

 

[Magenta]

Peldom10 disagreeing with Scripture yet once again.

Your explanation is rejected. You do not believe in the Bible.
End of debate.

 

[Magenta]

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....

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

 

[Shakey]

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.

 

[Magenta]

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

True, not mentioned, but wouldn't everything after day seven have started with day eight?

 

[Helio]

...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!

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

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.

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).

#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.

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.

Both Creation and Evolution provide ways for explaining the past that are beyond direct scientific examination and verification.

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.

#3 Evolution is a religious belief.

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.]

Despite the growing evidence against evolutionary theory, many continue to believe in it with great fervency and faith.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Shakey]

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.....

 

[Helio]

So was Hutton and lyell really saying that revelation from finite man is the key to the past?

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.

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).

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

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)

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

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.

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.]

However, the Bible records that God has always existed,

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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. ]

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.....

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

 

[ewq1938]

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....

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

 

[Shakey]

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

 

[Shakey]

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.

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.

 

[ewq1938]

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.....

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.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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

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.

 

[ewq1938]

There was no "8th day" in Gen. 2.

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.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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.

 

[ewq1938]

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

The entire book of Genesis is written in chronological order.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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.

 

[ewq1938]

Not here, it rewinds to Day 6.

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.