> Keil & Delitzsch write... “The growing of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs is different from the creation or first production of the vegetable kingdom, and relates to the growing and sprouting of the plants and germs which were called into existence by the creation, the natural development of the plants as it had steadily proceeded ever since the creation. This was dependent upon rain and human culture; their creation was not."

Ahh I see. I think that’s a cogent way to interpret this. I have my reservations, but I don’t think this view misuses the text in any way. Thanks for the commentary

> But there is no inconsistency in saying that a text is expounding on previous events, followed by a continuation of the narrative.

And yet that is not what is going on. The text is sequel, meaning that it is looking forward and NOT backward.

> before any plant was in the earth.

Again, you are missing both the scriptural and cultural context. The description of a non-ordered condition on the Earth is paralleled in part by descriptions of a primeval condition in some ancient Near Eastern texts. A common way of speaking of the Earth before it became ordered (not before its manufacture) appears in a set from Nippur as well as in a document called "Ewe and Wheat." Genesis is part of its cultural river, but takes a different approach. As Dr. John Walton writes, "Unlike Genesis, these texts consider the primeval condition of humans to be primitive and uncivilized. Like ancient Near Easter literature, however, Genesis begins with a time when no irrigation or planting strategies were being carried out by people. In the ancient Near East this resulted in no offerings for the gods. In Genesis God plants the garden and puts people in it. The similarities show the common idea that creation accounts proceed from an unordered, nonfunctional beginning through an ordered process."

Keil & Delitzsch write, "The creation of the plants is not alluded to here at all, but simply the planting of the Garden of Eden. The growing of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs is different from the creation or first production of the vegetable kingdom, and relates to the growing and sprouting of the plants and germs which were called into existence by the creation, the natural development of the plants as it had steadily proceeded ever since the creation. This was dependent upon rain and human culture; their creation was not."

> Right, they can be different and sometimes they’re used interchangeably to describe the same thing. My question is, what is the metaphorical significance of animals being created from the ground?

Since Genesis 1-2 are not descriptions of material manufacture (creation) but instead of God ordering what existed to function in a certain way (creation), Gn. 2.19 is not about material manufacture. In Gn. 1.24, the "land" produced living creatures. There is indicates not a biological process but a functional relationship of animals and the planet: They are land animals. It has nothing to do with humanity and can't be applied in that way to humans. Humans are never regarded as "land animals" in the Scripture.

> To me this is like saying, "Moving forward and moving backward don't have to be mutually exclusive."


I’m sure you read it that way. But there is no inconsistency in saying that a text is expounding on previous events, followed by a continuation of the narrative. You might not agree with this interpretation, but you’re looking for a contradiction where there is none.

> The idea is not of non-existence, but of lack of cultivation, i.e., more like a jungle of plants than an ordered orchard or garden.

The lack of cultivation is expressed in the words “no rain” and “no man to work the ground.” But the text also says “every plant of the field before it was in the earth.” Allow me to repeat: this is describing a time before any plant was in the earth. This is more than a lack of cultivation.... Plants. Aren’t. In. The. Earth. Yet.

> Being made from the ground is different from being made of dust. The word in Gn. 2.19 is adamah, ground; the term in 2.7 is 'apar, dust.

Right, they can be different and sometimes they’re used interchangeably to describe the same thing. My question is, what is the metaphorical significance of animals being created from the ground? I think whatever answer you come up with can likewise be applied to humans.

> I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive here.

To me this is like saying, "Moving forward and moving backward don't have to be mutually exclusive."

> The text is giving us further information about the creation (how God caused plants to grow without a man to till the ground)

No it's not, as I said. It's giving us something that happened later, perhaps much later.

> It’s not just “disordered.” It literally says “no plant and no shrub” had even appeared yet.

You're missing the point. The idea is not of non-existence, but of lack of cultivation, i.e., more like a jungle of plants than an ordered orchard or garden. It refers to a time when no irrigation or planting strategies, viz., farming, were being carried out by people. The concept behind the text is a progression from an unordered, nonfunctional beginning through an ordered process.

> Genesis 2:19 tells us that God formed the animals and the birds “out of the ground” as well.

Since the text is not about material manufacture, this is obvious figurative language. The verse is about God is giving humans the task of discerning functions and assigning them to the animal kingdom. Recall that the giving of a name is a creative activity and is related to function.

Being made from the ground is different from being made of dust. The word in Gn. 2.19 is adamah, ground; the term in 2.7 is 'apar, dust.

> When Genesis uses this phrase, it's always sequel—something that comes later—rather than synoptic (doubling back to explain what came before.

I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive here. The text is giving us further information about the creation (how God caused plants to grow without a man to till the ground), AND it’s continuing the narrative.

> Genesis 2.5-6 describes a non-ordered terrestrial realm where there is no functionality and productivity under the "rule and subdue" of humanity. It's disordered and needs a personal entity to bring order to it,

It’s not just “disordered.” It literally says “no plant and no shrub” had even appeared yet. Again, this is the author doubling back to explain how God caused vegetation to grow without a tiller... Answer: mist.

> "Dust" is an image of humanity's mortality

If dust is merely an image of human mortality and not to be taken literally, then the same is true of the animals. Genesis 2:19 tells us that God formed the animals and the birds “out of the ground” as well. I highly doubt the author is trying to communicate the mortality of cows and chickens. Surely there must be something else going on here.

