Does the Genesis Sequence Make Any Sense?


(George Brooks) #1

Continuing the discussion from Who best reconciles the Bible and Evolution?:

Genesis says there were birds before there land animals!

Genesis 1:19-21
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,
and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind,
and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Compare:

Genesis 1:23-24
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.
.
Which Creationists on these BioLogos pages really believe that Birds were created with/from (?!) the oceans, (on the 4th day) and that they existed before the beasts and the crawling things were created from/with (?!) the land (on the 5th day)?


(George Brooks) #2

How exactly does this work?

How do the oceans “bring forth” birds? While the land “brings forth” beasts?


(Matthew Pevarnik) #3

I think for YEC it doesn’t matter. There is only a problem if you acknowledge the fossil record + stratigraphy + radiometric dating. Since YEC obviously reject all three, who cares what order they come in? Shucks it’s not a big deal not to have sunlight with plants since they only didn’t have sunlight for 6 to 48 hours at most (since the sun is day 4 and the plants are day 3, God technically could have made the plants at 12:01 AM on day 3 and the sun at 11:59 PM on day 4, giving a 48 hour gap - or God could have waited until 11:59 PM on day 3 to make the plants then put the moon and sun there, only giving a 6 hour gap or so until sunrise). This is kind of fun for me, but so as to not let anyone get too excited, it’s completely arbitrary, 100% pseudoscience, and in general anti-scientific.

It’s more of a big deal for OEC who are concordists. This is pretty wild, but here is the walkthrough for Reasons to Believe (http://www.reasons.org/articles/does-old-earth-creationism-contradict-genesis-1-2)…

What he says is that:

  • Day 5 = two types of sea creatures, the tanniyn meaning enormous creatures or whales and sherets meaning swarming things - since they are referred to as ‘living things’ (nephesh) means creatures with mind, will and emotion meaning this is not talking about fish but air breathing mammals—then the birds (but probably not bats, but maybe [my comment: what the… where does he get this stuff?]
  • Day 6 = large mammals, small mammals, possibly certain small reptiles (good luck on these Hebrew word twistings)

Anyways, what I learned is that crazy stuff must be done with lots of Hebrew magic to make it work.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #4

Maybe someone else will know better. I looked and looked (ICR, CMI, etc. Didn’t try AiG yet since their website makes my brain hurt). The closest I found was that ‘just like man was created from the Earth, so were the beasts created from the dust.’ However… and my personal comment is: don’t take this logic too far because it means that the the birds and whales were made from ocean materials.


(George Brooks) #5

@pevaquark

Isn’t it interesting, then, that the genome of birds, created from the Oceans, is so close to existing reptilian forms, the crawling things created on the next day.

And that ocean-going mammal genomes would also be so closely related to the mammalian genome created on the next day?


(Matthew Pevarnik) #6


(system) #7

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.