4 ms·

Genesis 2:5 begins with: "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up...". "Bush of the field" and "small pl

Genesis 2:5 begins with: "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up...". "Bush of the field" and "small plant of the field" were not part of the list of vegetation created on day 3 in Genesis 1 ("plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit"). The explanation can be found in Genesis 3:18. As part of the curse for eating forbidden fruit, the Lord says to Adam: "cursed is the ground because of you [...] thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field." The bush/plants of the field were not created until after man was made. We can conclude that these plants did not produce food in the form of grain or fruit like the vegetation created on day 3. Because of man's sin these plants became thorns and thistles. There is no need to assume a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

mcv 4y ago
I'd be careful connecting anything from Genesis 1 to elements from Genesis 2-4. They're different and unrelated stories written at very different times. Reading too much into these sort of connections could easily lead you to completely different conclusions than what the authors intended. Although it's certainly true that Genesis 3 suggests thorns, thistles and other nastier parts of nature weren't around at first, which again fits the "man came first" aspect of the Genesis 2 creation story.
- reedlaw 4y ago
  What if we assume skilled authorship which made connections purposefully in order to emphasize important points? Genesis is full of such connections. If we assume harmony between Genesis 1:11-13 (fruits/grains) and Genesis 2:5 (bush/plants of the field) then it is clear that fruit was the chief food in the garden and agriculture came later.
- b_spinoza 4y ago
  Your point that the two creation accounts are different stories written at different times is well taken, and many people underappreciate that fact. However, it is also important to recognize that they were brought together and redacted by an editor (or committee of editors, perhaps even spread out over time) that arranged and tweaked the stories. At the very least, it is easy to glean from the text that they are intended to form a whole "collection," with connections between the various myths. The textual evidence suggests that the connections are stronger than that. So while it is the more common error to underappreciate the differences between the accounts, it is a less common but equally erroneous mistake to underappreciate the "unity" (of a sort) that they have.

mcv 4y ago

I'd be careful connecting anything from Genesis 1 to elements from Genesis 2-4. They're different and unrelated stories written at very different times. Reading too much into these sort of connections could easily lead you to completely different conclusions than what the authors intended. Although it's certainly true that Genesis 3 suggests thorns, thistles and other nastier parts of nature weren't around at first, which again fits the "man came first" aspect of the Genesis 2 creation story.

reedlaw 4y ago
What if we assume skilled authorship which made connections purposefully in order to emphasize important points? Genesis is full of such connections. If we assume harmony between Genesis 1:11-13 (fruits/grains) and Genesis 2:5 (bush/plants of the field) then it is clear that fruit was the chief food in the garden and agriculture came later.
b_spinoza 4y ago
Your point that the two creation accounts are different stories written at different times is well taken, and many people underappreciate that fact. However, it is also important to recognize that they were brought together and redacted by an editor (or committee of editors, perhaps even spread out over time) that arranged and tweaked the stories. At the very least, it is easy to glean from the text that they are intended to form a whole "collection," with connections between the various myths. The textual evidence suggests that the connections are stronger than that. So while it is the more common error to underappreciate the differences between the accounts, it is a less common but equally erroneous mistake to underappreciate the "unity" (of a sort) that they have.