There are Two Creation Stories in Genesis

ewq1938 · Sep 6, 2020

coffee4u said:
Genesis 2 focus on the garden.

In which of the 6 creation days were the trees and plants of the garden created?

coffee4u · Sep 6, 2020

ewq1938 said:
In which of the 6 creation days were the trees and plants of the garden created?

Okay if you really want to get into this again, I shall.

Now one problem is the document that I kept all my notes on got corrupted so I don't have any notes to hand anymore. :sigh:

lesson learned was don't trust cloud storage.

On day three God created all the plants.
Genesis 1
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
This was outside of the garden because the garden had not been made yet.

In Genesis 2 the focus is on the garden of Eden.
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
No day is given because God already told us that he created plants on day 3. This could be from the perspective of the author looking out onto the world early on day three directly before God created the plants or it could be looking at the garden of Eden. It doesn't say what day God planted this garden, it could have been day 3 or it may have been later. Some of the words in Hebrew though seem to indicate it's actually talking about cultivated plants and crops and is better translated as
5 Now no cultivated plant had yet appeared on the earth and no cultivated crop had yet sprung up.

7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

God had planted the garden, meaning it had already been done before he created man. There is no conflict here and no day mentioned because its a recap of what God had done. The garden is separate to the rest of the creation. God could have taken plants that he created on day 3 and moved them to the garden or he created cultivated plants later especially for the garden. It doesn't really matter. The important part was that the garden was planted separately from the rest of the world and that it was made especially for man.

What you call a second creation is just focus on the garden of Eden vs the world.

For there to be two creations raises all kind of issues.
Where is the scripture that indicate there are two creations?
What point would a first and second creation serve?
God doesn't need a practice run, he doesn't make mistakes.

ewq1938 · Sep 6, 2020

So plants and trees created on day 3 before man was created yet in Gen 2 we see Adam created before the garden is planted. Remember that the Hebrew manuscripts do not say "had planted" but "planted" in a verb tense that was a not yet completed action. He also planted the garden not moved already growing plants and trees.

It proves there is a second, smaller creation story in Gen 2 that is vastly different than happened in the first creation story.

coffee4u said:
Okay if you really want to get into this again, I shall.

Now one problem is the document that I kept all my notes on got corrupted so I don't have any notes to hand anymore. lesson learned was don't trust cloud storage.

On day three God created all the plants.
Genesis 1
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
This was outside of the garden because the garden had not been made yet.

In Genesis 2 the focus is on the garden of Eden.
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
No day is given because God already told us that he created plants on day 3. This could be from the perspective of the author looking out onto the world early on day three directly before God created the plants or it could be looking at the garden of Eden. In any case its a recap. It doesn't say what day God planted this garden, it could have been day 3 or it may have been later. Some of the words in Hebrew though seem to indicate it's actually talking about cultivated plants and crops and is better translated as
5 Now no cultivated plant had yet appeared on the earth and no cultivated crop had yet sprung up.

7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

God had planted the garden, meaning it had already been done before he created man. there is no conflict here. The garden is separate to the rest of the creation. God could have taken plants that he created on day 3 and moved them to the garden or he created cultivated plants later especially for the garden. It doesn't really matter. The important part was that the garden was planted separately from the rest of the world and that it was made especially for man.

What you call a second creation is just focus on the garden of Eden vs the world.

For there to be two creations raises all kind of issues.
Where is the scripture does it indicate there are two creations?
What point would a first and second creation serve?
God doesn't need a practice run, he doesn't make mistakes.

coffee4u · Sep 6, 2020

ewq1938 said:
So plants and trees created on day 3 before man was created yet in Gen 2 we see Adam created before the garden is planted. Remember that the Hebrew manuscripts do not say "had planted" but "planted" in a verb tense that was a not yet completed action. He also planted the garden not moved already growing plants and trees.

It proves there is a second, smaller creation story in Gen 2 that is vastly different than happened in the first creation story.

No, the garden is planted before Adam is created.

7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

It doesn't matter on what day God planted the garden, the garden is separate from the rest of creation. The garden was planted sometime between day 3-6 and then God made Adam outside of the garden and moved him into it. But lets for argument sake say God made Adam, left him there and went over planted the garden, returned and moved him into it, this still does indicate two separate creations.

This is not some proof for a completly seperate creation. Also please answer the questions.

ewq1938 · Sep 6, 2020

coffee4u said:
No, the garden is planted before Adam is created.

I'm afraid the Hebrew manuscripts disagree with that. Adam is created before the garden even exists.

Gen 2:7 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.
Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Planted is in the imperfect tense, meaning it wasn't something that had previously been done. "had formed" is in the perfect tense showing it had already happened. There is no "had planted" in the manuscripts.

