Abbotsford Rock and Gem Show – This Coming Weekend, November 16 & 17!

Dear rockhound,

The Abbotsford Rock and Gem Club is excited to announce their inaugural club show, taking place in Abbotsford this coming weekend.

Where and When

Peardonville Hall
29450 Huntingdon Rd.
Abbotsford, BC
Saturday, November 16 10:00am – 5:00pm
Sunday, November 17 10:00am – 4:00pm

Highlights

  • Crystals
  • Minerals
  • Beads
  • Gifts
  • Jewelery
  • Gem Stones
  • Silent Auction
  • Door Prizes
  • Dealers
  • Displays
  • Fossils

Admission is by donation. Find unique gifts just in time for Christmas!

Regards,

British Columbia Lapidary Society

by Richard Peachey

This article is, in large part, the result of an email interaction with David A. Sterchi, whose challenging and stimulating friendship I appreciate very much.

* * * * * * * *

Various Bible scholars have attempted to argue that the seventh day of the Genesis creation week was a long indefinite period of time (see Appendix A for examples). Their purpose, often, is to promote their interpretation of the Genesis 1 “days” as similarly indeterminate epochs — which can then be seen as compatible with the millions of years demanded by evolutionists.

The goal of this article is to examine the Scriptural data in order to counter the position that the seventh day can rightly be understood as a period of time longer than an ordinary day.

1. The word “day” in Genesis 1 is best understood as a normal-length (24-hour) day or the light portion thereof.

The word “day” first appears in Genesis 1 when God calls the light “day” (Genesis 1:5a), at the same time calling the darkness “night.” Thus the first usage of the word “day” is connected to the light portion of a day-night (or light-darkness) cycle.

The second occurrence of the word “day” is later in the same verse (Genesis 1:5b). But that appearance of the word follows the mention of “evening” and “morning.” The sequentially numbered days — “first day,” “second day,” etc. — are therefore typically understood as 24-hour days (see Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31).

Other references to “day” are found in God’s speech on the fourth creation day. The two great lights are “to separate the day from the night” (Genesis 1:14a, cf. 1:16,18), recalling the definition of “day” as the light portion of the day-night cycle in Genesis 1:5a. As well, the two great lights are to be “for signs and for seasons, and for days and years” (Genesis 1:14b), which could refer to either days of daylight or 24-hour days, but could not refer to long indefinite periods of time.

2. The term “seventh day” includes the word “day”; and that day is “seventh” in a series of numbered days.

As noted above, the meaning of the word “day” is established in Genesis 1 as either the daylight portion of a day-night cycle, or a 24-hour day that includes an “evening-morning” sequence. Neither of these meanings allows for “day” to represent a long indefinite period of time. Now, these six “days” of Genesis 1 are followed immediately by the “seventh” day (Genesis 2:1-3), which must accordingly be the same kind of “day” as the first six. Both the word “day” and the adjective “seventh” prevent us from thinking of the seventh day as anything but one more in a series of days of the kind seen in Genesis 1.

The Israelite work week given in Exodus 20:11; 31:15-17 (and clearly based on Genesis 1:1–2:3) included a seventh-day sabbath which was of the same length as each of the six days of work, not longer. This argues for an original Day 7 that was of the same length as the creation Days 1 to 6.

Besides those points, it is important to notice that the seventh day is not specifically described in Scripture as “eternal” or “unending” or “indeterminate” or any such thing. True, the end of the seventh day is not explicitly mentioned — but that omission does not entail that the seventh day never ended! Those who make such a claim are attempting to argue from silence, which is weak. (See point #7, below, for further discussion of this omission.)

3. If the original seventh day had never ended, then we would even now be experiencing only daylight, never evening or night.

The reality, of course, is that we do currently experience cycles of daylight and darkness. Therefore at some point in the past the seventh day must have been terminated with a period of darkness. In fact, this must have happened no later than Noah’s time, since God uses the word “night” in Genesis 7:4 (cf. 8:22). Furthermore, God told Adam, “cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days [plural] of your life” (Genesis 3:17) — so even in Adam’s time there was already a series of “days” occurring, not just one single long ongoing “day.” It is therefore clear that the seventh day ended long ago, and it cannot be continuing right now.

Someone might respond, “The unending seventh day is one of God’s days, rather than a day of the kind we experience on Earth.” But the first six days were all directly related to the Earth: They each included a “day-night” (light/darkness) cycle and an “evening-morning” sequence. Also note that all of God’s creative activity was done on the Earth, except for the lights of Day 4, which were made for the sake of the Earth. There is no clear Scriptural reason to treat the seventh day as of a different order than the other six.

4. The fact that God is continuing to rest from his work of creation is irrelevant to this debate.

God rested (i.e., ceased from working) on the seventh day (Genesis 2:2f.), and he continues to rest from his works of creation (Hebrews 4:3f.). But his continuing rest does not entail that the day on which he began to rest must also continue!

5. Psalm 95 and the book of Hebrews are irrelevant to this debate.

Hebrews 4:4-10 speaks of God’s rest, and of the seventh day and of the Sabbath. But that passage does not speak of an original Day 7 that is ongoing; nor does it use the seventh day’s omission of the “evening-morning” formula to argue for anything; nor does it assert that the seventh day has a different length from the earlier six days. As for Psalm 95 (quoted in Hebrews 3:7-11,15; 4:3,5,7), that text does not speak of the seventh day at all.

6. The use of the Hebrew word yom (“day”) in Genesis 2:4 is irrelevant to this debate.

Some attempt to argue that Genesis 2:4 uses “day” in a sense of a longer period of time. But in that verse yom is found within a bound idiomatic expression that is not related to the usage of the word in Genesis 1. See my detailed explanation here.

7. The seventh day’s omission of the concluding formula is irrelevant to this debate.

The seventh day is unlike the earlier six in that it omits a concluding formula, “And there was evening, and there was morning, the seventh day.” Therefore, some argue, the seventh day may not have ended, as did the other six days in the series.

But there are good reasons for the seventh day to omit such a concluding formula. First, it was not a day of creation as were days one to six. Accordingly, it omits not only the “evening-morning” expression but also other formulaic wording, including fiat (“And God said, ‘Let there be. . . .’ “), fulfilment (“And it was so.”), and evaluation (“And God saw that it was good.”)

Furthermore, one function of the concluding formula in days one to six is to usher in the following day — which would be unsuitable for Day 7 since Day 8 is not part of the account.

C. John Collins writes, “The refrain, after each work period, marks the coming of evening, and then of morning, which brings that day to a close and prepares us for the next one.” (“The refrain in Genesis 1: A critical review of its rendering in the English Bible.The Bible Translator, Vol. 60, No. 3, July 2009, p.129)

Robert McCabe says, “Second, the evening and morning conclusion has another rhetorical function that is to mark a transition from a concluding day to the following day. If the first week was completed, there was no need to use the evening-morning formula for transitional purposes.” (“A Critique of the Framework interpretation of the Creation Account, Part 2 of 2.Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Vol. 11, 2006, p. 110)

Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. notes: “The phrase ‘evening and morning’ links the day that is concluding with the next day. For example the morning that marks the end of day one also marks the beginning of day two. Thus, we do not find the formula at the end of the seventh day, since the week of creation is completed.” (in Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and David W. Hall [eds.], Did God Create in Six Days? [Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999], p. 168)


Appendix A: Bible scholars who view the “seventh day” as an extended period of time

Gerhard Charles Aalders, Bible Student’s Commentary: Genesis, Vol. 1 [trans. William Heynen] (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), pp. 75f.

It would be difficult to conceive of this “seventh day” as an ordinary 24-hour day, as many claim, or as a day from sunup to sundown. This immediately raises the problem of whether God’s rest continued for only one 24-hour day. Certainly, we must consider the possibility that this rest of God continues. For us humans a day of rest is always followed by another series of work days. But this is not the case with God’s creation days. With Him we have six days of creation and then one day of rest. But His day of rest is then not followed by more days of creation work. Our attention should also be called to the omission of any reference to “evening” and “morning” with respect to this day of rest. In the light of what has been said above, this is understandable. This seventh day began with a morning but it had no evening because it still continues.

Clare Amos, The Book of Genesis [Epworth Commentaries] (Peterborough, UK: Epworth Press, 2004), p. 14.

