Were animals made before humans or after?

[Etrenankisem]

Genesis 1 says before and Genesis 2 says they were created after humans. Which is right?????

 

[KWCrazy]

Genesis 1 says before and Genesis 2 says they were created after humans. Which is right?????

Actually, no. Genesis 1 tells about the six days of creation. Genesis 2 begins with "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." It then goes into some specific detail about Adam and Eve. I think you're referring to Verse 19. "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." Emphasis mine. It states that the animals had been formed, not that they were formed after man.

 

[Assyrian]

Actually, no. Genesis 1 tells about the six days of creation. Genesis 2 begins with "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." It then goes into some specific detail about Adam and Eve. I think you're referring to Verse 19. "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." Emphasis mine. It states that the animals had been formed, not that they were formed after man.

The NIV is really inconsistent in it translation of verbs here, throwing in pluperfects 'had formed' and 'the Lord God had planted' v.8, when the same verb form is translated as a simple past throughout the rest of the passage: The Lord God formed... breathed... the man became... he put the man... made all kinds of trees grow... There simply isn't any justification for rearranging the narrative like that.

 

[Assyrian]

Hi Etrenankisem, welcome to the forum

Genesis 1 says before and Genesis 2 says they were created after humans. Which is right?????

Both chapters tell us the truth, they are just not meant to be understood literally.

 

[Etrenankisem]

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

This verse says God made every animal out of the ground and brought them to Adam to name. It says Adam was made first. Genesis 1 says man was made last.

 

[Papias]

Etran wrote:

It says Adam was made first. Genesis 1 says man was made last.

Right. As Assyrian pointed out, they contradict each other if read literally. That is yet another sign, out of many, which tells us to read them figuratively.

In fact, if taken literally, they contradict common sense and contradict mountains of evidence showing evolution. Reading them figuratively, as the text itself indicates, solves these problems.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[KWCrazy]

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

This verse says God made every animal out of the ground and brought them to Adam to name. It says Adam was made first. Genesis 1 says man was made last.

It doesn't speak whatever to chronology, since clearly the animals were formed earlier as described in Genesis 1. It does not say "After Adam was formed, the Lord formed every beast of the field." This is simply one of the cases where people take individual verses or phrases out of context and come to a completely different conclusion. Properly understood, there is no conflict whatever.

Or "had formed them" on the fifth and sixth days; and these were formed two and two, male and female, in order to continue their species; whereas man was made single, and had no companion of the same nature with him: and while in these circumstances, God brought them unto Adam;
or "to the man"; either by the ministry of angels, or by a kind of instinct or impulse, which brought them to him of their own accord, as to the lord and proprietor of them, who, as soon as he was made, had the dominion of all the creatures given him; just as the creatures at the flood went in unto Noah in the ark; and as then, so now, all creatures, fowl and cattle, came, all but the fishes of the sea: and this was done to see what he would call them;
what names he would give to them; which as it was a trial of the wisdom of man, so a token of his dominion over the creatures, it being an instance of great knowledge of them to give them apt and suitable names, so as to distinguish one from another, and point at something in them that was natural to them, and made them different from each other; for this does not suppose any want of knowledge in God, as if he did this to know what man would do, he knew what names man would give them before he did; but that it might appear he had made one superior to them all in wisdom and power, and for his pleasure, use, and service; and therefore brings them to him, to put them into his hands, and give him authority over them; and being his own, to call them by what names he pleased:
source

Other than this being a prefect example of a run-on sentence, John Gill makes my point exactly.

 

[KWCrazy]

In fact, if taken literally, they contradict common sense and contradict mountains of evidence showing evolution.

See, THIS is why you study the Scriptures in context and attend church services with the learned. Taking phrases and verses out of context can turn the truth into a lie and give support for the even greater lie of evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

It doesn't speak whatever to chronology, since clearly the animals were formed earlier as described in Genesis 1. It does not say "After Adam was formed, the Lord formed every beast of the field." This is simply one of the cases where people take individual verses or phrases out of context and come to a completely different conclusion. Properly understood, there is no conflict whatever.

Or "had formed them" on the fifth and sixth days; and these were formed two and two, male and female, in order to continue their species; whereas man was made single, and had no companion of the same nature with him: and while in these circumstances, God brought them unto Adam;
or "to the man"; either by the ministry of angels, or by a kind of instinct or impulse, which brought them to him of their own accord, as to the lord and proprietor of them, who, as soon as he was made, had the dominion of all the creatures given him; just as the creatures at the flood went in unto Noah in the ark; and as then, so now, all creatures, fowl and cattle, came, all but the fishes of the sea: and this was done to see what he would call them;
what names he would give to them; which as it was a trial of the wisdom of man, so a token of his dominion over the creatures, it being an instance of great knowledge of them to give them apt and suitable names, so as to distinguish one from another, and point at something in them that was natural to them, and made them different from each other; for this does not suppose any want of knowledge in God, as if he did this to know what man would do, he knew what names man would give them before he did; but that it might appear he had made one superior to them all in wisdom and power, and for his pleasure, use, and service; and therefore brings them to him, to put them into his hands, and give him authority over them; and being his own, to call them by what names he pleased:
source

Other than this being a prefect example of a run-on sentence, John Gill makes my point exactly.

