Genesis 1 and 2

[staythecourse]

Here's the Genesis 1 account of the creation of plants:

11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

And here's what Genesis2 says about the plants

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

Is this saying that there were no particular types of plants on the sixth day (namely plants that had to be cultivated/farmed) or that plants were not formed in maturity (not likely) or another option I am not seeing? This is NAS's version.

The ESV says:

5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

In this version, it is harder to say that Moses is talking about cultivated plants.

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 09:19:30 EST-----

To be clearer, is the whole problem solved with the term "of the field" which distinguishes farm plants from wild ones.

 

[TimV]

Bryan, read the Septuagint, and post again. I've posted some ideas here before on the subject. I personally think it's a lack of agricultural understanding that leads people (I'm not saying you) to assume a contradiction between the two accounts, and leads people to a Klein type of assumption of metaphor due to what is perceived as a contradiction.

 

[staythecourse]

9 And God said, Let the water which is under the heaven be collected into one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so. And the water which was under the heaven was collected into its places, and the dry land appeared. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gatherings of the waters he called Seas, and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit-tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth, 5 and every herb of the field before it was on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it sprang up, for God had not rained on the earth, and there was not a man to cultivate it. 6 But there rose a fountain out of the earth, and watered the whole face of the earth. 7 And God formed the man of dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.

Ok Looking at it. It's not jumping out at me. I'd be honored to have you explain. But, I do not see a contradiction. I want to understand the inerrant word here.

 

[Matthew1034]

9 And God said, Let the water which is under the heaven be collected into one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so. And the water which was under the heaven was collected into its places, and the dry land appeared. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gatherings of the waters he called Seas, and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit-tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth, 5 and every herb of the field before it was on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it sprang up, for God had not rained on the earth, and there was not a man to cultivate it. 6 But there rose a fountain out of the earth, and watered the whole face of the earth. 7 And God formed the man of dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.

Ok Looking at it. It's not jumping out at me. I'd be honored to have you explain. But, I do not see a contradiction. I want to understand the inerrant word here.

If the dry land appeared (ch. 1) after the face of the earth was watered (ch. 2), then:

2:5 implies that God put the seed of the grass and the herbs in the ground but it had not grown since it had not been watered (2:6), and when it was watered he commanded it to grow (1:11)

So chronologically:
1) God plants just the seeds in the ground but they didn't grow (2:5)
2) God brings forth water from the earth (2:6)
3) The water collects to the deepest areas, creating seas, while watering the higher ground, ie. Earth (1:9,10)
4) Since the seeds were already in the ground, they were watered and God commanded them to grow (1:11)
5) The seeds bring forth grass and herbs and fruit-trees (1:11)
6) God declares this process and its results good, ends the third day (1:13)
7) The land, the seas, and the plants are formed
8) God eventually creates man to cultivate the land

 

[staythecourse]

"Let the earth bring forth....and it was so" puts a big hurt on that, though besides birds have to build nests pretty quick.

 

[Matthew1034]

"Let the earth bring forth....and it was so" puts a big hurt on that, though besides birds have to build nests pretty quick.

What do you mean by what I bolded? The birds were created on the fifth day, we're on the third.

 

[staythecourse]

So chronologically:
1) God plants just the seeds in the ground but they didn't grow (2:5)
2) God brings forth water from the earth (2:6)
3) The water collects to the deepest areas while watering the higher ground, ie. Earth (1:9,10)
4) Since the seeds were already in the ground, they were watered and God commanded them to grow (1:11)
5) The seeds bring forth grass and herbs and fruit-trees (1:11)
6) God declares this process and its results good, ends the third day (1:13)
7) The land, the seas, and the plants are formed
8) God creates man to cultivate the land

My understanding of the chronology would be:

1. The third day all the land is covered with mature plants and trees
2. These are all watered by the mist
3. No cultivated plants were in a mature state but in seed state
4. The 6th day man was created to cultivate Eden for crops and the mist watered these plants also.

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 10:19:33 EST-----

"Let the earth bring forth....and it was so" puts a big hurt on that, though besides birds have to build nests pretty quick.

What do you mean by what I bolded? The birds were created on the fifth day, we're on the third.

If the trees are not mature then the birds would not have a place to nest.

