Chris wrote:

Lets just have a quick look at the bible. Genesis 2, second part of verse 4 onwards (the second account of creation)

Don:

Well, at least you are on the topic, Chris. Chapter 2 is not a second account of creation. It is the details of the creation and the context of Adam and Eve, the first people created (how could a second account of creation omit the creation of the earth, seas, land, sun, moon, stars, fish, etc.?). No, like other ancient near eastern accounts, the first chapter provides the big picture and chapter 2 provides more detail about certain aspects. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp and http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html

C:

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up-for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground etc etc detailing the creation of

the Garden of Eden and Adam, all on that day.

So did God create in seven days or one day?

D:

Context, context, context! Hebrew, like English, uses the word for day (‘yom’) in different ways. Hebrew ‘beyom’ (Gen. 2:4) is like our usage ‘in the day of Shakespeare’ and means in the time he lived; his era. This is the Hebrew used in Genesis 2:4. Many modern English translations correctly translate it as ‘When…’. However, when ‘yom’ is used with numbers (day one, second day, etc.) it is normally referring to a normal earth day (one spin on the axis) or part thereof. When ‘evening and morning’ are linked with ‘yom’ it also defines it as an ordinary day. And there is no preposition (e.g. ‘be’) attached to the days of Genesis 1, unlike 2:4. So Genesis 1 makes it very clear that the days are meant to be understood as ordinary days. The Bible underlines this understanding in Exodus 20:11, where God gives the commandments to Moses and the seven day week we now have is linked to God’s seven-day Creation week.

A clincher is the fact that Genesis 1 is a numbered *sequence* of days, and there is a strong parallel with Numbers 7:10-84, which is also a structured account with yom and a numeric as well as waw (vav) consecutives. Here, each of the 12 tribes brought an offering on the different days:

The one who brought his offering *on the first day* was Nahshon son of Amminadab of the tribe of Judah. … *On the second day* Nethanel son of Zuar, the leader of Issachar, brought his offering… *On the third day*, Eliab son of Helon, the leader of the people of Zebulun, brought his offering. … *On the twelfth day* Ahira son of Enan, the leader of the people of Naphtali, brought his offering. …

Yet in this structured narrative with a sequence of numbered days, no one doubts that they are ordinary days. The parallel is even stronger when we note that this passage not only has numbered yoms, but also opens and closes with “in the day that” (Hebrew bayom, where the ‘a’ represents the definite article, ‘the’, meaning ‘on the day [xth]’), to refer to all 12 days.

C:

If the first two chapters of Genesis cannot agree on the chronology, why does anyone expect that these are scientific, literal, historical accounts of what happened before there was anyone around to take notes?

D:

There is no disagreement on the chronology. Furthermore, I, along with most who call themselves Christians, believe that God inspired the writers of the Bible to record accurately what He wanted written. God was there in the beginning; no one else was. So if He inspired writers to record what happened, in what order, and how long it took, then this would be an accurate record of history.

C:

For Gods sake, these are myths. Important, foundational myths but not

history, certainly not science, and no-one until at least the early Roman Empire would have taken them as such. History was invented by the Romans, Science by the Greeks. But both these civilisations looked to

myth much more than to science or history. It is only our modern Western culture which has elevated rational thought above myth to the eventual almost demise of the latter, much to our detriment. If you want proof, try living in a society that is futher from our European heritage for a while, say in S-E Asia. You will be amazed.

D:

I don’t think the Hebrews ever regarded any of the books, or parts of the Pentateuch as ‘myth’—the way they are referred to elsewhere in the Bible shows that. This idea is a postmodernist invention. Genesis, Exodus, etc., read as sober factual accounts of history, not myth. The New Testament treats them as history also. Jesus’ ancestry goes back to Adam (Luke 3) — was his ancestor a myth? It really is silly for a 21st century Westerner to decide on ancient Hebrew thought, and ignore the records of how ancient Hebrews actually thought! Especially one so unfamiliar with typical ANE writing styles. Also, unlike Eastern mystical thinking, Hebrew thinking has always been linear (there is a beginning and history progresses with purpose towards an end). See also Did the Babylonian Creation Account Influence Genesis? http://www.tektonics.org/af/babgenesis.html

I think I will stick with the Judaeo-Christian worldview, which has created the greatest civilisation of all time, rather than adopt eastern mysticism which created the wretchedness of the caste system of India, thank you.

Also, the Hebrew books of the Bible were steeped in history – just look at the records of who begat whom, what year, the deeds of the surrounding nations, etc.

Blessings! Don