So in the Hebrew it says Adam was formed, then God planted a garden, then he placed Adam in that garden.

coffee4u · Sep 7, 2020

ewq1938 said:
I'm afraid the Hebrew manuscripts disagree with that. Adam is created before the garden even exists.

Gen 2:7 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.
Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Planted is in the imperfect tense, meaning it wasn't something that had previously been done. "had formed" is in the perfect tense showing it had already happened. There is no "had planted" in the manuscripts.

So in the Hebrew it says Adam was formed, then God planted a garden, then he placed Adam in that garden.

Whether the garden of Eden was planted before or after Adam is of no importance. All translations have included 'had' so the translator of the KJV must have felt that was more accurate.

Whichever way it happened this is still not a second sperate creation story saying that God created the world, wiped it clean and started over -which is what this thread is about.

If we are looking at what the Hebrew says than we should look at all of it.
In Genesis 1 on the third day God created deshe (grass) eseb mazria zera (seed-yielding herbs) and ets pariy (fruit trees) In Genesis 2 we have eseb hassadeh (cultivated grain)

ewq1938 · Sep 7, 2020

coffee4u said:
Whether the garden of Eden was planted before or after Adam is of no importance. All translations have included 'had' so the translator of the KJV must have felt that was more accurate.

The KJV translator did not include "had" regarding the planting of the garden and this is the same in most translations. Only errant translations based on personal opinion and not the Hebrew manuscripts have "had planted".

Whichever way it happened this is still not a second sperate creation story saying that God created the world, wiped it clean and started over -which is what this thread is about.

The thread/OP is about discussing the idea of there being two different creation stories in Gen 1 and 2. Some don't agree there are two, some do.

Philip_B · Sep 7, 2020

coffee4u said:
Focusing in on the garden is not a separate creation after the first one was wiped clean or whatever heresy this thread is trying to promote.

Dragging out the H Bomb Batton is not always helpful, and suggesting that the thread was intended to promote heresy is unhelpful if not disingenuous. The idea being explored that there may be two divergent strands of oral tradition that have been captured at some point and left reasonably intact rather than simply blended is not of itself heretical. Rather it speaks of the integrity of those who captured the traditions for us, and the importance that they placed on the stories they collated. That something of the voice of God might be encountered in each of these traditions is entirely plausible, and whilst it may not be entirely tidy it is what it is.

Dale · Sep 9, 2020

coffee4u said:
Okay if you really want to get into this again, I shall.

Now one problem is the document that I kept all my notes on got corrupted so I don't have any notes to hand anymore. lesson learned was don't trust cloud storage.

On day three God created all the plants.
Genesis 1
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
This was outside of the garden because the garden had not been made yet.

In Genesis 2 the focus is on the garden of Eden.
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
No day is given because God already told us that he created plants on day 3. This could be from the perspective of the author looking out onto the world early on day three directly before God created the plants or it could be looking at the garden of Eden. It doesn't say what day God planted this garden, it could have been day 3 or it may have been later. Some of the words in Hebrew though seem to indicate it's actually talking about cultivated plants and crops and is better translated as
5 Now no cultivated plant had yet appeared on the earth and no cultivated crop had yet sprung up.

7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

God had planted the garden, meaning it had already been done before he created man. There is no conflict here and no day mentioned because its a recap of what God had done. The garden is separate to the rest of the creation. God could have taken plants that he created on day 3 and moved them to the garden or he created cultivated plants later especially for the garden. It doesn't really matter. The important part was that the garden was planted separately from the rest of the world and that it was made especially for man.

What you call a second creation is just focus on the garden of Eden vs the world.

For there to be two creations raises all kind of issues.
Where is the scripture that indicate there are two creations?
What point would a first and second creation serve?
God doesn't need a practice run, he doesn't make mistakes.

coffee4u said:
No, the garden is planted before Adam is created.

7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

It doesn't matter on what day God planted the garden, the garden is separate from the rest of creation. The garden was planted sometime between day 3-6 and then God made Adam outside of the garden and moved him into it. But lets for argument sake say God made Adam, left him there and went over planted the garden, returned and moved him into it, this still does indicate two separate creations.

This is not some proof for a completly seperate creation. Also please answer the questions.

coffee4u said:
Whether the garden of Eden was planted before or after Adam is of no importance. All translations have included 'had' so the translator of the KJV must have felt that was more accurate.

Whichever way it happened this is still not a second sperate creation story saying that God created the world, wiped it clean and started over -which is what this thread is about.

If we are looking at what the Hebrew says than we should look at all of it.
In Genesis 1 on the third day God created deshe (grass) eseb mazria zera (seed-yielding herbs) and ets pariy (fruit trees) In Genesis 2 we have eseb hassadeh (cultivated grain)

Coffee in post #62: "Where is the scripture that indicate there are two creations?
What point would a first and second creation serve? "

I never said that there were two separate creations, only that the Bible gives two accounts of it, two stories about creation, with significant differences, in Genesis. There is a third creation account in Pslam 104, as I discussed in post #4.