 

[Matthew1034]

So chronologically:
1) God plants just the seeds in the ground but they didn't grow (2:5)
2) God brings forth water from the earth (2:6)
3) The water collects to the deepest areas while watering the higher ground, ie. Earth (1:9,10)
4) Since the seeds were already in the ground, they were watered and God commanded them to grow (1:11)
5) The seeds bring forth grass and herbs and fruit-trees (1:11)
6) God declares this process and its results good, ends the third day (1:13)
7) The land, the seas, and the plants are formed
8) God creates man to cultivate the land

My understanding of the chronology would be:

1. The third day all the land is covered with mature plants and trees
2. These are all watered by the mist
3. No cultivated plants were in a mature state but in seed state
4. The 6th day man was created to cultivate Eden for crops and the mist watered these plants also.

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 10:19:33 EST-----

"Let the earth bring forth....and it was so" puts a big hurt on that, though besides birds have to build nests pretty quick.

What do you mean by what I bolded? The birds were created on the fifth day, we're on the third.

If the trees are not mature then the birds would not have a place to nest.

I see what you're saying.

2:5 says God *made* the plant seeds before they *came forth* or *sprang up*.

The text doesn't say God just put plants there, it shows that he made them (planting, watering, providing fertile land). At the end of the third day the seeds were grown and each brought forth that which it contained. 1:12 says the fruit-tree seeds brought forth fruit, and fruit grows on branches. If the trees bore fruit, their branches must have been suitable for a bird's nest.

 

[staythecourse]

So, if I understand, you believe all plants were in seed form and grew in a 24 hour period.

In contrast, I believe the word is making a distinction between the plants that needed special care by man to grow and be cultivated versus the wild plants that needed no special care. The fruit trees do not need care but do better with human care.

 

[Matthew1034]

So, if I understand, you believe all plants were in seed form and grew in a 24 hour period.

In contrast, I believe the word is making a distinction between the plants that needed special care by man to grow and be cultivated versus the wild plants that needed no special care. The fruit trees do not need care but do better with human care.

I hold the view that each day of creation was a period of time (considerably) longer than a solar day. Creation is one of those areas where we can ponder God's mind and will and have fellowship doing so, an area where Augustine was so right when he said, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity."

I see from your perspective that God made some plants to define the landscape for man's perceptive enjoyment and others for his recreational enjoyment -- cultivation, I mean .

I'm interested to see what the other PBers think

 

[Scottish Lass]

 

[TimV]

Gen. 2 Septuagint

4 This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth, 5 and every herb of the field before it was on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it sprang up, for God had not rained on the earth, and there was not a man to cultivate it. 6 But there rose a fountain out of the earth, and watered the whole face of the earth. 7 And God formed the man of dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.

I guess it is my agricultural background, but after the sermon where the pastor who is a big Klein fan said there was a contradiction between the two accounts therefore it had to be metaphor I re-read everything from all the translations and still didn't see where the contradiction was, until a guy from Bible study explained it to me.

It threw me, because to me it was obvious, like what I think you see, that if you throw some corn or wheat seed out on the ground it won't grow.

The older commentators did point out SEEMING contradictions, like the sun being made after light, but none of them I checked saw an apparent contradiction in the plant sequence because (I think) 80% of people were involved in agriculture as opposed to the 2% today.

Reading the account from the Septuagint takes away any possible ambiguity a person with a modern, urban, no agricultural roots mindset could READ INTO the Hebrew. I think we have to assume those people are looking for contradictions so that they can hold what they thing are sophisticated views on evolution.

Anyway, wild plants can come up in many ways, like when animals bury them, seeds fall under "nurse plants", rain droplets pushing up a bit of soil to cover their new cotelydons etc... but agricultural plants need to be sowed on soil disturbed with implements.

So to me the natural reading is that God made plants as adults, but those useful for men (otherwise why the explanation "there was not yet anyone to work the ground"?) weren't there as young seedlings yet.

As an aside, notice that many agriculturally useful plants are annuals. They die in one year and if the seeds aren't planted in two to five years or so the seed loses viability. And what does that do to a theory that say for example that each "day" in Genesis was a thousand years?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Dynamite Tim. Great Stuff. 100%

 

[Matthew1034]

Gen. 2 Septuagint

4 This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth, 5 and every herb of the field before it was on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it sprang up, for God had not rained on the earth, and there was not a man to cultivate it. 6 But there rose a fountain out of the earth, and watered the whole face of the earth. 7 And God formed the man of dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.

