We have here a land that needs some work to be done ({{Genesis 2:5}}) and no one to do that work. And it?s the type of work that the Lord God, that Sovereign King over His creation, wants some participation in. He will do His part, bringing the rain and man is to do his part?to cultivate the ground.
Author: rey
We encounter a second problem in this section: the apparent lack of greenery which is in direct contradiction with {{Genesis 1:11, 12}}. Here we have undeniable proof of the Bible being wrong?or do we?
Upon entering {{Genesis 2:4}} we encounter another problem. Why is the writer of Genesis giving us a second creation account? Didn?t he just cover all of creation in the first section? Why introduce this section with those same words?
So what does it all mean? How do those different interpretations of the Genesis days affect the reading of the text? How do we consider the passage in light of those interpretations?
Categories
Genesis Days -tmp(Gen 1)
I should acknowledge that on this text, interpretations differ. And here I don’t speak of the theistic interpretation versus a naturalistic interpretation, but rather between Christians who look at the Bible as inspired, inerrant and profitable. That being said it would behoove any believer to tread lightly when considering tearing an alternate interpretation of this text as being worldly or Satanic. We can agree that these things are true—but our interpretations may be false. That being the case, here are some views, with their Scriptural support and their inherent problems.