These few verses about the seventh day [i.e., Genesis 2:1-3] do not follow the ordered structural pattern of the previous six days. That is deliberate. Genesis will be a book in which patterns and order will be important. But it will be precisely the individuals and the events that flout the moulds which will be highlighted and give meaning to the whole. The seventh day is a foretaste of this. And this seventh day is a day without end.

Clyde T. Francisco, “Genesis” in Clifton J. Allen (ed.), The Broadman Bible Commentary, Vol. 1 [revised] (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1973), p. 126.

The formula that closes each day (“there was evening and there was morning”) does not occur in reference to the seventh day. With unusual discernment the writer of the book of Hebrews concludes from this that the seventh day has never ended (4:1-7). Since creation God has been in his day of rest. By faith we may join him.

R. Kent Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), p. 43.

[On Genesis 2:1-3, referring to the seventh day:] This blessed and holy day has no end. There is no morning and evening. It has existed from the completion of creation and still is. God still rests after the great event.

Kenneth A. Mathews, The New American Commentary, Vol. 1A (Genesis 1–11:26) (USA: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), p. 181.

The seventh day has no closing refrain “evening” and “morning”; the seventh day has no end and therefore is viewed as eternal. Whereas the human workweek recurs after each Sabbath, the sabbath rest of God is eternal since creation’s work is finished. Sabbath is taken up by the New Testament and interpreted in the context of the “new Moses.” The theology of this perpetual rest was expounded by the writer to the Hebrews, who spoke of a sabbath rest that yet awaits those who are in Christ Jesus (4:3-11). He bound together the two motifs of Canaan’s land of rest (3:7-19), drawing on Ps 95:7b-11, and of creation’s sabbath rest, quoting Gen 2:2 (4:3-11). Just as Moses’ generation had failed to possess their promised rest, the writer forewarned his readers not to commit the same failure through disbelief in Christ.

Russell R. Reno, Genesis [Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible] (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press [Baker], 2010), p. 60.

The account of the seventh day does not end with the formula “and there was evening and there was morning.” The new “work” of rest takes place on a day that has a beginning, but no ending. The seventh day, it seems, stretches forward and beyond the counting of days. In this sense, the seven-day account of Gen. 1 does not simply provide us with a beginning. It extends to the end of the ages. The seventh day contains within itself the fullness of time. Creation is finished, but the story of God’s strategy for blessing and sanctifying still needs to be told. The entire sweep of scripture from this point onward tells us what happens so that the seventh day can be brought to completion.

Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy [1st edition] (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004), p. 228.

In my first reading of Genesis 1, I saw indications that the Genesis creation days were long time periods. Simple textual observations—the timing of Eve’s creation, the lack of an evening and morning for the seventh day, and the Genesis 2:4 usage of the word ‘day’ in reference to the entire creation week—convinced me.

Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer, “The Day-Age View” in David G. Hagopian (ed.), The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), pp. 145f.

The Continuation of the Seventh Day

Moses wrote of the first six creation days, “There was evening, and there was morning—the [X]th day.” This wording provides a pattern, a framework (to borrow a word), for the events of each of the first six creation days. Each had a starting time and an ending time. However, no such wording is attached to the seventh day, neither in Genesis nor anywhere else in the Bible. Given the parallel structure marking the creation days, this distinct change in the pattern for narrating the seventh day strongly suggests that this day had (or has) not yet ended.
Further information about the seventh day is given in Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4. in these passages, we learn that God’s day of rest continues. The Hebrews writer describes it thus:

For somewhere [God] has spoken about the seventh day in these words “And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.” . . . It still remains that some will enter that rest. . . . There remains, then, a Sabbath rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest. (4:4-11)

According to this passage, the seventh day of the creation week carries on through the centuries from Adam and Eve, through Israel’s development as a nation, through the time of Christ’s earthly ministry, through the early days of the apostolic Church, and on into future years. In Psalm 95:7-11, King David also refers to God’s seventh day of rest as ongoing.

From these passages, we gather that the seventh day of Genesis 1–2 represents a minimum of several thousand years and a maximum that is open-ended (but finite). Given the parallelism of the Genesis creation account, it seems reasonable to conclude that the first six days may also have been long time periods.

Justin Taylor, “Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods.” The Gospel Coalition blog, Jan. 28, 2015.

The Seventh “Day” Is Not 24 Hours Long

In Genesis 2:2-3 where we are told that “on the seventh day [yom] God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day [yom] from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day [yom] and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.” The question we have to ask here is: was God’s creation “rest” limited to a 24-hour period? On the contrary, Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4 teach that God’s Sabbath rest “remains” and that we can enter into it or be prevented from entering it.

Miles Van Pelt observes:

In Exod 20:11, the command for the people of God to remember the Sabbath day is grounded in God’s pattern of work and rest during the creation week. The people of God are to work for six solar days (Exod 20:9) and then rest on the seventh solar day (Exod 20:10). If, therefore, it can be maintained that God’s seventh day rest in Gen 2 extends beyond the scope of a single solar day, then the correspondence between the “day” of God’s rest and our “day” of observance would be analogical, not identical. In other words, if day seven is an unending day, still in progress, then our weekly recognition of that day is not temporally identical. As such, there is no reason to maintain that the same could not be true for the previous six days, especially if the internal, exegetical evidence from Genesis 1 and 2 supports this reality.

[Taylor does not provide a reference for his Van Pelt quote. For refutations of Taylor’s article, see Lita Cosner, “Biblical reasons to affirm the creation days Were 24 hour periods.” Creation Ministries International, Feb. 3, 2015; Terry Mortenson, “A Response to a Gospel Coalition Blog on the Age of the Earth.” Answers in Genesis, Apr. 22, 2015.]

Abortion is lauded as the means to freedom for women.  Perhaps that is so for some, but the effects of killing the child within her womb are nothing so easy as the glib portrayal of abortion advocates.

Women struggle with depression, confusion, break-down in relationships and sometimes can’t have children later because of the physical damage done in those ‘nothing to it’, sales jobs foisted on them when they are vulnerable and weak, and ought to be given support and love instead of lies about their child being just some blob of tissue.

Once, while driving I listened to a long CBC program about the way to help women journey through the pain, the grief and depression of losing their baby to a miscarriage. No mention of abortion in that program, and those were called ‘babies‘, not fetuses.

Abortion cheapens women and family life.  Women become an object to be used at will, and if a child results, just toss it into a garbage bin. Party on.  No,………actually, it is far worse than that.  Little baby bodies are used for their body parts.  Harvested for medicine to use for the betterment of society.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/who-buys-sells-and-uses-fetal-tissue-acquired-from-abortion-clinics/

Unplanned‘ is a movie, so I’m guessing the film-makers use artistic licence, though I hope they have presented more fact than fiction.

But I do not need dramatized versions of reality to know that abortion is a vile industry.  I volunteered at a small pro-life place in Langley, maybe 30 years ago.  I’ve spent many years hanging out with imprisoned women.  I’ve heard stories from friends who turned to abortion as their only escape from censure or poverty.

The glib, shallow Justin Trudeau and his mindless minions are just more of a world that wants to silence all thoughtful objections to demand for hedonism and godless living.  Only when God is erased from the public mind can tyranny take His place in our minds and souls.  And then wrong becomes right, and right becomes wrong.

 

by Richard Peachey

“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.” — Genesis 2:19, KJV

“Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.” — Genesis 2:19, ESV

Critics of the Bible have often pointed to an apparent contradiction between the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 2 presents God’s formation of animals and birds after the account of his formation of man. But Genesis 1 describes God’s creation of birds and his making of land animals before the account of his creation of man.

Some English versions, including the KJV, ASV, RSV, and NASB, translate the first verb in Genesis 2:19 as simply “formed,” leaving the reader with the impression that there is indeed a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Other translations, both pre-KJV and post-NASB (see Appendix A), render the verb as an English pluperfect, “had formed,” which would resolve the apparent contradiction. This article will argue that the latter approach, the translation of the verb as a pluperfect, is the right solution for the Genesis 2:19 “problem.”

I wish to thank my friend David A. Sterchi for stimulating email conversations that have contributed to the production of this article. (He will not necessarily agree with all of my argumentation!)

(1) There is an apparent contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 regarding the order of the creation of man, land animals, and birds.

