[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Day 2. Genesis 4-6

I do not want to question the bible, but ever since I was little I was amazed how Adam could live a whole 930 years, he must've been a good and healthy man. Great reading as always!

Simple, because God wanted it. There are no limits to what He can do.

Luke 18:27 "And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God."

[Pure_Angel]

Re: Day 2. Genesis 4-6

Simple, because God wanted it. There are no limits to what He can do.

Luke 18:27 "And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God."

Thank you Cranky Old Man for explaining it for me! And yes God is almighty!

Yours in Christ
Elisabeth

[SavedWife]

Re: Day 2. Genesis 4-6

Brother V, praise Jesus and the Lord!
Thank you for bringing such light into my life.

[Gregory Jubilay]

Re: Day 2. Genesis 4-6

Thank you, Brother V, for enlightening us on His work.

However, I am curioius as to why Cain was given such a light punishment in comparison for what he did? As you have said in your past messages, he was only forced to wander, and he even built a city in the area as shown in Genesis 4:16 and Genesis 4:17

How does this compare to our contemporary punishment for murder?

[Prayer Warrior]

I realize I am way late to this thread, but I thought 2026 was the perfect year to start my own full Bible reading! Maybe if Brother V is no longer actively monitoring this thread someone else can chime in.

Re: Day 2. Genesis 4-6



Dear Rubicon;

Based on my reading of the Bible (KJV1611) I believe that Adam was not the first person.

Genesis 1: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Note the plural "them".

Later in the chapter (verse 31) it is mentioned that it was the end of the sixth day.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

In Genesis 2, it mentions the end of creation, and the 7th day of rest.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Prior to the creation of Adam, men and women were just like animals. Soulless creatures. No different than a dog or a cat. It wasn't until God breathed a soul into him, that people gained a soul.

Later, when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, the rest of humanity became self aware.

Hope this helps explain my belief.

YIC
V

Brother V, thank you for explaining your position. I’m still studying this, but at present I’m leaning toward a different reading of the KJV text.

First, Scripture appears to teach a single human origin, which makes it difficult for me to see room for a separate population of soulless people.

“And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.”
Genesis 3:20

That language seems include all mankind, not only part of it. This idea is reaffirmed later:

“And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth…”
Acts 17:26 (KJV)

Taken together, these verses suggest one human family line, traced back to Adam and Eve.

Second, regarding Genesis 1:27 and the plural “them”:

“So God created man in his own image… male and female created he them.”
Genesis 1:27

I’m leaning toward understanding “them” here as referring to the two sexes within humanity, not to multiple unrelated people. The verse itself explains the plural immediately: “male and female.” It does not say “men and women” in the sense of many individuals, but rather defines humanity as consisting of two complementary parts.

This understanding seems supported by Genesis 5:

“Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”
Genesis 5:2

Here, the same “them” is explicitly identified with a single name, Adam, which suggests representation rather than a separate population of people. To me, this reads as Adam and Eve together representing mankind, not as many humans created apart from Adam.

Third, concerning Cain’s fear that ‘every one that findeth me shall slay me’ (Genesis 4:14), I don’t see that as requiring the existence of another group of people created on Day 6.

We’re told that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old:

“And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son… and called his name Seth.”
Genesis 5:3

That leaves a long span of time for Adam and Eve to have other children. Scripture later confirms:

“And he begat sons and daughters.”
Genesis 5:4

Given a century or more of population growth, Cain’s concern about “every one” could reasonably refer to siblings, nephews, or other close kin (which weren't explicitly named), rather than to a separate race of humans.

Finally, I’m struggling to find a KJV passage that clearly teaches soulless humans. On Day 6, mankind is already made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27), which distinguishes humans from animals. Genesis 2:7 then describes how the man was formed, but I don’t see where Scripture says others existed who were human in body yet animal in soul.

For these reasons, I’m presently leaning toward:

• One humanity descended from Adam and Eve
• Genesis 2 as a detailed account of Day 6, not a later creation
• “Them” referring to male and female within mankind, not multiple human populations
• Cain’s wife being a close relative
• “Every one” reflecting population growth over time

I appreciate the discussion and am open to further correction if I’ve misunderstood the KJV text.

Yours in Christ

[MitzaLizalor]

Scripture appears to teach a single human origin, which makes it difficult for me to see room for a separate population of soulless people.

Those would not be "people" if they existed at all. In Genesis 1:24 25 30 there are beasts of the earth, seemingly distinct from chapter 2's beasts of the field. Beasts do not have "fields," which are essentially artificial, made and fenced in by humans. And yet the beasts of the field are not cattle, zebras for instance.

Genesis 3:1-14 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? [events unfolded] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life

Cattle and beasts of the field are distinguished by God – and yet the serpent was evidently in a similar category: despite having language skills this wretched creature was NOT cursed above all humans or birds. (Beasts of the earth are not mentioned by God here so are entirely separate categories.)

In conclusion, then, there could be soulless people but they'd not be part of mankind.

[Basilissa]

Brother Warrior, I concur with your explanation but I only have one question: what happened to the unnamed woman created in Genesis 1:27? Did she die? Did she leave Adam? Is it the oldest case of divorce in human history?

