Bret and Lucien, this could be a full time job just writing responses to everyone. I will send you a response as soon as possible as I am traveling tomorrow and going to a luau now.
Stu, sorry I took so long to get back to you. We took the road to Hana yesterday and around the eastern part of the island. Too tired when we got back to blog. Please see my responses and questions below related to the comments in your last post on Resolving Genesis 1 and 2.
I am also wondering why does the Bible make the following claim if Ge 2 is a chronological and literal supplement to Ge 1.
Genesis 2:4 'This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created - when the LORD God made the earth and heavens.'
It states that 'this is the account', if what follows is a chronological supplement about 'Day6' in a local area somewhere between Africa to the Middle East, the above verse is certainly would say something along those lines. The statement is actually contrary to the view that what follows is supplemental to GE 1. It seems to me as more of an alternative account of creation than the account just preceeding it in Genesis 1 thru GE 2:3. How do you reconcile this?
[Stu] Creation of Eve -- God anesthetized Adam directly; took a biopsy from his side and introduced new information into Adam's DNA code creating Eve directly. (1 Cor 11:12 - "the woman originates from the man.")
[Lee]- Since you believe that Adam was made from earth and water directly as a special creation by God and Eve was cloned from Adam with some special infused genetic code added to Adam's genetic code, why are the chromosomes and nucleotide sequences so close between humans and monkeys? Based on a unique design, there should be major rearrangements of the sequences and chromosomes to optimize the human genome eliminating disfunctional sequences. Instead the human genome has 23 chromosomes compared to the ape's 24 with two obviously combined into one human chromosome if one reviews the detailed sequences of each of the chromosomes. If God did create Adam and Eve as you believe as pure unique ex nihilo creations, there should be no match whatsoever to the ape or any other biological creature since an infinitely wise creator can order the sequences perfectly ex nihilo to create the perfect man and women. However, instead the women's genetic code with two Xs is a closer match to the female apes sequences than it is to a human male's with one X and one Y due to the nucleotide count difference between chromosomes with about 95 million more base pairs in the X chromosome. The X contains about 5% of the total genome where the Y contains only about 2%. Also where did Adam's mitochondrial DNA come from and get into Eve since it only is passed through the mother? Please explain how this can be, if female human's were created as you suggest.
[Stu] Water - Water existed from the beginning but the hydrologic cycle was not always in operation. Since Gen 2 only focuses on man and his environs, it is also possible that the text is only talking about Eden being watered by the "mist" as it may be located in an arid desert region.
[Lee]- I agree that the hydrologic cycle was not always in operation but as we read in Genesis 1:6 God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water. Genesis 1:7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. Genesis 1:8 God called the expanse "sky." There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
If Ge 2 is is treated as supplemental and occurring after Ge 1, we see from these verses that God has already completed this step prior to Ge 2. At one point all land had been under water with no separation between the waters below in the oceans and the waters above in the sky. Water was constantly falling from day 1, and it was the hydrologic cycle that stopped it from falling constantly in some places, and later allowing the sun, moon, and stars to be seen. So why would this Ge 2:5 verse ' ...for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. ' claim that rain had never fallen on the earth if Ge 2 follows chronologically as you believe. Again, this seems to be an alternative account from a different perspective. How do you reconcile these points logically?
[Stu] Order of creation -- This is articulated in Gen 1. Gen 2 only provides additional details about the centerpiece of the story -- mankind. Gen 2 is not about the creation of the animals, but on Adam naming them. Gen 2 simply restates that God had previously made the animals and now He's bringing them to Adam. This is the start of God explaining "relationship" between His created beings. The texts are complementary not contradictory.
[Lee]- I agree with your view that mankind is the centerpiece of the story. You also seem to be agreeing with me that Ge 2 is not chronologically correct, and that Ge 1 is the materially chronologically correct version. I even agree with your point on 'explaining relationship' between man and the other created beings. This is why I see this chapter as a spiritual allegory that relates the deep spiritual connection between God and humans as I have stated on numerous occassions. It seems we may only differ here on methodology on how the biology was created. You seem to take this 'supplemental' information literally, while I take it allegorically. Neither viewpoint seems to impact our love for God and and trust in Him as the Creator, however, other people seem to become unglued at the mere suggestion of belief in either. What is it that makes this so explosive a topic, uncertainty in belief?
[Stu] From the dust -- Mankind and every created thing share 100% of the same atomic particles, not just 99% of the same chemical composition. This is evidence of common design not common descent.
[Lee]- Since you believe that Ge 2 is not chronological but covers the entire time span of creation, since Adam was not really made out of mud which has a high silicon content as well as other metals, and you believe in the close match in human and ape genome from a design perspective, what is so offensive about evolutionary creation (using the Hugh Ross name for my view) as a different way for God to make the first humans?
Or do you believe as literally stated on Ge1 Day 6 that Adam was made out of atomically filtered mud and Eve was made from some small number of Adam's cells genetically modified by God to include Adam's coding DNA that matches female monkey DNA to 99% and 95% of the remainder including mitochondrial DNA? Do you also believe that then God rapidly grew these cells into a fully formed women in a matter of seconds to hours using altered laws of physics? At that point was Eve capable of fully functional speech and language comprehension between God, Adam, and a talking snake? I believe ths is the YE position on these verses but I am unsure if you believe this as well.