(a) In Genesis 1, birds are created on Day 5 (1:20-23), land animals on Day 6 (1:24f.), and man as male and female later on Day 6 (1:26f.). The impression that man was created after birds and land animals is further reinforced, it seems to me, by the words God uses in blessing man (male and female) after creating them. God commands them to have dominion over the birds and land animals (as well as fish) in 1:28. God then gives plants as food not only to man, but also to the land animals and birds (1:29f.). Finally, God evaluates everything he has made (with man as the ultimate creation) and pronounces it all “very good” (1:31). Thus the sequence of creation events described in 1:20-27, plus God’s blessing, gift of food, and evaluation in 1:28-31 provide the reader with a consistent understanding of the creation order as birds, then land animals, then man as male and female.

(b) In Genesis 2, man (as male) is formed in 2:7, and subsequently the narrative describes the formation of “every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens” (2:19). Last of all, the woman is built (2:22). If the reader had only this chapter (in the original Hebrew) to inform him, he would have to see the creation order as man (male), then field beasts and birds, then woman.

(c) The apparent contradiction consists of this: In Genesis 1 man (male and female) was made/created AFTER birds and land animals; but in Genesis 2 man (male) was formed BEFORE field beasts and birds are (stated to have been) formed.

(2) Four ways of dealing with this apparent contradiction:

(a) Negative critics and skeptics of the Bible treat the two chapters as myths from different sources which actually do conflict with each other. This is not a position that can be a legitimate option for evangelicals to hold.

(b) A small number of commentators follow Cassuto’s suggestion: that God did create birds and animals before man as described in Genesis 1, but then, after forming man, God also created a few specimens of the various animal and bird species for man to name. These would have been sufficient to help man to understand that his need was for a helper corresponding to him, rather than a helper like one of the animals or birds.

This view is noted favourably by Hamilton (though he would also accept a pluperfect solution) and it is strongly supported by Sailhamer (see Appendix B for quotations and references). One possible difficulty with Cassuto’s proposal is that “every” bird was created both BEFORE man (“every winged bird according to its kind,” Genesis 1:21) and AFTER man (“every bird of the heavens,” Genesis 2:19). Since God “brought” the animals and birds to the man (2:19), why not simply bring the ones created earlier and avoid duplication of work? A single creation of birds and animals would be a simpler solution than a proposal of two distinct creations, one of which is omitted in chapter 1, and the other of which happens to be overlooked in chapter 2.

(c) Some commentators want to “dischronologize” either Genesis 1, or Genesis 2, or both. Their claim is that one or both of the authors of these chapters were unconcerned about chronology. I respond to this claim in major point #6 below.

(d) Some commentators argue that the first verb in Genesis 2:19 should be rendered as a pluperfect (past perfect), “had formed.” (For their reasons, see major point #3 below.) This, it seems to me, is the right solution for the Genesis 2:19 “problem.”

Commentators who view the pluperfect as an acceptable way of resolving the apparent contradiction between Genesis 1:20-31 and Genesis 2:19 include Aalders, Coleson, Collins, Hamilton, and Jordan (see Appendix B for quotations and references). Green suggests a participle (“having formed”), but this would have the same effect as the pluperfect. Sarna’s comment is likewise compatible with the use of the pluperfect in 2:19. English Bible translations using the pluperfect include not only recent ones (NIV, ESV) but also several pre-KJV versions: Tyndale Bible (1530), Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthew Bible (1537), and Bishops Bible (1568) (see Appendix A).

(3) It is legitimate to translate a Hebrew verb as a pluperfect in some contexts.

(a) The English and Greek languages have a specialized verb form for the pluperfect, but the Hebrew language does not. A typical Hebrew perfect verb (or waw-imperfect) in a narrative may be translated as an English simple past (e.g., “formed” in Genesis 2:19), or as a perfect (“has formed”), or as a pluperfect (“had formed”). The translator will select an English verb form based on his understanding of the context in which the Hebrew verb is found.

(b) Aalders notes the importance of context in making a decision as to what sort of past tense to use for the Hebrew verb in Genesis 2:19. “As far as the creation of the animal world is concerned, the whole question of when this took place depends on how 2:19 is translated. It is possible to translate it either as ‘when the LORD God had formed’ or as ‘then the LORD God formed.’ The Hebrew permits either translation. How it must be translated in this specific instance depends entirely on the context.”

(c) Coleson similarly points to context as determinative for translation of the Hebrew verb in Genesis 2:19. “The NIV rendering, however is, Now the LORD God had formed. [Coleson’s emphasis.] Translating the verb as a past perfect implies that this account refers to God’s previous creation of animal life (1:20-22, 24-25). The fact that biblical Hebrew does not have a separate form to indicate the past perfect supports this translation. When associated grammar and syntax allow, and when context calls for it, Hebraists do not hesitate to translate the Hebrew ‘perfect’ (perfective) as a past perfect in English. When options exist, context should be the determining factor in translation.”

(d) Likewise, Collins has written: “It has been argued above (section V) that literary environment (‘co-text’) can establish the ‘logic of the referents’, i.e., it can tell us what the author thought was the ‘actual’ sequence of events. If we take Genesis 1:3-2:3 as conveying the broad-stroke story line, which seems to be the simplest way to read it, we are entitled, by the second criterion of section V, to read wayyier in 2:19 as a pluperfect.”

(4) It is reasonable to view Genesis 1 as providing context for Genesis 2.

(a) Genesis 1 precedes Genesis 2, and as far as we really know, it has always done so.

Jason DeRouchie (personal communication, Apr. 18, 2019) writes: “Gen 1:1–2:3 informs all the book, including the toledot unit in 2:4–4:26. The introduction colors our reading of all that follows, which means (in my view) that we must read chapter 2 in light of chapter 1. . . . Because God’s inspired word includes a preface at the front-end (i.e., Gen 1:1–2:3), I think we must first read what follows in the light of it and only thereafter read the Preface in light of what follows. As such, I do think that the placement of the animals before humans in Gen 1 supplies justified grounds for reading the wayyiqtol verb in 2:19 as a pluperfect.”

(b) Genesis 2 should be understood as supplementary to Genesis 1, rather than as a separate and contradictory creation account.

(i) Genesis 2:4-25 is not a full “creation account,” since it omits any mention of the creation of light, day, night, the expanse, waters above the expanse, seas, sun, moon, stars, great sea creatures, fish, other marine organisms, or land-based creeping things — all of which are found in Genesis 1. Nor is there any mention of God’s finishing of his work of creating, or resting from that work. In 2:4-25 mention is made only of:

• man;
• fruit trees in the garden, planted for man;
• water and minerals in and around the garden, which was planted for man;
• field animals and birds, as potential helpers of man;
• woman, built from man, for man.

(ii) Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), p. 16: “Chapter 2 is not another creation story. As such it would be singularly incomplete. In fact, it presupposes a knowledge of much of the preceding account of Creation. Many of the leading ideas in the earlier account are here reiterated, though the mode of presentation is different. Thus, in both narratives God is the sovereign Creator, and the world is the purposeful product of His will. To human beings, the crown of His Creation, God grants mastery over the animal kingdom. In chapter 1, this idea is formulated explicitly; in the present section it is inferred from the power of naming invested in man. Both accounts view man as a social creature. Both project the concept of a common ancestry for all humanity. The notion that the human race was originally vegetarian is implied in 2:16-17, as in 1:29.”

(iii) Gerhard Charles Aalders, Bible Student’s Commentary: Genesis, Vol. 1 (trans. William Heynen) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), p. 79: “In the first place, it is certainly incorrect to call Genesis 2:4b–3:24 a second creation narrative. The contents of this section clearly belie such a designation. It is granted that chapter 2 includes a few matters that relate to creation, and that the creation of woman is given a broader treatment than it received in chapter 1. Even so, it cannot be denied that the major purpose of chapter 2 is to prepare the way for what is revealed in chapter 3, namely, the Fall into sin. This explains the contents of chapter 2. This explains the extensive description of the Garden of Eden (vv. 4-18), in which the persons who were created by God were placed. This also explains why the commandment, which was transgressed in chapter 3, is spelled out in the words of God (vv. 16-17). This even explains the detailed account of the creation of woman (vv. 18-24), since she was destined to play such a significant role in the tragic event of the Fall.”