It isn't taking one verse out of context, but reading the verse in its place in the context of the whole narrative. In the story God created the animals after he creates Adam and after he sees that Adam is alone. The writer is quite capable of referring back to events that had already happened Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. but he didn't do that in verse 19, as I said he used the same verbal form he used throughout the narrative to describe the ongoing story.

 

[KWCrazy]

It isn't taking one verse out of context, but reading the verse in its place in the context of the whole narrative. In the story God created the animals after he creates Adam and after he sees that Adam is alone.

Wrong. Nothing in the verbiage equates the to animals being created because man was alone. The animals were brought to man because he was alone. It never speaks of a special creation. Indeed, Genesis 2 begins by saying that the creation was completed in its vast array. You are repeating false doctrine.

The writer is quite capable of referring back to events that had already happened Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. but he didn't do that in verse 19, as I said he used the same verbal form he used throughout the narrative to describe the ongoing story.

Some people claim that it hadn't rained and there was no vegetation either, which is another misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Genesis 2 mentions some details not enumerated on in Genesis 1, but it never speaks to the chronology of the creation. You're continuing to claim a discrepancy for the soul intent of discrediting the Scriptures and making them sound inconsistent. Why? Distorting the Scriptures does NOT serve the Lord, it serves evil.

Joshua 2:15 "But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

 

[ChetSinger]

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

This verse says God made every animal out of the ground and brought them to Adam to name. It says Adam was made first. Genesis 1 says man was made last.

I don't think those two passages contradict at all.

Genesis 1 takes place on the earth as a whole. Genesis 2 takes place in the garden itself, and God creates a subset of life (beasts of the field and birds of the air). The purpose of their creation in that locality was so that Adam could name them. He wasn't tasked with naming everything; only the beasts and birds. So I see no difficulty in an additional animal creation, of those specific creatures, for that specific purpose, on the sixth day.

 

[Assyrian]

Wrong. Nothing in the verbiage equates the to animals being created because man was alone. The animals were brought to man because he was alone.

Genesis 2:18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”
19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air,

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.
'Said', 'formed' and 'brought' are all the same verb form and construction. After God said it wasn't good that man was alone, he formed the animals and brought them to Adam. I really don't see how you can say bringing the animals was because Adam was lonely, but forming them, which is the same verb construction and comes first, isn't.

It never speaks of a special creation. Indeed, Genesis 2 begins by saying that the creation was completed in its vast array. You are repeating false doctrine.

Don't be fooled by the chapter divisions which were only made up in the 13th century. Although we can refer to the creation week as Genesis 1 and the story of Adam being created from dust then making Eve from his rib as Genesis 2, the first creation account actually continues up to Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created... Gen 1:1 completed in all their vast array, is part of the story of the creation week, it comes before the seventh day rest. It shouldn't be such a problem understanding Genesis gives us two accounts of the creation complete with a title in between them, after all we are given four different accounts of life of Christ.

Some people claim that it hadn't rained and there was no vegetation either, which is another misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Genesis 2 mentions some details not enumerated on in Genesis 1, but it never speaks to the chronology of the creation.

Genesis 2 tell us about the creation in a story, the chronology of events is in the storyline. It is also found in the verb forms. Look at the 'then', 'so' and 'and' in the passage. Genesis 2:18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formedevery beast of the field and every bird of the air, 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. 'Then', 'so' and 'and' come from the verb construction and are use in Hebrew narratives to show a consecutive series of events.

You're continuing to claim a discrepancy for the soul intent of discrediting the Scriptures and making them sound inconsistent. Why? Distorting the Scriptures does NOT serve the Lord, it serves evil.

Joshua 2:15 "But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

It isn't a discrepancy in scripture, I am looking at what the text actually says. What it shows is a discrepancy in your interpretation of scripture where you have to distort what scripture actually says to make it fit your literal interpretation. I know you are doing this in a sincere effort to honour and defend God's word. But if you want to serve the Lord and honour his word, you need to let scripture challenge and change your preconceptions, not force scripture to fit what you think it should say.

 

[EternalDragon]

[/color]

It isn't a discrepancy in scripture, I am looking at what the text actually says. What it shows is a discrepancy in your interpretation of scripture where you have to distort what scripture actually says to make it fit your literal interpretation. I know you are doing this in a sincere effort to honour and defend God's word. But if you want to serve the Lord and honour his word, you need to let scripture challenge and change your preconceptions, not force scripture to fit what you think it should say.