> It re-tells the creation narrative

It's not re-telling the creation narrative. There's an introductory phrase in Gn. 2.4 ("this is the account of..." that repeats 10 times in Genesis and is an organizational framework. When Genesis uses this phrase, it's always *sequel*—something that comes later—rather than synoptic (doubling back to explain what came before. That means chapter 2 is not a re-telling of the creation narrative, nor does it have to do with Day 6, but instead with a later time period (which also means that chapter 1 is not talking about Adam and Eve, but about humanity as a species).

As far as v. 5 is concerned (no shrub...no plant...no rain...no man), let's take it in context. Just as Gn. 1.2 sets up a preliminary scenario for what is to follow (the disorder that God will bring order to), so also 2.5-6 sets one up. Genesis 1.2 describes a non-ordered cosmos that is not functioning as it should—as God's Temple and humanity's home, so God brings order to it all. Genesis 2.5-6 describes a non-ordered terrestrial realm where there is no functionality and productivity under the "rule and subdue" of humanity. It's disordered and needs a personal entity to bring order to it, just as we see in chapter 1 with the cosmos and God. So who knows how long after the events of chapter 1 (scientists would tell us multiple billions of years, and that's fine), chapter 2 comes along to show how humanity will resolve the issue of a non-ordered world.

To resolve the "problem," God gives to humanity the task of ordering (rule and subdue, work and care for) the Earth as sacred space. The rest of history is the continuation of this story, up to the present and beyond. God is still at work (the evolutionary process), as is humanity (the scientific and environmental mandate).

> and then God creates Adam.

Gn. 2.7 is not a text of material manufacture, just as Gn. 1 is not. Genesis 1 is about how God order the cosmos to function; Gn. 2.7 is showing that God vested humanity with His image, which is defined in 1.26-28 as ruling and subduing the Earth. "Dust" is an image of humanity's mortality (Gn. 3.19; Ps. 103.14, in a context of humanity's brief lives). We are born by natural processes and will die by them. But we were formed for a function: to rule and subdue, to care for and work sacred space: Responsible science and environmental care. We are able to do this because God has ingrained in us His image and the breath of life. All humans are made to be in relationship with God.

> Not only is this scientifically inaccurate

You can see from my explanation that this is a false accusation. This text has nothing to do with material manufacture and therefore can't be assessed as scientifically inaccurate.

> I think it’s clear that the author wants us to see Adam as a solution to a problem — namely, God needed someone to till the ground and up to that point, there was no man to do it.

Adam is not a solution to a problem, but an agent that God has placed in the context to represent His sovereignty. We are to treat the Earth with the same care and responsibility that God would; we are to live in relationship with Him and look to Him for life and morality. God is the center of life (the Tree of Life) and he is the source of wisdom and order (the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil).

I see. I think that’s a fair interpretation. But ultimately, I think where this view (that other hominids existed before Adam) runs into trouble is Genesis 2.

It re-tells the creation narrative and says in vv 4-6 that when God created the heavens and the earth, before any plants ever grew, God caused a mist to come up from the ground to water the earth because there was no rain and no man to till the ground... and then God creates Adam. Not only is this scientifically inaccurate, but I think it’s clear that the author wants us to see Adam as a solution to a problem — namely, God needed someone to till the ground and up to that point, there was no man to do it.

Thoughts?

As John Walton writes, "Here the text affirms that sin entered the world through one man and that death came through sin. It does not claim that humans were created immortal, only that humans are now subject to death because of sin. ... [B]eing made from dust indicates that we were made mortal. The chance for release from our natural mortality was provided by an antidote, the tree of life. Sin brought expulsion from the garden and loss of access to the tree of life. Therefore, sin doomed us to death, that is, with no antidote we would have no alternative but to succumb to our natural mortality."

William Horst writes that Paul uses death differently in different texts. He says that in 1 Cor. 15, for example, death = physical death as an aspect of how humans were made in the first place, as Walton said. "Mortality is a feature of how humans are built." But in Romans 5, Horst says, "Death is not morally neutral. Death metaphorically involves a life characterized by bondage (an inclination) to sin. Sin operates through members of the body. Death here is not the expiration of the body, but rather moral corruption. Death is a metaphor for moral bondage which translates to all humanity."

> This is incorrect. There is nothing in Genesis that says death entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned. Look for it; if you find it, let me know.

That’s correct. I was thinking of Romans 5:12 which says, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.”

So Paul says explicitly that death entered the world through the sin of Adam — death of humans to be exact (not the death of ants or heads of lettuce) — and that death persisted because all humans sin. I’m assuming you must have a different understanding of this verse, yes?

> So you accept evolution as a theory, and you believe that other hominids existed before Adam and Eve.

Yes, and yes.

> But according to Genesis, death only entered the world when Adam/Eve sinned.

This is incorrect. There is nothing in Genesis that says death entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned. Look for it; if you find it, let me know. What God warned them was that on the day they ate the forbidden fruit, they would be doomed to die (Gn. 2.17, using the Hebrew grammar). If they were to disobey, death would be the eventual outcome of their behavior. They would fall under a death sentence, so to speak.

We know death was already in the system before Adam and Eve sinned. First, it's impossible for them to eat without technically killing something, like a head of lettuce or of broccoli (yuck), for instance. Second, it's unrealistic to think they never stepped on an ant while they were walking or never chopped an earthworm in two while hoeing, for instance. Third, the serpent already withdrawn from and opposed to God, which is a status of death rather than life. Fourth, they would not have understood God's warning (on the day you eat of it you will surely die) if they didn't know what death was. Fifth, they wouldn't have needed a Tree of Life if they were already immortal.

> So how do you reconcile this apparent contradiction?

Therefore, I don't see a contradiction anywhere.