(iv) Genesis 2:4-25 serves to amplify some of the events of Day Six (1:26-29), focusing on the local region and on specifically human concerns. The local, human-focused nature of chapter 2 is seen in:

• the use of the localizing term “field” in 2:5 (twice; not used previously in Genesis);
• God’s action in forming one man from the ground (2:7);
• God’s action in planting a garden in Eden, a specific locality (2:8);
• God’s action in placing the man in the garden to work it and keep it (2:8,15);
• the description of the garden including the names of four rivers, with locations detailed for three of them, and a listing of three natural resources found in the local area (2:9-14);
• God’s action in forbidding the man to eat from one specific tree in the garden (2:16f.);
• God’s action in bringing a variety of wild animals and birds to the man for consideration as potential helpers, and for naming (2:19f.);
• God’s actions in operating on the man, building the woman, and bringing the woman to the man (2:21f.).

All of these specific actions and other features of Genesis 2:4-25 point to a local, human focus rather than a general, global focus as seen in chapter 1. (One feature to note is the introduction of God’s personal covenant name “Yahveh” or “the LORD” in 2:5, which alerts the reader to a focus on the Creator’s special interest in human beings.)

(v) Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977), p. 58: “It is misleading to call this a second creation account, for it hastens to localize the scene, passing straight from the world at large to ‘a garden . . . in the east’; all that follows is played out on this narrow stage.” [Ellipsis his.]

(vi) According to Collins, “It is hard to escape the conclusion that the final editor wanted his readers to read the two accounts as complementary, not contradictory; the traditional approach that sees 2:4-25 as an elaboration of the sixth ‘day’ is how an audience would co-operate with this intention of the author/editor.”

(vii) Regarding Genesis 2, Sarna writes, “As noted above, the dominant theme of this section, to which all else is subordinated, is man and the human condition. The narrative now focuses on humankind’s mastery over the animals. Mention of their creation is therefore made incidentally, not for its own sake, and is no indication of sequential order in regard to the creation of man.”

(viii) From my viewpoint, the key question is this: Can a reasonable reader be expected to recognize that Genesis 2 is a more focused narrative nested within the broader account of Genesis 1? If so, and if biblical inerrancy is accepted, then the English pluperfect rendering for the first Hebrew verb in Genesis 2:19 is a reasonable solution to the apparent contradiction in the sequence of creation events for man, animals, and birds.

With this question in mind, it is possible to develop a detailed textual analysis on the innertextuality of Genesis 1 and 2 regarding creation of the animals and birds. The texts to be considered are Genesis 1:20-31 and 2:18-25, both of which treat divinely created man in his relationship to divinely created animals and birds. Conceptual connections between the two chapters include the following: (a) God made/formed the animals; (b) the earth/ground was involved in their production; (c) man rules over the animals, which are not his equals (therefore he names them); (d) this rulership is ordained by God, who gave man dominion over the animals, and brought him the animals to name.

In chapter 1, God makes “living creatures” including “beasts of the earth,” which are produced out of “the earth.”

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (1:24f.)

In chapter 2, the LORD God’s formation of field beasts is from “the ground.” These beasts, together with the birds, are called “living creatures” (cf. 1:24). The adjective “every” perhaps corresponds to the phrase “according to their kinds” in chapter 1. (Note that the synonymy of “earth” and “ground” in chapter 2 is set up in 2:5f.)

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. (2:19)

In chapter 1, God creates birds (later called “the birds of the heavens,” 1:26,28,30). Their ongoing reproduction is connected to “the earth.”

And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” (1:20-22)

In chapter 2, the LORD God’s formation of “the birds of the heavens” is (possibly) from “the ground” (the use of the Hebrew direct object marker here is unusual — see Bandstra, p. 149, first paragraph). The adjective “every” perhaps corresponds to the phrase “according to their kinds” in chapter 1 (note that in 1:21 “every” and “according to its kind” both modify “bird”).

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. (2:19)

In chapter 1, man is explicitly given rulership over animals and birds:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” . . . And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (1:26,28)

In chapter 2, man instantiates his (implicit) God-given rulership by naming the animals and birds the LORD God brings to him. He also apparently recognizes that they are not his equals:

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. (2:19f.)

In chapter 1, God evaluates his created order, including man (male and female) as ruler over animals and birds, as “very good.”

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (1:31)

In chapter 2, the LORD God evaluated man (male) alone as “not good,” but by the end of chapter everything appears to the reader as highly satisfactory. No equal partner for man was found among the animals and birds, but now he has the woman, who as “helper fit for him” can be expected to help him in exercising dominion over the animals and birds.

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” . . . Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” . . . And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (2:18,23,25)

Note also the connections between the end of the creation account (2:1-3) and the beginning of the first toledot (2:4). In 2:1 the phrase “the heavens and the earth” harks back to 1:1 while the phrase “and all their army” refers to the inhabitants of “the heavens and the earth,” including man, animals, and birds. God has completed his work of populating the now-organized “heavens and earth.” In 2:4 those inhabitants are called toledot (generations), referring to that which has been produced from “the heavens and the earth” (especially man, formed from dust/clay + the breath of the LORD God). In 2:3 (at the very end of the creation account) the verbs “create” and “make” appear, as both do again in the next verse (2:4), which introduces the first toledot section. (The verb “make” also appears twice in 2:2.)

Also, very interestingly, note that God gives names to various physical features of the heavens and the earth in chapter 1 (light and darkness, 1:5; the expanse, 1:8; dry land and gathered waters, 1:10), but there is no mention of God giving names to any of the kinds of animals or birds. This leaves room for the chapter 2 naming of animals and birds by man, to whom God gave dominion over them in chapter 1 — thus evincing a subtle but significant compatibility between the two chapters.

As the reader begins chapter 3, he is introduced to the serpent, one of the “beasts of the field” (ch. 2) whom the LORD God has “made” (3:1, cf. “formed,” 2:19), over whom man (male and female) ought to be exercising dominion (ch. 1), who tempts the woman regarding food graciously given by God to man (male and female), beasts and birds (ch. 1), in particular the fruit of one tree planted by the LORD God in the garden of Eden (ch. 2).

In light of the foregoing discussion, I argue that a reasonable reader would easily understand the narrative of Genesis 2 to be an elaboration of certain aspects of chapter 1, would note the variety of lexical and conceptual connections between the chapters, would spot the apparent discrepancy, and would realize that Genesis 2:19 must be referring back to earlier creation events detailed in chapter 1 (thus justifying the use of the pluperfect when translating the Hebrew into English or any other language that has a pluperfect form available).

(5) Commentators who reject the pluperfect as a solution to the apparent contradiction sometimes do so without substantive argument.

(a) Cassuto states, without explanation, “The harmonistic interpretation that explains the verb וַיִּצֶר wayyīer to mean, now He had already created before, cannot be considered seriously.”

(b) Longman inserts a brief parenthetical sneer into his discussion of Genesis 2:19, “. . . he either earlier created (as the NIV would have us believe, “had formed”) or. . . .”

(c) Provan writes dismissively, without explanation, of “the ill-advised pluperfect of some English translations – ‘the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field’ “.

(d) Skinner objects that the pluperfect rendering “misses the point of the passage,” which Sailhamer amplifies into “it misses the very point of the narrative, namely, that the animals were created in response to God’s declaration that it was not good that man should be alone.” But this objection assumes a particular answer to the question under discussion, which is: When were the field animals and birds of Genesis 2:19 actually created? To postulate that God created animals and birds “in response to” his finding that it was not good for the man to be alone, involves God in unworthy trial-and-error experimentation as he clumsily attempts to meet man’s need. Those who hold that the pluperfect is a valid solution to the apparent contradiction would instead see it this way: In followup to his declaration that it was not good for the man to be alone, God brought animals and birds (created earlier) to man for consideration and naming, so that man could recognize their unsuitability for him; then God built the woman as the divinely appointed helper corresponding to the man.

(6) Some writers claim that Genesis 1, or 2, or both, are unconcerned about chronology.

(a) Contra such writers, the fact that Genesis 1:3–2:3 “is saturated with chronological terminology” evidences the author’s intense concern for chronology. See my article “Time is the Hero of the Plot” — in Genesis!

