Comments on: Which did God create first, man or vegetation? http://www.errancy.com/man-or-vegetation/ Does the Bible contain contradictions or errors? Biblical inerrancy examined. Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:23:00 +0200 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: embreeology http://www.errancy.com/man-or-vegetation/comment-page-1/#comment-655 embreeology Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:31:04 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=478#comment-655 WisdomLover - I have a hard time believing the first account is not chronological in nature given the descriptions of day one, day two, etc. I do, however, find the second account to be less likely to be chronological. However, if the second account is not to be considered chronological, how do you explain the inclusion of "These are the generations of..."? This being a statement used elsewhere in Genesis exclusively preceding chronological descriptions? WisdomLover – I have a hard time believing the first account is not chronological in nature given the descriptions of day one, day two, etc. I do, however, find the second account to be less likely to be chronological. However, if the second account is not to be considered chronological, how do you explain the inclusion of “These are the generations of…”? This being a statement used elsewhere in Genesis exclusively preceding chronological descriptions?

]]> By: hobopotato http://www.errancy.com/man-or-vegetation/comment-page-1/#comment-594 hobopotato Wed, 19 May 2010 23:49:34 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=478#comment-594 The phrase "plants of the field" and the mention of the reason for no plants of the field "no man to till the soil" seem to indicate that what is being talked about here is crops, not plants in general [which could certainly grow without man's help!]. Which makes perfect sense, when one considers that the curse of "working the ground" is a continued theme in chapter 3 AND 4. The phrase “plants of the field” and the mention of the reason for no plants of the field “no man to till the soil” seem to indicate that what is being talked about here is crops, not plants in general [which could certainly grow without man's help!]. Which makes perfect sense, when one considers that the curse of “working the ground” is a continued theme in chapter 3 AND 4.

]]> By: WisdomLover http://www.errancy.com/man-or-vegetation/comment-page-1/#comment-144 WisdomLover Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:57:00 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=478#comment-144 This problem is similar to the problem of whether Man came before the animals or not. Again, the two accounts serve two different purposes, neither of which is to provide a chronology. The most you can infer is that the creative words of God are in a chronological ordering. The first account identifies Man as the God's final word on the earthly creation. The pinnacle of the earthly creation. The second account shows that Man was put here for the purpose of bringing order into creation and that he was given the authority to carry out that purpose and that Woman is his co-equal helper in that endeavor. Since neither account is chronological, they cannot conflict on a point of chronology. This problem is similar to the problem of whether Man came before the animals or not.

Again, the two accounts serve two different purposes, neither of which is to provide a chronology. The most you can infer is that the creative words of God are in a chronological ordering.

The first account identifies Man as the God’s final word on the earthly creation. The pinnacle of the earthly creation. The second account shows that Man was put here for the purpose of bringing order into creation and that he was given the authority to carry out that purpose and that Woman is his co-equal helper in that endeavor.

Since neither account is chronological, they cannot conflict on a point of chronology.

]]> By: Amtiskaw http://www.errancy.com/man-or-vegetation/comment-page-1/#comment-19 Amtiskaw Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:50:50 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=478#comment-19 In Genesis 2 we are told about plants "of the field", and it's also mentioned that there is "no one to till the ground", both of which suggest this is referring to cultivated plants. In Genesis 2 we are told about plants “of the field”, and it’s also mentioned that there is “no one to till the ground”, both of which suggest this is referring to cultivated plants.

]]>