KWCrazy is not the one distorting scripture. Gen. 2 is a detailed description of day 6 of creation. You are confusing the creation of more animals in a special garden made just for Adam and Eve to the creation of animals "after their kind" on the entire earth. God did not make Adam and Eve and then make Adam and Eve again and then name Adam in Gen. 5 as the first man.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

actually the word used for rib was also side. Eve was made from Adam side. I mean why don't we have a rib missing or found any others with missing ribs.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

Why did God use a rib? A closer examination of the Hebrew also reveals another surprising element of the story. The Hebrew word translated “rib” in Genesis 2 is tsela. The only other instance of the English word rib in the Bible occurs in Daniel 7:5, but the Hebrew word used there is different. In other passages where tsela or its variants are used, the word has been translated “side.” For example, in Exodus 25, 27, and 35, the words tselo (variant) and tselot (plural) are used to refer to the sides of the Ark of the Covenant or the sides of the altar. Jeremiah 20:10 refers to “fear on every side.” In 2 Samuel 16:13, David encounters a cursing Shimei moving along the side of a hill. In all of these contexts, translating the word tsela as “rib” would not fit.

Read more: Why did God use Adam's rib to create Eve?

 

[KWCrazy]

actually the word used for rib was also side. Eve was made from Adam side. I mean why don't we have a rib missing or found any others with missing ribs.

Surgical procedures are not hereditary. You didn't inherit your momma's appendectomy scar, either.

 

[Assyrian]

KWCrazy is not the one distorting scripture. Gen. 2 is a detailed description of day 6 of creation. You are confusing the creation of more animals in a special garden made just for Adam and Eve to the creation of animals "after their kind" on the entire earth. God did not make Adam and Eve and then make Adam and Eve again and then name Adam in Gen. 5 as the first man.

Where does it say Genesis 2 is a detailed description of day 6? Sure the beasts, man and woman were created on day 6, but Genesis 2 also describes the creation of birds (day 5) and starts off before the creation of plants (day 3). Nor does Genesis 2 say God created more animals in the garden, the emphasis on God creating every animal and bird. Gen 2:19 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. You are right to say God didn't create Adam and Eve twice, so why would you suggest the animals and birds were created twice?

 

[greentwiga]

I don't think those two passages contradict at all.

Genesis 1 takes place on the earth as a whole. Genesis 2 takes place in the garden itself, and God creates a subset of life (beasts of the field and birds of the air). The purpose of their creation in that locality was so that Adam could name them. He wasn't tasked with naming everything; only the beasts and birds. So I see no difficulty in an additional animal creation, of those specific creatures, for that specific purpose, on the sixth day.

Notice that in Ge 1, Plants and beasts were created before man was. In Gen 2, Plants of the field, and beasts of the field were created after man. Science has shown that domestic plants and domestic animals both came into being after man came along. The Bible makes a clear contrast between wild animals and animals of the field, so I have no problem saying "Of the field" was their way of saying domesticated.

 

[EternalDragon]

Where does it say Genesis 2 is a detailed description of day 6? Sure the beasts, man and woman were created on day 6, but Genesis 2 also describes the creation of birds (day 5) and starts off before the creation of plants (day 3). Nor does Genesis 2 say God created more animals in the garden, the emphasis on God creating every animal and bird. Gen 2:19 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. You are right to say God didn't create Adam and Eve twice, so why would you suggest the animals and birds were created twice?

Because it was a special garden.

So if you agree that God did not create man and woman twice then it is not a separate account. It is a detailed account of the day he created man and woman, day 6....and details about the creation of a special garden with special fruit trees and special animals just for Adam and Eve.

 

[Assyrian]

Notice that in Ge 1, Plants and beasts were created before man was. In Gen 2, Plants of the field, and beasts of the field were created after man. Science has shown that domestic plants and domestic animals both came into being after man came along. The Bible makes a clear contrast between wild animals and animals of the field, so I have no problem saying "Of the field" was their way of saying domesticated.

The plants or shrubs, siyach, referred to in Genesis 2:5 are not domesticated plants, take a look at the other passages where they are referred to.

Gen 21:14 So Abraham rose early in the morning and took bread and a skin of water and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. 15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the child under one of the bushes.

Job 30:3 Through want and hard hunger they gnaw the dry ground by night in waste and desolation; 4 they pick saltwort and the leaves of bushes, and the roots of the broom tree for their food. 5 They are driven out from human company; they shout after them as after a thief. 6 In the gullies of the torrents they must dwell, in holes of the earth and of the rocks. 7 Among the bushes they bray; under the nettles they huddle together.

The bushes of the field are desert scrub plants and even these weren't able to grow in Genesis 2:5 because there was no rain.

rpt... The Bible makes a clear contrast between wild animals and animals of the field

Actually Genesis 2 makes a clear distinction between beasts of the field and domesticated livestock. Gen 2:20 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. And if you look in Genesis 3 the serpent was linked with beasts of the field Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. Snakes are wild animals not domesticated.