(b) Besides the use of specific terminology in Genesis 1:1–2:3, the logical arrangement of events also speaks of the author’s concern for chronology. For example:

• water must exist (day 1) before it can be separated (day 2) and gathered (day 3)
• habitats (days 2, 3) must exist before their inhabitants can occupy them (days 4–6)
• food (day 3) must be in place for those that eat it (days 5–6)
• subjects (days 5–6) must exist for those commanded to rule over them (day 6)
• God’s work of creation (days 1–6) must take place prior to his cessation/rest from that work (day 7)

(c) Aside from the difficulty raised by 2:19, the events of 2:7f.,15-23 are readily understood as occurring in an orderly chronological sequence. Later events are narrated after (obviously) earlier ones, and the sequence of events (powered by waw-imperfect verbs with their typical function of advancing the narrative) makes good sense. Consider:

• the LORD God forms man from dust (2:7a), after which
• the LORD God breathes the breath of life into the man’s nostrils (2:7b), and as a result
• the man becomes a living creature (2:7c), after which
• the LORD God plants a garden in Eden (2:8a), and then
• the LORD God puts the man in the garden (2:8b,15; the narrative is resumed in 2:15 following the detailed description of Eden in 2:9-14), and then
• the LORD God gives the man a command about eating from the garden’s trees (2:16f.), and then
• the LORD God assesses the man’s solitude as “not good” (2:18a), and then to address this
• the LORD God states that he will make the man a helper (2:18b), after which
• [the creation of field animals and birds being mentioned (2:19a)] the LORD God brings animals and birds to the man (2:19b), and then
• the man names the animals, but finds no suitable “helper” among them (2:19c,20), and then
• the LORD God causes a deep sleep to fall upon the man (2:21a), and then
• as the man sleeps, the LORD God takes one of his ribs (2:21b), and then
• the LORD God closes up the place with flesh (2:21c), and then
• the LORD God builds the rib into a woman (2:22a), and then
• the LORD God brings the woman to the man (2:22b), and then
• the man makes a statement about the woman (2:23)

(d) Since chronology is an evident concern in both chapters, Genesis 1 and 2, the idea that a pronouncement of “dischronologization” or lack of interest in chronology can alleviate the apparent contradiction between 1:20-31 and 2:19 does not work. This leaves the pluperfect translation of the first Hebrew verb in 2:19 as the sole remaining viable solution of the apparent contradiction. (Refer to major point #2 above.)


Appendix A: English translations of Genesis 2:19 that use the pluperfect


New International Version (NIV, 1978): “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.”


English Standard Version (ESV, 2001): “Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed [margin: “Or And out of the ground the LORD God formed“] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.”


Tyndale Bible (1530): “And after yt the LORde God had make [note: in his 1534 revision Tyndale changed this tohad made“] of the erth all maner beastes of the felde, and all maner foules of the ayre, he brought them vnto Adam to see what he wold call them. And as Adā called all maner livynge beastes: evē so are their names.”


Coverdale Bible (1535): “And whan God the LORDE had made of the earth all maner beastes of the felde, & all maner foules vnder the heauē, he brought them vnto man, to se what he wolde call thē: For as mā called all maner of liuinge soules, so are their names.”


Matthew Bible (1537): “And after that the Lorde God had made of erth all maner beastes of the felde, & all maner foules of the ayre, he brought them vnto Adam to se what he wolde call them. And as Adam called all maner lyuyng beastes, euen so are their names.”


Bishops Bible (1568): “And so out of the grounde the Lorde God had shapen euery beast of the field, and euery foule of the ayre, and brought it vnto man, that he myght see howe he woulde call it. For lykewyse as man hym selfe named euery lyuyng thyng, euen so was the name therof.”


Appendix B: Commentators’ views on the Genesis 2:19 “problem”
(In alphabetical order. Bold print indicates emphasis added, except where indicated.)


Gerhard Charles Aalders, Bible Student’s Commentary: Genesis. Vol. 1 (trans. William Heynen) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), pp. 80f.

Moving now to the material argument, its main contention is that Genesis 2:4–3:24 gives a presentation of creation that is essentially different from that given in Genesis 1:1–2:3. The former account, it is argued, gives the order of creation as first plants, then animals, and finally humanity. The latter account, it is claimed, gives a different order with man first, then plants, then animals, and finally woman. Now it is true that Genesis 2:9 refers to the formation of various kinds of plants after the creation of human beings. But when we consult the context, it immediately becomes clear that 2:9 is not referring to the formation of plants in general, but only to the plants which were used to adorn the Garden of Eden (v. 8). . . . As far as the creation of the animal world is concerned, the whole question of when this took place depends on how 2:19 is translated. It is possible to translate it either as “when the LORD God had formed” or as “then the LORD God formed.” The Hebrew permits either translation. How it must be translated in this specific instance depends entirely on the context. Maybe we should say that it depends on what presupposition we make before we approach the text. Our translation will be determined by whether we consider Genesis 1:1–2:3 and Genesis 2:4–3:24 to be in agreement with each other or in conflict with each other. There is then no substance to the claim that the latter passage clearly presents a different order of creation and therefore disagrees with chapter 1.

Let us assume for a moment that we accept the theory of source splitting and then assume also that two creation narratives, which originally gave conflicting accounts of the order of creation, were combined by a later redactor. This redactor certainly would have spared no effort to make these two accounts agree. In order to accomplish this harmony of the two accounts, he certainly must have intended to say in 2:19, “when the LORD God had formed.” Thus, even assuming the validity of the source-splitting theory, the translation of 2:19 we have adopted must be considered the more acceptable one. As a result the alleged conflict with chapter 1 is a fantasy.


Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1: From Adam to Noah, Genesis I — VI 8 (trans. Israel Abrahams). (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press [Hebrew University], 1961), pp. 128f.

So [the Lord God.] formed etc.] ….This presents a difficulty, for according to the preceding section all the creatures were formed before man. The harmonistic interpretation that explains the verb וַיִּצֶר wayyīer to mean, now He had already created before, cannot be considered seriously. But the usual explanation given in modern commentaries, to wit, that we have here two contradictory accounts — according to the one the creatures were created before man, and according to the other they were formed only after man — is not as simple as it appears at first glance. Not only must the redactor have noticed so glaring a contradiction, but there is also another problem, namely, that here in v. 19 only the beasts of the field and the flying creatures of the air are referred to, and no mention whatsoever is made of the cattle. If the term beasts only had been used here, or beasts of the earth, one might have assumed that it included the cattle as well; but the expression beasts of the field is actually an antonym of cattle. And another point: it is just the cattle, as we have noted earlier, that would in particular have had a claim to consideration. Had the meaning, therefore, been that the Lord God created them then, they should have been referred to in unmistakable terms. Now in v. 20, the first category of creatures to be named by man is precisely the cattle. From this it may be inferred that the cattle were already to be found with man in the garden of Eden, and there was no need to create them and bring them before him. This was not the case, however, with the beasts of the field and the flying creatures of the air; undoubtedly, they were not staying with man. Also in Lev. xvii 13, the kinds known as beasts and flying creatures are mentioned, in contradistinction to cattle, as two classes of creatures that man can catch only by hunting. Hence it seems that in the passage before us (in the ancient epic poem the position may have been different) we must understand the creation of the beasts and the flying creatures in a similar sense to that of the growing of the trees in v. 9, to wit, that of all the species of beasts and flying creatures that had already been created and had spread over the face of the earth and the firmament of the heavens, the Lord God now formed particular specimens for the purpose of presenting them all before man in the midst of the Garden. If we approach the text without preconceived ideas concerning the existence of two cosmogonic accounts, this exposition will appear simple and clear; and thus it seems to me the Torah intended the words to be understood.


Joseph Coleson, Genesis 1 – 11: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 2012), p. 103.

A few commentators have viewed v 19 as evidence of editorial carelessness in bringing together the two originally separate accounts of Gen 1 and Gen 2. They find the narrative of v 19 contradictory to the account of God’s work on the sixth day, where the sequence is animals first, then humans (1:24-27). Others view the apparent change in the sequence of God’s creative work as original to this narrative tradition (ch 2), which has its own origin and transmission history.

Cassuto speculated that God performed a second special creation of animals for this specific purpose (1961, 128-30; see also Hamilton for a similar view; 1990, 176). Many commentators, and most English translations—many without comment—render the first verb as a perfect; an example is NRSV, “So . . . the LORD God formed.”

The NIV rendering, however is, Now the LORD God had formed. [Coleson’s emphasis.] Translating the verb as a past perfect implies that this account refers to God’s previous creation of animal life (1:20-22, 24-25). The fact that biblical Hebrew does not have a separate form to indicate the past perfect supports this translation. When associated grammar and syntax allow, and when context calls for it, Hebraists do not hesitate to translate the Hebrew “perfect” (perfective) as a past perfect in English. When options exist, context should be the determining factor in translation. This commentator regards the past perfect rendering as the most appropriate option for this verb in this context.