Coffee in post #64: "This is not some proof for a completely seperate creation. "

I never said there was a completely separate second creation, only that we have been given two views of creation in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Coffee in post #66: "Whichever way it happened this is still not a second sperate creation story saying that God created the world, wiped it clean and started over -which is what this thread is about."

I never said anything about God wiping the out the first creation and starting over with a second creation. I do take the two creation stories, with significant differences, as a sign that neither is literal.

coffee4u · Sep 9, 2020

Dale said:
I never said anything about God wiping the out the first creation and starting over with a second creation. I do take the two creation stories, with significant differences, as a sign that neither is literal.

The whole point is there aren't significant differences.

We have God focusing on the garden, saying he planted Eden with cultivated crops either before or after he created Adam. That he moved Adam from the outside world where he made him into this garden. It also mentioned how he had made the animals from the same dirt as Adam (and Eve from his rib) and later made them come before him to be named. That is all it is, it isn't recording what was created when, because that had already been established in chapter 1.
I have seen too many people try and make a claim that God created in chapter 1, wiped everything clean and then created again on top of the old bones in an effort to somehow shoehorn in evolution.

Is Exodus also not literal?
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Genesis is historical narrative, that is the literary style.
Genesis Creation: Literal or Literary?

Dale · Sep 9, 2020

coffee4u said:
The whole point is there aren't significant differences.

We have God focusing on the garden, saying he planted Eden with cultivated crops either before or after he created Adam. That he moved Adam from the outside world where he made him into this garden. It also mentioned how he had made the animals from the same dirt as Adam (and Eve from his rib) and later made them come before him to be named. That is all it is, it isn't recording what was created when, because that had already been established in chapter 1.
I have seen too many people try and make a claim that God created in chapter 1, wiped everything clean and then created again on top of the old bones in an effort to somehow shoehorn in evolution.

Is Exodus also not literal?
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Genesis is historical narrative, that is the literary style.
Genesis Creation: Literal or Literary?

Coffee: "That is all it is, it isn't recording what was created when, because that had already been established in chapter 1."

The only way you could reach that conclusion is by either cutting up the second creation story with a pair of scissors and inserting the pieces at various places into the first, or vice versa. The second story doesn't mention days of creation because in the second story everything is created about the same time.

You say that there are no significant differences, yet in Genesis 1, birds are created from water, from the seas, while in Genesis 2 birds are formed "out of the ground," like Adam. This is a different account.

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21-22 NIV

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.
Genesis 2:19 NIV

Dale · Sep 9, 2020

coffee4u said:
The whole point is there aren't significant differences.

We have God focusing on the garden, saying he planted Eden with cultivated crops either before or after he created Adam. That he moved Adam from the outside world where he made him into this garden. It also mentioned how he had made the animals from the same dirt as Adam (and Eve from his rib) and later made them come before him to be named. That is all it is, it isn't recording what was created when, because that had already been established in chapter 1.
I have seen too many people try and make a claim that God created in chapter 1, wiped everything clean and then created again on top of the old bones in an effort to somehow shoehorn in evolution.

Is Exodus also not literal?
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Genesis is historical narrative, that is the literary style.
Genesis Creation: Literal or Literary?

The presentation of God is different in the first and second creation stories. I have already pointed out that in the first creation story God is Elohim and in the second God is Jehovah-Elohim or Yahweh-Elohim. The first creation story goes to great lengths to present God as all powerful. God is not limited by time because He created time. God creates by speaking, as in "Let there be light." In the second creation story God comes down and works in the dirt, planting trees and shrubs and forming Adam. God breathes in the breath of life, a very personal act. The second creation story presents God as interested in His creation, active in His creation. This is very significant. We can learn from both creation stories and we are intended to learn from both creation stories.

I hope that you didn't ignore my comment on the moral content of the first and second creation stories in post #59 just because it wasn't directed at you.

coffee4u · Sep 9, 2020

Dale said:
Coffee: "That is all it is, it isn't recording what was created when, because that had already been established in chapter 1."

The only way you could reach that conclusion is by either cutting up the second creation story with a pair of scissors and inserting the pieces at various places into the first, or vice versa. The second story doesn't mention days of creation because in the second story everything is created about the same time.

You say that there are no significant differences, yet in Genesis 1, birds are created from water, from the seas, while in Genesis 2 birds are formed "out of the ground," like Adam. This is a different account.

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21-22 NIV

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.
Genesis 2:19 NIV

There isn't a second creation 'story'
Genesis 1 outlines what God created over 6 days. It is a historical narrative.
Genesis 2 looks in more detail at the garden.

