[geologist]

Genesis 1:20 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.

In the above verse the Bible says that the Lord God brought forth both the sea creatures and birds (fowl) from the waters.

This is reaffirmed in the following verse:
Genesis 1:21 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.

But this verse presents an apparent contradiction:

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

This verse says that the Lord God brought forth the fowl from the ground, not the waters.

Why is this not a contradiction?

First thought that comes to mind is that the waters brought forth sea birds, such as gulls, pelicans, etc.

The earth brought forth land birds such as sparrows, etc.

All life was created by Divine Fiat....spoken into existence by God. Life did not "evolve" from primordial soup. The poetic language used in Genesis conveys truth in non-scientific terminology.

Shalom,

Tandi

[geologist]

Originally Posted by Tandi

First thought that comes to mind is that the waters brought forth sea birds, such as gulls, pelicans, etc.

The earth brought forth land birds such as sparrows, etc.

All life was created by Divine Fiat....spoken into existence by God. Life did not "evolve" from primordial soup. The poetic language used in Genesis conveys truth in non-scientific terminology.

Shalom,

Tandi

Ok, but first ground rule: Please spare me on the anti-evolution platitudes. Nobody mentioned anything about evolution, and I don't intend to bring that subject up (I don't believe it, anyway). We are dealing here only with divinely inspired Scriptural text.

That being said. Yes, but the "poetic language" cited does appear to contradict itself. My first thought was that the first instance could have meant water birds like penguins, but they can not "fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." (Gen 1:20) That would also rule out other flightless birds which are land dwellers.

BOTH the birds that the waters brought forth (Genesis 1:20-22) and that were brought forth from the ground (Genesis 2:19) are said to fly.

So, again, the question is this: One passage says they came forth from the waters, another says they came from the ground. Why is this not a contradiction?

[Winman]

Gen 1:20 says "And God said"

This is telling you the method God used to create these creatures.

Gen 1:21 says, "And God created"

This is telling you God brought forth something that did not previously exist.

Gen 2:19 says, "And out of the ground the LORD God formed"

This is telling you the material or substance God used to form these creatures.

[geologist]

Originally Posted by Winman

Gen 1:20 says "And God said"

This is telling you the method God used to create these creatures.

Gen 1:21 says, "And God created"

This is telling you God brought forth something that did not previously exist.

Gen 2:19 says, "And out of the ground the LORD God formed"

This is telling you the material or substance God used to form these creatures.

Your answer does not explain my original question. Is the substance God used to create the fowl the "waters" (Genesis 1:20-22) or the "ground" (Genesis 2:19)?

[Winman]

Geologist

We are made (as well as all creatures) from both the ground and the water. A trace of all elements can be found in the human body. But there is much water too. Here is a statement from a doctor about the percentage of water in the body I found.

Different people have different percentages of their bodies made up of
water. Babies have the most, being born at about 78%. By one year of age,
that amound drops to about 65%. In adult men, about 60% of their bodies
are water. However, fat tissue does not have as much water as lean tissue.
In adult women, fat makes up more of the body than men, so they have about
55% of thier bodies made of water. Fat men also have less water (as a
percentage) than thin men.

So, God knew exactly what He was saying, there is no contradiction whatsoever.

Originally Posted by geologist

Your answer does not explain my original question. Is the substance God used to create the fowl the "waters" (Genesis 1:20-22) or the "ground" (Genesis 2:19)?

Winman brings up a good point.

What if the answer is BOTH. Check this out...

All animal life was completed on the 5th day. (Gen. 1:21-23)

Man was created on the 6th day. (26-31)

The event in 2:19 could be a "naming event"
not a creation event. (the animal creation was already completed on day 5).

You will notice in 1:27 he created them "male and female" but not in 2:19.

In 2:19, I think it is possible that God created only one each of the living creatures from the earth as a "snap shot" for Adam to review them and name them all in assembly line fashion. This was no small feat, but still easy for our God of creation to whip up a quick tiger, ostrich or giraffe from the dirt in front of Adam.

God presents the mighty steed...
God: "Adam, what would you call this?"
Adam: "Hmmm, let's go with Horse (or whatever)."

God presents the Pachyderm...
God: "How about this?"
Adam: "I like the name Elephant."

God presents the Platypus...
God: "How about this?"
Adam: "Are you serious?"

[Winman]

Geologist

The creation accounts in Gen 1 and 2 argue against your Gap Theory. According to your theory, the earth was destroyed and laid waste between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.

"And the earth was without form, and void'

Gappers argue that "without form" means destroyed. And this is one meaning of the word. But the primary definition is formlessness, without features.

But we see God using the word "formed" in several verses.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

So here the LORD God formed man, every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air from the ground. But this previously "unformed" ground was not lying in a state of destruction or even waste.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

So, at least here in Gen chapter 2, the ground was not some destroyed wasteland as Gappers claim the earth was in Gen 1:2. It was producing every plant of the field, and every herb of the field. And there was water available too, as a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

[Winman]

God presents the Platypus...
God: "How about this?"
Adam: "Are you serious?"

Good one Brother Parrish!

[Luke]

Not sure if this was said, but if it was, I'll say it simpler

Genesis 1 describes day 1-6

Genesis 2 describes the events in the Garden of Eden, and God's creation regarding Eden. So in Genesis 2, the birds are everywhere else, and then God creates some locally in Eden. That's also the explanation for why the order is out of wack with Genesis 1. He uses the earth to do this, rather than the water. No big deal.