C. John Collins, “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why.” (Tyndale Bulletin, Vol. 46 No. 1 [1995], pp. 117-140), pp. 138-140. [can be downloaded from internet]

This in turn leads us to the question of whether it is legitimate to harmonise the two accounts of [Genesis] 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25 (i.e., taking the second account as describing in more detail the sixth ‘day’). Are they not from separate sources?

Since we do not physically have the putative sources, this last question is diminished in relevance. What we do have is evidence that the author or editor of Genesis 1–2 as we have it, intended for us to read them together, namely Genesis 2:4. The chiastic structure of this verse has received comment elsewhere:
……These are the generations of
…………a: the heavens
…………….b: and the earth
………………..c: when they were created
………………..c’: when the Lord God made
…………….b’: earth
…………a’: and heavens

Such an elaborate chiasmus is evidence of art, not coincidence. Further, by this means the author has tied the two accounts together: note how the word order ‘the heavens and the earth’ (a and b), as well as the verb bārā’, ‘create’ (c), point us back to 1:1 (as well as 1:21, 27 for the verb); whereas the change in divine name from ’ĕlōhîm, ‘God’ (ch. 1) to yhwh ’ĕlōhîm, ‘the Lord God’ (chs. 2-3) is reflected in the c’ element. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the final editor wanted his readers to read the two accounts as complementary, not contradictory; the traditional approach that sees 2:4-25 as an elaboration of the sixth ‘day’ is how an audience would co-operate with this intention of the author/editor.

It has been argued above (section V) that literary environment (‘co-text’) can establish the ‘logic of the referents’, i.e., it can tell us what the author thought was the ‘actual’ sequence of events. If we take Genesis 1:3-2:3 as conveying the broad-stroke story line, which seems to be the simplest way to read it, we are entitled, by the second criterion of section V, to read wayyīer in 2:19 as a pluperfect. It remains to ask why the author narrated events this way, instead of what Driver correctly considered the easy and unambiguous method of a perfect verb with preposed element (e.g., wyhwh ’ĕlōhîm yāar). Perhaps the simplest explanation comes from the fact that both accounts are strongly anthropocentric: they see man as the pinnacle of God’s creative work, the one for whom the earth and its animals exist. Putting the animals’ formation in 2:19 directly after 2:18, where God sets about making a helper suitable for the man, reinforces this point: even though physically the animals were made before man, yet conceptually their creation was in anticipation of their subservience to his governance, and therefore in God’s mind the animals were a logical consequence of the making of man. Since Genesis 1 had established the physical order so that the audience would not mistake it, the author/editor was free to use this literary device to make this theological point.

There is, therefore, good reason, both from Hebrew grammar and from the structure of the first two chapters of Genesis, to support the pluperfect interpretation in 2:19.


William Henry Green, The Unity of the Book of Genesis (New York: Chas. Scribner’s Sons, 1895), pp. 25f.

Furthermore, ch. ii does not contradict ch. i in respect to the order of the creation of man and of the lower animals. The allegation that it does rests upon the assumption that the Hebrew tense here used necessarily implies a sequence in the order of time, which is not correct. The record is (ver. 19), “And out of the ground Jehovah God formed all the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of heaven, and brought them to Adam.” According to Hebrew usage this need not mean that the formation of the birds and the beasts was subsequent to all that is previously recorded in the chapter, or that they were then first formed with the view of providing a suitable companion for Adam. And when the scope of the passage is duly considered it will be seen that this cannot be its meaning. . . .

The English rendering which best suggests the relation of the clauses is, “Jehovah God having formed out of the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of heaven, brought them unto the man.” The Hebrew phrase suggests that forming the animals preceded their being brought to the man, but need not suggest anything whatever as to the relation of time between their formation and what had been mentioned just before in the narrative.


Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), p. 176.

Many commentators have maintained that in this verse one finds a classic illustration of a major conflict between the sequence of creation in [Genesis] 1:1–2:4a and that in 2:4bff. In one (1:24–25) animals precede man. In the other (2:19) animals come after man. It is possible to translate formed as “had formed” (so NIV). One can, however, retain the traditional translation and still avoid a contradiction. This verse does not imply that this was God’s first creation of animals. Rather, it refers to the creation of a special group of animals brought before Adam for naming. [Footnote: “Of all the species of beasts and flying creatures that had already been created and had spread over the face of the earth and the firmament of the heavens, the Lord God now formed particular specimens for the purpose of presenting them all before man in the midst of the Garden” (Cassuto, Genesis, 1:129).]


John E. Hartley, New International Biblical Commentary: Genesis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), p. 62.

. . . the NIV understands that the animals already existed by translating the verb as a past perfect, had formed. [Hartley’s emphasis.] Usually this type of Hebrew verb describes consecutive action in a narrative. Then the sense is that, after making this assessment about the man, God proceeded to form the animals.


James B. Jordan, Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1999), pp. 46f.

The verb does not necessarily mean that God made the birds and beasts on this occasion, or even that He made a few extra ones for Adam to name. Rather, He “formed” them, pressed them together, in the sense of bringing them together in one place. [Footnote: The verb yatsar appears first in Genesis 2:7–8, where God pressed dust into the shape of the first man. It is the verb regularly used for the work of a potter, which is pressing clay into shape. For a defense of this understanding, see Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch: Genesis, trans. Isaac Levy (Gateshead: Judaica Press, [1963] 1989), p. 66.] He collected them. They needed to be collected because they were wild, not domestic, animals. It is normally assumed that God did the same thing when the animals were gathered for the ark in the days of Noah. I regard this as the best way of reading the statement that God formed the animals on this occasion. But it is also perfectly possible to go with the more familiar sense of “formed” and read it as a pluperfect: that God had formed the animals and then brought them to the man. That is, God had formed them earlier on the fifth and sixth days.


Tremper Longman III, The Story of God Bible Commentary: Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), p. 50.

But before we get to the creation of Adam’s partner, God tries out some creatures that he either earlier created (as the NIV would have us believe, “had formed”) or perhaps he creates now (translating “Now the LORD God formed out of ground . . .”). In either case, none of the “wild animals” or “birds in the sky” sufficed as a partner to the man.


Kenneth A. Mathews, The New American Commentary, Volume 1A: Genesis 1—11:26 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), p. 215.

[Footnote:] The NIV renders “had formed” (v. 19) to indicate that the animals were created prior to the man (as in chap. 1). . . . C. J. Collins on syntactic grounds defends the possibility of a pluperfect use of the wayyiqtōl verb form; he argues since chaps. 1 and 2 were meant to be read together, logic requires that 2:19 have the pluperfect (“The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why,” TynBul 46 [1995]:117-40). Cassuto denies the possibility of reading the pluperfect and accommodates v. 19 to chap. 1 by arguing that the animals of v. 19 were “particular specimens” of the general creation (Genesis, 129). Lev 17:13 distinguishes two kinds of animals, “beasts of the field” and “birds of the air,” from a third, “the livestock,” since the former must be hunted. This distinction occurs in vv. 19–20: the “livestock” presumably was already available with the man in Eden, but the wild beasts and birds required God to bring them to the man for naming. We explained earlier, however, that chap. 2 has a topical order; the intent of the passage is to highlight the man’s dominion and the uniqueness of the woman’s creation, as opposed to the animals.


Iain Provan, Discovering Genesis: Content, Interpretation, Reception (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016), p. 61.

One aspect of Genesis 1—2 that becomes clear at this point is that, although we are meant to read Genesis 2.4–25 in the light of Genesis 1.1—2.3, within each section chronology is evidently not an important concern of the author. The major concern is to emphasize the importance of human beings in relation to non-human creation, which is both ‘there’ for humanity, and yet non-functioning unless humanity is there. The order of ‘events’ in creation is not an important concern. This is why shrubs and plants ‘precede’ humanity in Genesis 1.11–12 (cf. 1.29–30), whereas in Genesis 2.4–7 there must be a gardener before there can be shrubs and plants. This is also why the animals in Genesis 2.19 are created after humanity (notwithstanding the ill-advised pluperfect of some English translations – ‘the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field’), whereas in Genesis 1 they appear beforehand (1.24–25). Origen already noted long ago the difficulty of reading Genesis 1 in particular in strictly chronological terms: ‘Who that has understanding’, he asked, ‘will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?’ [Footnote: Origen, On First Principles 4.1.16 (ANF 10:325).] Neither Genesis 1 nor Genesis 2 is best read as if this kind of ordering of events were important.