Or do you believe as I do, that these verses are allegorical and not methodological but spiritually and relationally descriptive?
Lee
Stu, sorry I took so long to get back to you. We took the road to Hana yesterday and around the eastern part of the island. Too tired when we got back to blog. Please see my responses and questions below related to the comments in your last post on Resolving Genesis 1 and 2.
I am also wondering why does the Bible make the following claim if Ge 2 is a chronological and literal supplement to Ge 1.
Genesis 2:4 'This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created - when the LORD God made the earth and heavens.'
It states that 'this is the account', if what follows is a chronological supplement about 'Day6' in a local area somewhere between Africa to the Middle East, the above verse is certainly would say something along those lines. The statement is actually contrary to the view that what follows is supplemental to GE 1. It seems to me as more of an alternative account of creation than the account just preceeding it in Genesis 1 thru GE 2:3. How do you reconcile this?
[Stu] Creation of Eve -- God anesthetized Adam directly; took a biopsy from his side and introduced new information into Adam's DNA code creating Eve directly. (1 Cor 11:12 - "the woman originates from the man.")
[Lee]- Since you believe that Adam was made from earth and water directly as a special creation by God and Eve was cloned from Adam with some special infused genetic code added to Adam's genetic code, why are the chromosomes and nucleotide sequences so close between humans and monkeys? Based on a unique design, there should be major rearrangements of the sequences and chromosomes to optimize the human genome eliminating disfunctional sequences. Instead the human genome has 23 chromosomes compared to the ape's 24 with two obviously combined into one human chromosome if one reviews the detailed sequences of each of the chromosomes. If God did create Adam and Eve as you believe as pure unique ex nihilo creations, there should be no match whatsoever to the ape or any other biological creature since an infinitely wise creator can order the sequences perfectly ex nihilo to create the perfect man and women. However, instead the women's genetic code with two Xs is a closer match to the female apes sequences than it is to a human male's with one X and one Y due to the nucleotide count difference between chromosomes with about 95 million more base pairs in the X chromosome. The X contains about 5% of the total genome where the Y contains only about 2%. Also where did Adam's mitochondrial DNA come from and get into Eve since it only is passed through the mother? Please explain how this can be, if female human's were created as you suggest.
[Stu] Water - Water existed from the beginning but the hydrologic cycle was not always in operation. Since Gen 2 only focuses on man and his environs, it is also possible that the text is only talking about Eden being watered by the "mist" as it may be located in an arid desert region.
[Lee]- I agree that the hydrologic cycle was not always in operation but as we read in Genesis 1:6 God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water. Genesis 1:7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. Genesis 1:8 God called the expanse "sky." There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
If Ge 2 is is treated as supplemental and occurring after Ge 1, we see from these verses that God has already completed this step prior to Ge 2. At one point all land had been under water with no separation between the waters below in the oceans and the waters above in the sky. Water was constantly falling from day 1, and it was the hydrologic cycle that stopped it from falling constantly in some places, and later allowing the sun, moon, and stars to be seen. So why would this Ge 2:5 verse ' ...for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. ' claim that rain had never fallen on the earth if Ge 2 follows chronologically as you believe. Again, this seems to be an alternative account from a different perspective. How do you reconcile these points logically?
[Stu] Order of creation -- This is articulated in Gen 1. Gen 2 only provides additional details about the centerpiece of the story -- mankind. Gen 2 is not about the creation of the animals, but on Adam naming them. Gen 2 simply restates that God had previously made the animals and now He's bringing them to Adam. This is the start of God explaining "relationship" between His created beings. The texts are complementary not contradictory.
[Lee]- I agree with your view that mankind is the centerpiece of the story. You also seem to be agreeing with me that Ge 2 is not chronologically correct, and that Ge 1 is the materially chronologically correct version. I even agree with your point on 'explaining relationship' between man and the other created beings. This is why I see this chapter as a spiritual allegory that relates the deep spiritual connection between God and humans as I have stated on numerous occassions. It seems we may only differ here on methodology on how the biology was created. You seem to take this 'supplemental' information literally, while I take it allegorically. Neither viewpoint seems to impact our love for God and and trust in Him as the Creator, however, other people seem to become unglued at the mere suggestion of belief in either. What is it that makes this so explosive a topic, uncertainty in belief?
[Stu] From the dust -- Mankind and every created thing share 100% of the same atomic particles, not just 99% of the same chemical composition. This is evidence of common design not common descent.
[Lee]- Since you believe that Ge 2 is not chronological but covers the entire time span of creation, since Adam was not really made out of mud which has a high silicon content as well as other metals, and you believe in the close match in human and ape genome from a design perspective, what is so offensive about evolutionary creation (using the Hugh Ross name for my view) as a different way for God to make the first humans?
Or do you believe as literally stated on Ge1 Day 6 that Adam was made out of atomically filtered mud and Eve was made from some small number of Adam's cells genetically modified by God to include Adam's coding DNA that matches female monkey DNA to 99% and 95% of the remainder including mitochondrial DNA? Do you also believe that then God rapidly grew these cells into a fully formed women in a matter of seconds to hours using altered laws of physics? At that point was Eve capable of fully functional speech and language comprehension between God, Adam, and a talking snake? I believe ths is the YE position on these verses but I am unsure if you believe this as well.
Or do you believe as I do, that these verses are allegorical and not methodological but spiritually and relationally descriptive?
Lee