For one reason or another, Adam was lonely in Genesis 2:22 and needed Eve to be produced from his rib - very different from Genesis 1:27 when both male humans were created together.

[Prayer Warrior]

Brother Warrior, I concur with your explanation but I only have one question: what happened to the unnamed woman created in Genesis 1:27? Did she die? Did she leave Adam? Is it the oldest case of divorce in human history?

For one reason or another, Adam was lonely in Genesis 2:22 and needed Eve to be produced from his rib - very different from Genesis 1:27 when both male humans were created together.

[*]Genesis 2 as a detailed account of Day 6, not a later creation

I see why you'd ask that. I somewhat glossed over this earlier, so I’ll try to explain more clearly why I’m leaning toward Genesis 2 being a detailed recount of Day 6, not something that happens chronologically after the seventh day.

Genesis 2:4 begins with:

“These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” (Genesis 2:4, KJV)
Throughout Genesis, “these are the generations of” functions as a literary divider introducing an account or history, not a statement that what follows happens after everything before it. We see this same phrase used at:

• Genesis 2:4
• Genesis 5:1
• Genesis 6:9
• Genesis 10:1
• Genesis 11:10

In each case, the phrase introduces an explanation or lineage, not a continuation in time. For this reason, I take Genesis 2:4 as meaning something like: “Here is the account of how these things came to be,” not “after the previous events, this is what happened next.”

So my understanding is: Genesis 1 gives the complete seven-day overview, and Genesis 2 rewinds to give a more detailed account of creation with a focus on man, especially Day 6.

When Genesis 2 is read as chronological after Genesis 1, a few contradictions seem to appear.
For example, Genesis 1 says:

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass…” (Genesis 1:11)

But Genesis 2 says:

“And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.” (Genesis 2:5)

If Genesis 2 takes place after Day 7, this sounds as though plants do not yet exist, conflicting with Day 3. If Genesis 2 is a rewind focused on man’s role in cultivation, the verse makes sense.

Likewise, Genesis 2:19 says:

“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…” (Genesis 2:19)

If this is happening after the seventh day, it would imply God is forming animals after creating man and after resting, again conflicting with Day 6. However, if Genesis 2 is a recount, then this verse is describing animals being brought into Adam’s experience for naming, not newly created at that moment.

Now, about the woman in Genesis 1:27:

“So God created man in his own image… male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27)

I don’t read this as introducing an unnamed woman who later disappears. Rather, I see Genesis 1:27 as the summary statement that mankind was created as male and female, while Genesis 2 explains how that came about in detail, culminating in Eve being formed from Adam’s rib.

This helps explain Genesis 2:18:

“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone…” (Genesis 2:18)
Adam is “alone” at this point because, in the detailed account, the woman has not yet been formed. Genesis 1 already told us the end result (“male and female created he them”), but Genesis 2 shows the process step by step.

If Genesis 1 and 2 are read together this way, there is:

• No unnamed woman who vanishes
• No earlier marriage or divorce
• No contradiction

Just a summary first, followed by a detailed explanation of the same Day-6 event.
Hope this clarifies how I’m understanding it.

[Adam Fag]

Genesis 1 says:

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass…”

But Genesis 2 says:

“And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.”

Plants and herbs were not on earth at that stage. There was no rain. There would be at some point, but not yet. Where were the plants?

Where was there rain and lakes for them but not on earth? On Mars. They dried up, we got rain and plants or seeds and spores came here on the ark. And beasts. And men. But not the giants. They stayed on Mars.

"The Great Flood" or "The Deep" is what they called "Space" and "The Ark" was a space craft to cross "The Deep" as was so well known that no one spelled it out, at the time. It's all there in the book.

[Prayer Warrior]

Plants and herbs were not on earth at that stage. There was no rain. There would be at some point, but not yet. Where were the plants?

Where was there rain and lakes for them but not on earth? On Mars. They dried up, we got rain and plants or seeds and spores came here on the ark. And beasts. And men. But not the giants. They stayed on Mars.

"The Great Flood" or "The Deep" is what they called "Space" and "The Ark" was a space craft to cross "The Deep" as was so well known that no one spelled it out, at the time. It's all there in the book.

I assume you're trolling but I'll humor you. I’m not following how Mars, spacecraft, or space travel are being derived from the KJV text.

My argument is based on Genesis interpreting Genesis: the “plants of the field” in Gen 2:5 are explained by the verse itself as tied to rain and tilling, not the nonexistence of all vegetation.

Introducing off-world explanations goes beyond Scripture rather than explaining it.

[Adam Fag]

Introducing off-world explanations goes beyond Scripture rather than explaining it.

Yes. But they were not on earth.

“And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.”(Genesis 2:5)

Plants were NOT ON EARTH. So where were they? I'm not the one who's off world, you are.

[Prayer Warrior]

Plants were NOT ON EARTH. So where were they?

Genesis 2 is not saying the plants were off-world. It’s saying they weren’t planted and growing yet. Just like seeds in a bag aren’t “in the ground/earth” until they’re planted, the “plants of the field” weren’t established in the soil because there was no rain and no man to till the ground.