John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis.” In Frank E. Gaebelein (ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), p. 48.

A straightforward reading of וַיִּצֶר יהוה אֱלׂהִים (wayyier yhwh ’.elōhim, “And the LORD God formed”) suggests that in chapter 2 the creation of the animals follows that of the creation of man. In chapter 1, however, the animals are created first and then man (vv.24–26). This has long been pointed to as evidence of an internal contradiction within the Genesis account of Creation. The NIV has offered an untenable solution in its rendering the waw consecutive in wayyier by a pluperfect: “Now the LORD God had formed.” Not only is such a translation for the waw consecutive hardly possible (see the Hebrew grammars, Joüon, Grammaire, par. 118d; König, Syntax, par. 142; Driver, Tenses in Hebrew, pp. 84ff.), but it misses the very point of the narrative, namely, that the animals were created in response to God’s declaration that it was not good that man should be alone (2:18).

Cassuto has shown (p. 129), however, that the difficulty posed by the lack of coherence between the two accounts of the creation of man has a simple solution: only two kinds of animals are said to be created in 2:19, “the beasts of the field” (חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה, ayya haśśāeh) and “all the birds of the air” (כָּל־עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, kol-’ôp haššāmayim); yet in 2:20 Adam names three kinds of animals: “the livestock [הַבְּהֵמָה, habbehēmāh], the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” Elsewhere in the Torah (Lev 17:13), the “beasts of the field and the birds of the air” are distinguished from “the livestock” by the fact that they can be caught only by hunting them. Thus “of all the species of beasts and flying creatures that had already been created and had spread over the face of the earth and the firmament of the heavens, the Lord God now formed particular specimens for the purpose of presenting them all before man in the midst of the Garden” (Cassuto, p. 129). Such a reading of the text not only resolves the apparent difficulty between the two accounts of man’s creation, but it also points out how carefully the Genesis narratives have been worked into the narratives of the Pentateuch as a whole. Both the LXX (ἔτι [eti] = ‘ô, “yet,” “still”) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (‘ô) show that Cassuto’s explanation was sensed very early in the history of interpretation.


Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), p. 21.

As noted above, the dominant theme of this section, to which all else is subordinated, is man and the human condition. The narrative now focuses on humankind’s mastery over the animals. Mention of their creation is therefore made incidentally, not for its own sake, and is no indication of sequential order in regard to the creation of man.


John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910), p. 67.

The meaning cannot be that the animals had already been created, and are now brought to be named (Calv. al. and recently De. Str.): such a sense is excluded by grammar (see Dri. T. § 76, Obs.), and misses the point of the passage.

Many years ago Richard and I were blessed to spend some time with the inventor of the MRI machine, Dr. Raymond Damadian, and his wife.  What stood out for me was his assertion that the cure for cancer was within reach, but there was too much money flowing into cancer agencies and research funding.  So he said there was no eagerness to find a cure that would dry up this lucrative flow of public and private donations into cancer research, and pharmaceutical treatments.

As in the Burzynski story, Damadian had to fight not to have a powerful corporation steal his patent on the MRI.  In his case, Dr. Damadian won against General Electric.

Dr. Damadian watched his beloved Armenian grandmother suffer an awful death to cancer.  Watching her die that way made a deep impact and helped him determine to find a way for doctors to find soft tissue growths like cancer.

Here’s the arduous, courageous journey of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski.

IMG_8103Today’s cartoon in our Abbotsford News mocks God, and the people of God.  No surprise there.  The attack on Him who created us, and allows us to mock Him with the breath He alone sustains in our frail bodies, has become more strident, louder, and reckless.  His patience will not last forever and it is only fools who mock their creator, sustainer and Judge,  more stupid than sawing off the branch you sit on, while a lion waits below to eat you.

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”  So IRICE, based on the word of almighty God,………….you are a fool.

Your cartoon depicts a by-law officer listening to a complainant on the telephone as he looks through his window at a magnificent rainbow in the sky.  “Bylaw officer?  Can you do something about that giant rainbow?  It’s not representative of my deeply held religious views.”

The caption below reads:  JUST ANOTHER DAY OF THE WEEK DURING PRIDE MONTH

That people have tried to wrest the symbol of God’s mercy to portray sexual behaviour in direct defiance of His clear directives to humanity is consistent with our centuries of rebellion against Him, who alone is the source of purity and love and meaning for our brief lives on earth.

Whenever people determine to mislead others they twist words to force weaker people to believe things that will bring dysfunction and misery their way, while common sense and the evidence of nature all around them shouts the existence of a great God.

George Orwell’s profoundly disturbing book cannot even touch the reality of totalitarian countries like North Korea, and to a lesser degree China.  But what will Canada look like not far in the future?  Justin Trudeau leads and leaders meekly bow their heads and suppress what they once knew to be true, in order to cling to the fleeting glories, riches and power that might be lost if they dared be men and women of conviction.

Justin Trudeau is not God, so it is incredibly short-sighted and foolish to abandon truth and justice and holiness for the glories of this temporal life.  Other than those still alive when God brings an end to this earth, everyone must die and stand before the Lord God.

That will be a dreadful day for people who demand compliance with the tidal wave of revisionism sweeping the Western world.  We don’t need to be conquered by some enemy force.  We who have been blessed with so much wealth and freedom are actively ripping at the fabric of the Judaeo-Christian worldview.

And that world will be torn apart, – Jesus said, “when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?’

With once brave leaders falling faint and churches terrorized into silence on what the Bible, our manual for life has to say,…. the light of God’s word seems to grow dim.  Why does God allow sinners to mock him and savage His people?  That’s hard to understand but it’s also what He told us to expect, ……“Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.”

So mock on IRICE.  You and your derision may win the day for now, but it is a dark day that you bring on the land that had so much promise.

I pray you will see the God of the rainbow and turn your considerable skills to serving your creator and Jesus your only Saviour, no longer being a willing slave to the enemy of your soul.

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you, and with every living creature this is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark.  I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”  And God said,  “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generation:  I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.  When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.  When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.”  God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.”

Here’s one of Richard’s articles on the Biblical flood, in which he outlines 12 arguments that the flood must have been worldwide, not simply local:

1. God’s purpose in the flood was to kill / blot out / make an end of / destroy all humans and all air-breathing, land-dwelling animals except those on the ark

– “So the Lord said, ‘I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.'” (Genesis 6:7) “And God said to Noah, ‘I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.'” (6:13) “For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.” (6:17) “But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.” (6:18-20) “For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.” (7:4)

– “all flesh . . . under heaven” (Genesis 6:17) — can such wording be limited to a local regional area? (Compare with point #3 below.)

– There is no evidence that “all” humans and “all” animals at that time were restricted to one limited local area — especially if you allow for millions of years after the initial creation! In light of (a) human longevity (Genesis 5:4-31); (b) their reproductive fruitfulness (1:28; 5:4-30); (c) their technological capability (1:28; 4:17,20-22; 6:14); and (d) their violence and strife (4:22-24; 6:5,11-13), it is very likely that people had spread out significantly during the (no less than) sixteen centuries between creation and the flood.

2. The flood accomplished God’s purpose by killing / blotting out / striking down / cutting off / destroying all humans and all air-breathing, land-dwelling animals except those on the ark

 

– “And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.” (Genesis 7:21-23) “And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.” (8:21) “I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” (9:11) “I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.” (9:15)

– These texts do not countenance the survival of any humans or of any air-breathing, land-dwelling animals other than those on the ark. (Compare with point #1 above.)

3. The flood covered all the high mountains under the whole heaven

– “The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.” (Genesis 7:17-20)

– It’s not just that some of the pre-flood “mountains” were covered. And it’s not just that some “high mountains” were covered. It’s not even just that “all the high mountains” were covered within some local region. To make sure we understand, the report states that all the high mountains under heaven were covered. Then the Scripture adds even greater emphasis: “all the high mountains under the whole heaven” were covered — to a depth of 15 cubits! Such language is not calculated to encourage readers to think of a limited, local flood.

– Since water seeks its own level (and does so quickly!), the flood waters could not have covered, and then continued to cover, high mountains unless the flood was truly global.