So to me the natural reading is that God made plants as adults, but those useful for men (otherwise why the explanation "there was not yet anyone to work the ground"?) weren't there as young seedlings yet.

Tim, why do you believe God created the plants mature when 2:5 says he made them before they sprang forth from the ground?

I'm not trying to validate evolution or any liberal interpretation of creation, but don't see in the text that he made the plant before the seed.

Gen. 2 Septuagint
As an aside, notice that many agriculturally useful plants are annuals. They die in one year and if the seeds aren't planted in two to five years or so the seed loses viability. And what does that do to a theory that say for example that each "day" in Genesis was a thousand years?

Seed viability is lost in 2-5 years today, but we can't assume it was so on antediluvian earth. People live to 90, then they lived to 900.

 

[PresbyDane]

 

[TimV]

Tim, why do you believe God created the plants mature when 2:5 says he made them before they sprang forth from the ground?

Not sure how you're reading it.

and every herb of the field before it was on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it sprang up,

How can that mean anything else than mature plants? He made them, and planted them rather than creating seeds in the ground.

 

[Matthew1034]

Tim, why do you believe God created the plants mature when 2:5 says he made them before they sprang forth from the ground?

Not sure how you're reading it.

and every herb of the field before it was on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it sprang up,

How can that mean anything else than mature plants? He made them, and planted them rather than creating seeds in the ground.

The order of events I see between the ch 1 and ch 2 accounts is:

1) God plants just the seeds in the ground but they didn't grow (2:5)
2) God brings forth water from the earth (2:6)
3) The water collects to the deepest areas while watering the higher ground, ie. Earth (1:9,10)
4) Since the seeds were already in the ground, they were watered and God commanded them to grow (1:11)
5) The seeds bring forth grass and herbs and fruit-trees (1:11)

In 2:4,5 it says God made the heavens and the earth

and every herb of the field before it was on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it sprang up, for God had not rained on the earth, and there was not a man to cultivate it.

What I see there is that God made the earth and made the plants (as seeds) before they were on (above) the earth, and they weren't on the earth because they weren't watered (didn't take root).

After the fountain watered the earth and collected together to form the seas (2:6,1:9,10), God commanded the seeds to grow (1:11), thus creating the life of the plant (1:12). Then the plants grew and matured and brought forth herb and fruit according to their kind (also 1:12).

2:5 describes the state of the earth before the 1:11 divine command.

In 2:5 "before it grew," 'grew' is Hebrew [H6779] 'tsamach' lit. "sprout, cause/made to bud, cause/made to grow, cause to spring forth/up." So it seems 2:5 says God made the herbs and plants before they were caused/made to bud, grow, spring forth. This sounds like a good description of a seed, a pre-sprouted plant.

In 1:11 the command is for the earth to "bring forth" the plants. "Bring forth" is Hebrew [H1876] 'dasha' "sprout, bring forth, spring." He was commanding the seeds to sprout, bring forth what they contained.

In 1:11 "upon the earth," 'upon' is Hebrew [H5291] 'al' "above, over, upon, against." So the command for the earth to "bring forth" happened and the plants were "upon the earth," above the earth opposed to beneath it (where seeds are).

1:12 is the creation of plant life, the obedience of the creation to God's Word. 1:11 he commands, 1:12 the earth obeys. "And the earth brought forth...," "brought forth" is Hebrew [H3318] 'yatsa' "to go (causatively bring) out."

Does this make sense, Tim? I've never studied this before, and this reply is the first time I've looked up the Hebrew, but my original reply with the chronology was my natural understanding and flow of the two accounts. We don't even have to necessarily agree HOW it happened, but we sure do know that there WASN'T a contradiction between the 2 accounts.

 

[TimV]

I think the main problem you're going to have with the idea that God made just seeds is that parenthetical explaination "there were not any small grain and vegetable plants because there wasn't anyone to till the ground". Once seeds are planted if you till the ground all you will do is mess up the seeds.
Regards

 

[JBaldwin]

What solved all of these controversies for me was the recent sermons our pastor preached on Genesis 1 & 2. He explained (and if you look back in the OT you will see this often) that Genesis chapter 1 is the account in poetic form, and Genesis 2 is the account in narrative form. Often OT writers would give accounts of things once in the narrative form, and once in a poetic or "song" form.