Genesis 1 already says God made vegetation earlier; Genesis 2 is simply describing the land in more detail before man’s involvement and farming began.

[Adam Fag]

As we have seen, in my last post & with a thumbs up from the next, when God made plants they were not on earth. God tells us what EARTH means so we'll know what HE means when he says "earth"

And God called the dry land Earth … and God saw that it was good.

Earth is not air or space or sea so where were the plants? Some plants could float in the air but most can't so let's run with those.

https://www.almanac.com/plant/air-plants

Air plants are popular as houseplants because they are adorable, tiny, easy to grow, do not need soil, and also need little light to thrive. Fuzzy, furry, spiky, or trailing, they are each unique and almost like house pets.

Great. How should I plant one? The link is here to help:

Native to the southeastern U.S., throughout Mexico and Central America, and all the way to northern Argentina, these plants are frost tender: 60° to 80°F degrees is the optimal temperature range for them.

In warm climates, they can be grown outdoors year-round. In colder locations, they can spend the summer outdoors in dappled shade, protected from direct sun.

If God made plants to float in the air, how would they be kept out of the sun? Let's see what the link has:

Air plants are divided into two categories: mesic and xeric.
Mesic air plants come from moderately humid regions such as South American rainforests. They thrive in a canopy of trees and prefer more filtered light

Trees are plants. At this stage there are no plants on Earth and they must float in the air (or be grown on Mars in its wet phase) with no way to keep the sun off. All these plants would die. Now back to the link:

Tillandsia blooms only once in their lifetime. These stunning blossoms can last from several days to several months, depending on the variety. After flowering, the plant will start to produce baby plants called pups from the base of the mother plant ... Air plant flowers come in many shapes and colors, from coral to pinks and purples.

Types of Air Plants

• T. Ionantha ‘Conehead’ is compact and colorful, this variety features spiky leaves that blush red or pink during blooming, often with vibrant purple flowers.

• T. Xerographica is known as the “King of Air Plants,” and its large, curly leaves form a stunning rosette, perfect as a statement piece.

•T. Aeranthos (Flower of the Air) is a fast-growing, hardy air plant with narrow green leaves and delicate pink and purple blooms.

• T. Ionantha ‘Rubra’ is a stunning variety featuring thin, upright leaves that develop striking reddish hues under the right light conditions.

Some air plants might like the sun but most don't. They'd have to change (or their "pups" would) into ALL plants once God (or the man) placed them on Earth. Trees. Shrubs. Moss. Sea plants. But this would NOT be the case if they grew on Mars then were moved to Earth by a means God chose. If you want them to float in the air, you need them to NOT DIE which I just can't see.

[Prayer Warrior]

As we have seen, in my last post & with a thumbs up from the next, when God made plants they were not on earth. God tells us what EARTH means so we'll know what HE means when he says "earth"

And God called the dry land Earth … and God saw that it was good.

Earth is not air or space or sea so where were the plants? Some plants could float in the air but most can't so let's run with those.

https://www.almanac.com/plant/air-plants



Great. How should I plant one? The link is here to help:



If God made plants to float in the air, how would they be kept out of the sun? Let's see what the link has:



Trees are plants. At this stage there are no plants on Earth and they must float in the air (or be grown on Mars in its wet phase) with no way to keep the sun off. All these plants would die. Now back to the link:



Some air plants might like the sun but most don't. They'd have to change (or their "pups" would) into ALL plants once God (or the man) placed them on Earth. Trees. Shrubs. Moss. Sea plants. But this would NOT be the case if they grew on Mars then were moved to Earth by a means God chose. If you want them to float in the air, you need them to NOT DIE which I just can't see.

Genesis 1:10 tells us what Earth is in contrast to the Seas. Dry land versus gathered waters.

Genesis 2:5, however, is not talking about whether dry land existed or whether plants had been created somewhere. It is talking about the state of the land before rain and cultivation:

“for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.”

That explanation would be meaningless if the issue were location. Rain and tilling don’t explain Mars, space, or floating plants, they explain growth and agriculture.

Also, Genesis 2:5 does not say “plants did not exist,” but:

“plant of the field”

“before it grew”

Those phrases limit the scope of the described plants to cultivated, field-grown plants, not all vegetation. Genesis itself later confirms this distinction:

“thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field” (Genesis 3:18)

That clearly ties “herb/plant of the field” to human labor and farming, not to wild vegetation, air plants, or off-world scenarios.

Genesis 1 already states plainly:

“And the earth brought forth grass…” (Genesis 1:12)

Genesis 2 is not undoing that. It is describing the land as man encounters it, before rain cycles and agriculture begin.

So the choice isn’t “floating plants vs Mars.” The simpler reading, based on the verse’s own explanation, is:

Vegetation existed (Genesis 1)

Cultivated field plants had not yet been established

Because there was no rain and no man to till the ground

That resolves the passage without adding anything to the text.

[Adam Fag]

dry land

the state of the land

Genesis 2:5 plant of the field [and] herb of the field

thorns

Thanks. Just one point, What day is this? When were the thorns made? (and the herbs) Day three or day eight?