– When has a local flood covered even one small mountain, let alone “all the high mountains under the whole heaven“, to a depth of 15 cubits? Floods tend to occur in river valleys or coastal areas. See here. Heavy rain on a mountainside can produce a landslide, or a flash flood in a gully, but will not cover a whole mountain.

– The pre-flood mountains were likely not as high as our highest mountains today: “. . . it is important to note that Mt. Ararat is a volcanic mountain whose lavas cover fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks. Obviously, if these fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks beneath Mt. Ararat are a product of the Genesis Flood, then Mt. Ararat was not there prior to the Flood. Similarly, marine-fossil-bearing layers near the summit of Mt. Everest would likewise have been a product of the Flood, so that Mt. Everest, and thus all the Himalayas which are also geologically ‘recent’ mountains, would not have been there prior to the Flood. Thus, the Flood waters did not have to be 3–6 miles deep to carry the ark over Mt. Ararat and Mt. Everest.” (Andrew A. Snelling, Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & the Flood. [Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2009], Vol. 1, p. 30)

4. The flood lasted much too long to have been merely a local flood

– “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.” (Genesis 7:11) “And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days. But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated, and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.” (7:24–8:5) “In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth. And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth had dried out. Then God said to Noah, ‘Go out from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh—birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth—that they may swarm on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.”’ (8:13-17)

– They stayed inside for over a year! — from the 2nd month, 17th day, to the 2nd month, 27th day of the following year.

– The flood waters prevailed for 150 days, after which time (7th month, 17th day) the ark touched down on the mountains of Ararat. But the tops of the mountains could still not be seen for another two-and-a-half months, until the 10th month, 1st day. Then more months passed until the ground was dry enough for Noah and his family and the animals to leave the ark. Could this have been a mere local flood?

5. The physical causes of the flood included heavy rain and the massive release of subterranean water

– “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain [haggeshem, “the violent rain”] fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.” (Genesis 7:11f.)

– This description of the physical causes of the flood is comprehensive and powerful. The reader easily understands this wording (in combination with the above arguments) to point to a global flood.

6. The moral cause of the flood was (at least) as extensive as humanity

– “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, ‘I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.'” (Genesis 6:5-7) “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” (6:11-13)

7. God’s main purpose for the ark was to preserve some humans and some air-breathing, land-dwelling animals alive, from which the earth would be repopulated

– “And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.” (Genesis 6:19f.) “Then the Lord said to Noah, ‘Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.'” (7:1-3) “Then God said to Noah, ‘Go out from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh—birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth—that they may swarm on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.'” (8:15-17) “And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.‘” (9:1) “And you, be fruitful and multiply, increase greatly on the earth and multiply in it.” (9:7) “The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed.” (9:18f.) “These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their nations, and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood.” (10:32)

– The ark would not have been needed for this purpose at all if the flood was only a limited local event. Noah was warned that the flood was coming; humans and animals could have migrated out of the local flood-stricken area, and of course birds could have easily flown beyond reach of the flood.

8. The ark was large enough to carry all the “kinds” of air-breathing, land-dwelling animals

– “Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits. Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above, and set the door of the ark in its side. Make it with lower, second, and third decks.” (Genesis 6:14-16) “And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.” (6:19f.) “On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark, they and every beast, according to its kind, and all the livestock according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, according to its kind, and every bird, according to its kind, every winged creature.” (7:13f.)

– Built like a huge barge, the ark had the capacity of over 500 standard railroad stock cars — easily enough room to hold every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal. A much smaller vessel could have been used to save all the varieties of local animals or domesticated animals.

– By the way, the ark’s dimensions would have afforded it great stability and safety amid the flood waters, according to a technical study by a team of Korean naval engineers.

9. God’s covenant promise in Genesis 9 makes sense only if the flood was global

– “Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, ‘Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.’ And God said, ‘This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.’ God said to Noah, ‘This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.'” (Genesis 9:8-17)

– This covenant was between God and Noah (and his offspring); it was also a covenant between God and “every living creature of all flesh,” which is identical to “as many as came out of the ark” (and their descendants). No air-breathing, land-dwelling animals survived the flood, other than those that were on the ark. The flood was therefore global in extent.

– In this covenant God promised that there would “never again” be a flood like the one Noah had just gone through. But many deadly and destructive local floods have occurred since Noah’s time. So if the flood was only a local flood, God has broken his promise many times. “Flooding occurs in every U.S. state and territory, and is a threat experienced anywhere in the world that receives rain. In the U.S. floods kill more people each year than tornadoes, hurricanes or lightning.” See here.

10. New Testament references support the destruction by the flood of all humans not on the ark

– The Lord Jesus Christ accepted the fact that the flood swept away / destroyed all humans who were not on the ark: “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matthew 24:37-39) “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17:26f.)

– The author of Hebrews accepted the reality that only those on the ark were saved from the flood: “By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world [κόσμος] and became an heir of the the righteousness that comes by faith.” (Hebrews 11:7)

– The apostle Peter referred to the flood several times. He spoke of how “God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.” (1 Peter 3:20) He also spoke of how God “did not spare the ancient world [ἀρχαῖος κόσμος], but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world [κόσμος] of the ungodly” (2 Peter 2:5). “For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed [ τότε κόσμος] was deluged with water and perished.” (2 Peter 3:5f.)

11. Geology supports the global flood view (see here and here)

– Unlike any other known planet, three-quarters of the Earth’s surface is ocean — water left over from the global flood. Of the Earth’s land surface, three-quarters of that is covered in fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers. On every continent we find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers high above sea level — including fossil trilobites and crinoids at the summit of Mount Everest. There are hundreds of massive fossil graveyards all over the world, containing billions of fossils, often including mixtures of fossils of land animals and marine organisms. There are widespread continuous strata — every continent contains layers of sedimentary rock that span vast areas. Many of these layers can be traced all the way across continents and even between continents; and there is evidence that the sediments were deposited rapidly. Grand Canyon has six megasequences (very thick, distinctive sequences of fossil-bearing sedimentary strata) that can be traced right across North America. The chalk beds of southern England can be traced across Europe to Poland and all the way to the Middle East and as far as Kazakhstan; the same chalk beds are found in the American Midwest, and in Western Australia. The coal beds of Texas stretch across the U.S., and all the way to the Caspian Sea in Asia. There is no evidence of slow/gradual millions-of-years erosion between strata (either no evidence of erosion, or evidence of rapid sheet erosion).

The following features are explained by erosion involving (1) enormous, wide sheets of water as the Flood began to abate, and later, (2) powerful channelized flow of remaining Flood runoff:

• planation surfaces — elevated flat-topped landforms such as plateaus and mesas cover large areas of the Earth
• inselberg — a steep-sided hill or mountain standing alone in an open plain (e.g., Uluru or Ayers Rock)
• pediments — smooth flat bedrock surfaces extending out from the base of higher landforms
• large, hard, rounded rocks that have been transported hundreds of kilometers from their source
• large canyons / gorges
• every continent is surrounded by a continental margin, a thick border of sedimentary rocks
• the deepest submarine canyons usually originate on the continental shelf, and run at right angles away from the continent

– By the way, a catastrophic global flood would have destroyed and reworked any (possible) earlier fossil record. Therefore all of Earth’s fossiliferous sedimentary rock layers must be products of the one-year global flood, rather than products of millions of years of slow and gradual deposition — in which case there is no need to posit that Genesis 1:1 took place a long indefinite period of time before Genesis 1:2, and the whole of Genesis 1 can be understood to describe the original creation, thus undermining Sailhamer’s peculiar view.

12. The fact that there are flood traditions from many nations supports the global flood view

– “Indeed, some 500 separate cultures, including those of Greece, China, Peru, and native American, have a powerful tale of a great flood that has altered the course of their history among the legends and myths by which they described themselves and their origins. In most of them, as with the biblical tale of Noah’s Flood, there are but few survivors, perhaps only one family, from which the race thenceforth derives.” (Charles Officer and Jake Page, Tales of the Earth: Paroxysms and Perturbations of the Blue Planet. [Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1993], p. 63)

– In these stories the great flood is typically due to divine anger, and it leaves only a few survivors (saved by a floating vessel) who afterward repopulate the Earth. In all these stories, animals play a significant role.

– A reasonable explanation of this reality is that all humans have descended from Noah’s sons. All ethnic groups have therefore had access to the truth about the flood and the ark, and have transmitted the account with varying degrees of faithfulness through the generations since Noah’s time.