In Chapter 1, there is a parallel between day 1 & 4, day 2 & 5, day 3 & 6. This does not mean that they were not literal days (because the 6-day creation is validated elsewhere in the Scriptures). What it means is that the chapter was arranged to make a point, not to speak out about the science.

In the same way that we have 2, 3 and 4 accounts of events Jesus' life in the NT that don't match up point by point, because the author was emphasizing a different thing, the two chapters of Genesis don't necessary have to match up point by point.

I don't know if I explained that very well, but for me, it solved a lot of issues. It certainly did not change my mind about a literal 6-day creation, it just took the pressure off of trying to use Genesis 1 and 2 to argue science. It was not written for the purpose.

 

[Matthew1034]

I think the main problem you're going to have with the idea that God made just seeds is that parenthetical explaination "there were not any small grain and vegetable plants because there wasn't anyone to till the ground". Once seeds are planted if you till the ground all you will do is mess up the seeds.
Regards

Just throwing my thoughts out there, not looking to prove anything. Nice talking about it with you, though.

What solved all of these controversies for me was the recent sermons our pastor preached on Genesis 1 & 2. He explained (and if you look back in the OT you will see this often) that Genesis chapter 1 is the account in poetic form, and Genesis 2 is the account in narrative form. Often OT writers would give accounts of things once in the narrative form, and once in a poetic or "song" form.

In Chapter 1, there is a parallel between day 1 & 4, day 2 & 5, day 3 & 6. This does not mean that they were not literal days (because the 6-day creation is validated elsewhere in the Scriptures). What it means is that the chapter was arranged to make a point, not to speak out about the science.

In the same way that we have 2, 3 and 4 accounts of events Jesus' life in the NT that don't match up point by point, because the author was emphasizing a different thing, the two chapters of Genesis don't necessary have to match up point by point.

I don't know if I explained that very well, but for me, it solved a lot of issues. It certainly did not change my mind about a literal 6-day creation, it just took the pressure off of trying to use Genesis 1 and 2 to argue science. It was not written for the purpose.

Its interesting you mentioned this because I heard a lecture just yesterday about the idea that Genesis 1 is written in poetic form, almost as a doxology. This idea deserves consideration, which is what I'll do with it.

Its easy to try to justify Scripture with science, and its almost unnatural to look for poetic beauty and wisdom in Scripture for someone who's mind has been marinated in humanist public schools.

God knows!

 

[staythecourse]

So, the specific types of plants mentioned in chapter two were agricultural plants in seed form which needed tending by Man and the plants mentioned in chapter one were plants which did not need tending, were created as mature plants but also included agricultural vegetation in seed form.

Chapter one is a general overview and chapter two gets into the details. Do I hear a amen?

 

[TimV]

Reading it as someone who'd be living under a bridge if I couldn't get plants to grow, I'd say you're basically right, except that all the plants were made at the same time, but young agricultural plants, the kind that won't grow on their own in a productive way without cultivation weren't there. Mature plants that need to be cultivated were there, but until someone was there to till the ground (and without sweat; remember Adam's work was easy and pleasurable before the fall) there weren't any crops in the field.

Someone can ask Vic to chime in for another view, given his expertise in grain crops, but I suspect his would be very similar to mine.

 

[Prufrock]

Someone can ask Vic to chime in for another view, given his expertise in grain crops, but I suspect his would be very similar to mine.

Okay. Hey Vic, care to chime in?

Thanks, Tim, for the information so far. I've never heard anyone else talk about this before.

 

[staythecourse]

Reading it as someone who'd be living under a bridge if I couldn't get plants to grow, I'd say you're basically right, except that all the plants were made at the same time, but young agricultural plants, the kind that won't grow on their own in a productive way without cultivation weren't there. Mature plants that need to be cultivated were there, but until someone was there to till the ground (and without sweat; remember Adam's work was easy and pleasurable before the fall) there weren't any crops in the field.

Someone can ask Vic to chime in for another view, given his expertise in grain crops, but I suspect his would be very similar to mine.

I believe we see the same thing. The joy I have as I scrutinize the text with a humble eye, is in the repeated term translated "of the field" in the chapter two. Once Moses distinguishes these plants from the others with those words, a perceived discrepancy vanishes. Praise God.