Two creation stories?

[gfleece]

What is to be done with these two different stories found in Genesis? I am sure that there is an answer but how convoluted is it?

 

[hatsoff]

What is to be done with these two different stories found in Genesis? I am sure that there is an answer but how convoluted is it?

Whoever edited the two stories together obviously believed they complimented one another. Beyond that, we can't say very much about the authors' intents. However, one need not be concerned about contradictions between two allegorical narratives.

 

[gfleece]

I don't believe that they are allegorical at all. I believe that they represent the actuality of how the earth came into existence. I was just curious how many explanations may be posited as to why the stories differ so much.

 

[lemmings]

As far as I am aware there are only two conflicting details in the accounts.
Gen 1 says that humans came after the other animals: Gen 2 says before.
Gen 1 says that Adam and Eve where created at the same time: Gen 2 says that she was created after the other animals.

My parents’ church’s policy is that Gen 1 applied to the entire Universe but Gen 2 applied only two Eden. Their solution was that the animals where created first, but Adam the first to enter Eden and Eve came after the animals where already there.

 

[FallingWaters]

I don't believe that they differ. I believe they compliment each other. The second elucidates the first.

 

[Chief117]

I also do not think the 2 contradict each other. It would probably help discussion if you stated what precisely it was that made you feel that there is a contradiction. Nonetheless I think I'll take a stab at what I think it might be:

Genesis 1 is more like a broad overview of the Creation week. It states what actions God took on each day as He formed the universe and life from nothing. Genesis 2 comes back and elaborates on the sixth day's events. If I am not mistaken, this was a common practice among Hebrew authors (to provide a broad overview and later come back to elaborate).

Genesis 2 often confused me when it said "...when no plant of the field was yet in the earth...then the Lord God formed man of the dust." I always thought this was weird because Gen 1 says vegetation appeared on Day 3 and man/animals on Day 6.

But here's the key (as hinted in Gen 2): it means no plants OF THE FIELD. It had not yet rained on Day 6, and man did not have to work IN THE FIELD until after the fall. So the author (presumably Moses, writing centuries after the event) is reminding his readers that the world at that time is very different from the one we enjoy today.

 

[Biblewriter]

As far as I am aware there are only two conflicting details in the accounts.
Gen 1 says that humans came after the other animals: Gen 2 says before.
Gen 1 says that Adam and Eve where created at the same time: Gen 2 says that she was created after the other animals.

My parents’ church’s policy is that Gen 1 applied to the entire Universe but Gen 2 applied only two Eden. Their solution was that the animals where created first, but Adam the first to enter Eden and Eve came after the animals where already there.

If there was even one conflicting detail between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, there would be a problem. But the problem here is not resolving conflicting details, but resolving misunderstandings of what they say.

Neither Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 says anything about the respective order of God's creation of Adam and the animals. Genesis 1 says that both were created on the sixth day, and mentions the animals first, but it does not say which was created first on that day. Genesis 2 says both were created and mentions Adam first, but does not state the order of their creation.

Genesis 1 does not say that God created Adam and Eve at the same time. it only says He created them on the same day. Genesis 2 clearly says that Eve was created after Adam named the animals, but Genesis 1 most certainly does not contradict that statement.

This talk about the two accounts and the editor that put them together is simply the language of unbelief. it should be plain to any simple believer that Genesis 2 is simply the addition of detail to the summary given in chapter 1. It is a common literary device to first give a general summary of an account, and then go back and add detail. This is what was done here, and there is no evidence whatsoever to back up the notion that this was a botched up job of editing conflicting accounts.

Unbelievers have always complained about supposed contradictions in the Bible. I have challenged many of them to show me even one such contradiction, but they have never been able to do it. Without even one exception, every supposed contradiction they presented was, like the ones above, based on a misunderstanding of what either one or both passages actually said.

 

[mark kennedy]

What is to be done with these two different stories found in Genesis? I am sure that there is an answer but how convoluted is it?

What you have is in Genesis 1:1 it describes the creation ('bara' absolutely). At this point the focus is the heavens and the earth, that is, the entire universe. Then, without reference to specific amount of time the earth was (possibly 'became' see footnote a):

formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.​

With Genesis 1:3, the 6 day creation describes God's creation both in terms of bara (out of nothing) and `asah (much broader applications) and the beginning of Genesis 2 describes the 'rest' (same root as Sabbath) since the creation was complete in all it's vast array. It already described, in general terms, the creation of man:

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

Then the focus changes back to the sixth day and the Genesis account fills in the details of the sixth day, specifically the creation of Adam and Eve. Now these are two different narratives (stories if you want to call them that) of the same thing. It's a literary feature known as parallelism, AKA 'scope change' or:

"zooming in from an overall perspective to a closeup, with a corresponding shift in reference" (Grimes, 1975)​

That's about it, there isn't an elaborate explanation required. What you have encountered is a hundred year old textual criticism known as the JEPD argument. The Genesis 1 account uses the name for God Elohim which means God almighty. The word used in Genesis 2 is Jehovah (I AM THAT I AM) which is the covenant name for God revealed on Sinai to Moses.

Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"

God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' (Exodus 3:14)​

This is a literary feature and the change in the use of names indicate a change in focus from the general account of creation to the covenant relationship with Adam and Eve. It will change again with Abraham, again with Isaac, again with Jacob, again with Joseph, again with Moses, but the same God of creation. It changes once again with the incarnation:

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (John 1:17)​

Then once again with the inclusion of the Gentiles when the nation of Israel rejects Christ:

Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. (Romans 11:20-23)​

The change is in the scope of the revelation and the level of details that are known. It will ultimately change for the last time with the redemption of the purchase price:

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:13,14)​

When we shall see Him as He is:

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (I Cor 13: 8-12)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[3sigma]

Neither Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 says anything about the respective order of God's creation of Adam and the animals. Genesis 1 says that both were created on the sixth day, and mentions the animals first, but it does not say which was created first on that day. Genesis 2 says both were created and mentions Adam first, but does not state the order of their creation.

Well, I don’t think that is entirely true. Let’s use your preferred Bible (KJV) and look at the order of creation in Genesis 1.

20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26: And 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 fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

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

So God supposedly creates all fish, birds and whales on the fifth day then creates land animals and man on the sixth day. Now let’s look at the order in Genesis 2.

15: And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

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.

20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Here God supposedly creates man and brings him to the Garden of Eden (15-17). Man is alone at this point; there are no land animals or birds yet (18). God says that this is not good so he creates land animals and birds and brings them to Adam so that he can name them and see whether any are suitable company for him (19). None of them is suitable so God apparently creates Eve from one of Adam’s ribs (20-22).

Have you spotted the contradiction yet? In Genesis 1, “every winged fowl” is created on the fifth day before man was created, but in Genesis 2 man is alone on the land then God creates “every fowl of the air” on the sixth day after man was created.

This talk about the two accounts and the editor that put them together is simply the language of unbelief. it should be plain to any simple believer that Genesis 2 is simply the addition of detail to the summary given in chapter 1. It is a common literary device to first give a general summary of an account, and then go back and add detail. This is what was done here, and there is no evidence whatsoever to back up the notion that this was a botched up job of editing conflicting accounts.

This isn’t simply added detail; the details contradict each other. The evidence is right there in front of you.

Unbelievers have always complained about supposed contradictions in the Bible. I have challenged many of them to show me even one such contradiction, but they have never been able to do it. Without even one exception, every supposed contradiction they presented was, like the ones above, based on a misunderstanding of what either one or both passages actually said.

Well now you’ve been shown an apparent contradiction by an unbeliever. Please try to explain it away as a misunderstanding.

 

[Biblewriter]

Here God supposedly creates man and brings him to the Garden of Eden (15-17). Man is alone at this point; there are no land animals or birds yet (18).

This is an assumption on your part. From the account it is plain that the animals and birds had not yet been brought to Adam, but it does not say that they had not yet been created.

God says that this is not good so he creates land animals and birds and brings them to Adam so that he can name them and see whether any are suitable company for him (19).

Again, you have assumed a timing that is not expressly stated.

This isn’t simply added detail; the details contradict each other. The evidence is right there in front of you.


Well now you’ve been shown an apparent contradiction by an unbeliever. Please try to explain it away as a misunderstanding.

Yes, I have been shown an APPARENT contradiction. But, as I have demonstrated, it is only an apparent contradiction.

 

[Mallon]

How does the waw consecutive figure into your interpretation of Genesis 2, Biblewriter?

 

[Molal]

I don't believe that they are allegorical at all. I believe that they represent the actuality of how the earth came into existence. I was just curious how many explanations may be posited as to why the stories differ so much.

So, which one do you believe? If you take them literally and, as you state they differ, then you must believe that one is more literal than the other.....

Just wondering...

 

[3sigma]

This is an assumption on your part. From the account it is plain that the animals and birds had not yet been brought to Adam, but it does not say that they had not yet been created.

Genesis 2:18 states that Adam is alone then Genesis 2:19 states “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air”. Adam was alone so God created the animals and birds to keep him company. The phrase “And out of the ground the LORD God formed” sounds to me as though God created them at that point. How do you interpret that phrase?

 

[Biblewriter]

How does the waw consecutive figure into your interpretation of Genesis 2, Biblewriter?

I can't answer that question because I have no idea what the "waw consecutive" is.

 

[Biblewriter]

Genesis 2:18 states that Adam is alone then Genesis 2:19 states “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air”. Adam was alone so God created the animals and birds to keep him company. The phrase “And out of the ground the LORD God formed” sounds to me as though God created them at that point. How do you interpret that phrase?

I agree that it sounds like God created them at that point. But it does not say that. The previous chapter distinctly says they were created earlier. The fact that Adam was alone does not prove that they had not yet been created. They were simply not where he was.

 

[3sigma]

The fact that Adam was alone does not prove that they had not yet been created.

You wrote earlier that Genesis 2 was an elaboration of the events of the sixth day in Genesis 1, namely, the creation of man and the animals. Where in Genesis 2 does it mention the creation of the animals if not in Genesis 2:19?

 

[Mallon]

I can't answer that question because I have no idea what the "waw consecutive" is.

The waw consecutive is a Hebrew character that denotes sequence, and is found throughout the Genesis creation accounts. Whereas you are arguing there is no sequence given in Genesis 1 or 2, the presence of the waw consecutive argues strongly otherwise.
Might be worth looking into further.

 

[shernren]

Indeed. 'Tis important to go back to the original Hebrew. The KJV is hardly the most reliable translation around; we've come a long way since then.

 

[Iosias]

The waw consecutive is a Hebrew character that denotes sequence, and is found throughout the Genesis creation accounts.

Not necessarily, however it is characteristic of historical prose.

 

[Mallon]

Not necessarily, however it is characteristic of historical prose.

Does the waw consecutive not denote sequence in Genesis 2?