Now the Lord God had formed
Had, he had formed all the animals in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 he is bringing the animals to Adam for him to name, he isn't creating them.

Nowhere does it say birds were created out of water. God doesn't say how he created either the sea creatures or the birds. Just that he created them.

ewq1938 · Sep 9, 2020

coffee4u said:
Nowhere does it say birds were created out of water. God doesn't say how he created either the sea creatures or the birds. Just that he created them.

Gen 1 does say birds were made from the water:

Gen 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.
Gen 1:21 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.

In the garden God did not make birds from water, but the ground instead.

coffee4u · Sep 9, 2020

Dale said:
The presentation of God is different in the first and second creation stories. I have already pointed out that in the first creation story God is Elohim and in the second God is Jehovah-Elohim or Yahweh-Elohim. The first creation story goes to great lengths to present God as all powerful. God is not limited by time because He created time. God creates by speaking, as in "Let there be light." In the second creation story God comes down and works in the dirt, planting trees and shrubs and forming Adam. God breathes in the breath of life, a very personal act. The second creation story presents God as interested in His creation, active in His creation. This is very significant. We can learn from both creation stories and we are intended to learn from both creation stories.

I hope that you didn't ignore my comment on the moral content of the first and second creation stories in post #59 just because it wasn't directed at you.

It is looking at the same event in different ways. Which is exactly what the four Gospels do, four different writers with four different perspectives of the same events.
Compare the start of the four passion narratives.

Matt: Jesus went to Gethsemane.
Mark: Jesus went to Gethsemane.
Luke: Jesus came to that place.
John: Jesus crossed the Kidron to a garden.

Just because they don't match perfectly does not make them 3/4 different events, it the same event from four different points of view.

The fact that Gen 1 and 2 show God differently is more proof to a different author for each chapter than anything else.

coffee4u · Sep 9, 2020

ewq1938 said:
Gen 1 does say birds were made from the water:

Gen 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.
Gen 1:21 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.

In the garden God did not make birds from water, but the ground instead.

Gen 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.

"I made a lamb stew and a lemon pie today"
Does not mean I made both the stew and the pie from lamb. It simply means I made two things.

ewq1938 · Sep 9, 2020

coffee4u said:
Gen 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.

"I made a lamb stew and a lemon pie today"
Does not mean I made both the stew and the pie from lamb. It simply means I made two things.

Not an accurate comparison. More accurate would be, "Let the kitchen bring forth Lamb stew and lemon pie". Both having the same origin.

The waters brought forth moving creatures that hath life AND flying fowl. Both came from the water.

Dale · Sep 9, 2020

The notion that the Bible contains more than one tradition should not be strange to people who read the Bible. We have Mount Sinai and Mount Horeb, both names for God's holy mountain.

Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire.
Exodus 18:19 NIV

"Sinai" occurs six times in Exodus Chapter 19. Yet Exodus also refers to "the mountain of God" as Horeb.

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.
Exodus 3:1 NIV

Horeb is mentioned a number of times in Deuteronomy.

[Moses says,]The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
Deuteronomy 5:2 NIV

Horeb is also appears in the historical books, in the Psalms, and in the Prophets.

There was nothing in the ark except the two stone tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the Lord made a covenant with the Israelites after they came out of Egypt.
1 Kings 8:9 NIV

So he [Elijah] got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God.
I Kings 19:8 NIV

At Horeb they made a calf
and worshiped an idol cast from metal.
Psalm 105:19 NIV

4 “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel."
Malachi 4:4 NIV

The use of Mount Sinai alongside Mount Horeb for God's holy mountain or the mountain of God is one clear sign that the Bible blends more than one tradition.

Dale · Sep 9, 2020

coffee4u said:
There isn't a second creation 'story'
Genesis 1 outlines what God created over 6 days. It is a historical narrative.
Genesis 2 looks in more detail at the garden.

Now the Lord God had formed
Had, he had formed all the animals in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 he is bringing the animals to Adam for him to name, he isn't creating them.

Nowhere does it say birds were created out of water. God doesn't say how he created either the sea creatures or the birds. Just that he created them.

Coffee<< Now the Lord God had formed
Had, he had formed all the animals in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 he is bringing the animals to Adam for him to name, he isn't creating them. >>

What verse are you quoting when you say "had formed"? I can't discuss tenses until you point to a specific verse.

klutedavid · Sep 10, 2020

Dale said:
Obviously, God only created the world once but more than one creation story has come down to us. Just look at the opening to the second creation story in Genesis 2:4.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Genesis 2:4 NIV

This is definitely an introduction to a second story. It is at this point that the name of God changes from "Elohim" to "Jehovah-Elohim."

The change in the name of God tells us that the two accounts in Genesis. Were written by two different authors, and at different times to one another.

There are Two Creation Stories in Genesis

I love you three.

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads