Alleged Contradiction between the order of events in Genesis

Freedom777 · May 14, 2004

Alleged Contradiction between the order of events in Genesis

Mike Riddle
12/7/2000

Overview

Genesis chapter 1 is written as an historical and chronological account of the six days of creation by God.

Day 1 Earth, heaven, light, and darkness
Day 2 Firmament
Day 3 Dry land, seas, and vegetation
Day 4 Sun, moon, and stars
Day 5 Sea creatures and birds
Day 6 Land animals and man
We read the phrase, And the evening and the morning were Xth day at the conclusion of each of the 6-days of creation, meaning each of the six days of creation were distinct days having a definite beginning and ending.

However, in Genesis chapter 2, some people make the claim that there is another account of creation, thus giving two separate accounts of creation in the Bible. One reason for this claim is that it is believed the order of created events in Genesis chapter 2 differs from the order of created events in chapter 1. A careful reading (study) of chapter 2 will reveal that this is not the case. Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not two different accounts of creation with a different order. Genesis chapter 1 is an overview of the six days of creation and chapter 2 gives more detailed information about the events surrounding day 6 (the Garden of Eden, the first man, and his activities). Many books (especially technical books) are written this way. The first chapter is an overview of all the technologies involved and the remaining chapters drill down into the specifics of each of the technologies. The Bible was the first book to use this format.

Genesis 2:4-5

The first verses that appear to cause difficulty are four and five.

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, 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.

Is this another account of creation? No, it is intended to be a summary of days one through three in Genesis chapter 1. Genesis 2:4-5 exactly agrees with the order of events in chapter 1. It accurately states that there were plants in the field, it had not rained yet, and there was no man yet to till the ground. Henry Morris states that the phrase before it grew indicates a mature creation, or creation of apparent age. The plants did not grow from seeds but were created full grown (The Defenders Bible, 1995, p. 9).

Comparison of Scriptures and the order of events

Beginning in Genesis 2:7 we read a more detailed description of day 6 and the things that took place in the Garden of Eden.

Below is a comparison of the verses in Genesis chapter 2 that appear to be in a different order from Genesis chapter 1.

Genesis 1 Genesis 2
Genesis 1:11-12
Trees (vegetation) were made on day 3 Genesis 2:7-9
Trees were made on day 6 after man
Genesis 1:20
Birds made on day 5 Genesis 2:19
Birds made on day 6 after man
Genesis 1:24-25
Animals made on day 6 before man Genesis 2:19
Animals made on day 6 after man

Genesis 2:7-9 (vegetation)

Genesis chapter 1 clearly states that God created the trees (vegetation) on day 3. However, in Genesis 2:7-9 it at appears that God created man first and then the trees. A careful reading of these verses actually shows that the trees (garden) described in Genesis 2:8 pertains only to the Garden of Eden. The rest of the world is already full of trees from day 3. The plants God made in the Garden of Eden were for a special purpose.

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. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put man whom he had formed.
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
-(Genesis 2:7-9)

Since Adam was not created until day six he was not an eye witness to any of Gods creation. Adam appears to have been created outside the Garden of Eden and was placed there by God to observe God preparing this special garden for his (Adams) home. This allowed Adam to actually witness God creating. God put Adam in the garden and then out of the ground He made trees pleasant to Adams site and good for food, as well as the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
There is no contradiction between Genesis chapter 1 and 2. God waited until after the creation of Adam to make special plants in the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 2:19 (birds and animals)

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 could appear that birds and animals (beast of the field) were created after Adam (man) when Genesis chapter 1 states that birds were created on day 5 (Genesis 1:20) and land animals on day 6 before Adam (Genesis 1:24-25). This could mean that God created more creatures after Adam. It would not be all the animals, just selected kinds. Only beast of the field and birds are brought before Adam. God does not bring the sea creatures or small animals (things that creepeth), or insects to Adam. Also the word used for beast in verse 19 is chay (pronounced khah-ee), which means wild beast or non-domesticated or unclean animals. This is in contrast to the other word commonly used for beast behemah (pronounced be-hay-maw), which means domesticated animals such as cattle. In addition, the word cattle can have two meanings; one is behemah or beast (meaning domesticated animals) and the other is miqneh meaning livestock (as in cow). So in verse 19 God only appears to be forming the wild beast (chay) not the domesticated beast (behemah or cattle). But Adam gave names to the cattle as well as the beast. In Genesis 2:20 we read:

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.

Where did the cattle come from if they were not already created prior to Adam? There is no mention of God creating cattle (domesticated animals). Genesis chapter 2 gives no indication that God created, or recreated new domesticated animals (behemah), sea creatures, or things that creepeth. Therefore, the only creatures we need to consider are the birds and non-domesticated beasts of the field. There are two explanations for what we read in Genesis 2:19 about these creatures.

The verb formed can mean had formed (see Genesis 2:8). This would indicate that God had already formed these creatures as stated in Genesis chapter 1 and was just bringing them to Adam to name.
God could have made (formed) these creatures (birds and non-domesticated animals) in front of Adam rather than bring the ones He had already created on day 6 (Genesis 1:25). This would allow Adam to witness Gods creative powers. This creative act would not be a contradiction to the order in chapter 1, which states that God created the birds on day 5 and all the beast of the earth on day 6 (chay or non-domesticated beast). He just specially forms more of these these creatures in front of Adam so he can name them.

Conclusion

There is one account of creation in the Bible. Genesis chapter 1 provides an historical and chronological summary of Gods six-day creation. Genesis chapter 2 provides a more in-depth account of day 6. There are also no contradictions in the order of created events between the two chapters. By doing a careful examination and word study of the Scriptures all the apparent contradictions are shown to be false.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · May 14, 2004

The Pluperfect Dodge (i.e. "had formed") doesn't work.

In Gen 2, God's motivation is extremely clear - He makes the animals in order to provide Adam, whom He has already made, with a suitable helper. Only a prior commitment to harmonisation can end up with you finding a way round this rather obvious contradiction.

I prefer to engage with the texts as given and live with the inconsistencies.

gluadys · May 14, 2004

Freedom777 said:
Alleged Contradiction between the order of events in Genesis

However, in Genesis chapter 2, some people make the claim that there is another account of creation, thus giving two separate accounts of creation in the Bible. One reason for this claim is that it is believed the order of created events in Genesis chapter 2 differs from the order of created events in chapter 1. A careful reading (study) of chapter 2 will reveal that this is not the case. Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not two different accounts of creation with a different order. Genesis chapter 1 is an overview of the six days of creation and chapter 2 gives more detailed information about the events surrounding day 6 (the Garden of Eden, the first man, and his activities). Many books (especially technical books) are written this way. The first chapter is an overview of all the technologies involved and the remaining chapters drill down into the specifics of each of the technologies. The Bible was the first book to use this format.

Genesis 2:4-5

The first verses that appear to cause difficulty are four and five.

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, 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.

Is this another account of creation? No, it is intended to be a summary of days one through three in Genesis chapter 1. Genesis 2:4-5 exactly agrees with the order of events in chapter 1. It accurately states that there were plants in the field, it had not rained yet, and there was no man yet to till the ground. Henry Morris states that the phrase before it grew indicates a mature creation, or creation of apparent age. The plants did not grow from seeds but were created full grown (The Defenders Bible, 1995, p. 9).

We needn't go any farther than this as all the fallacies are contained within this segment of your post.

"Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not two different accounts of creation with a different order."

We know that they are two different accounts. When two different authors write two different descriptions of an event in two different historical periods separated by over a century, that is two different accounts of the event.

We know from textual research that this is the case with the two creation accounts in Genesis 1-2. One was written in the southern Kingdom of Judah before the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel i.e. before 722 BCE. The other was written by a priest during or near the time period of the Babylonian exile i.e. after 609 BCE.

The spread could actually be wider, as the earlier story could have been written very early in the history of the southern kingdom e.g. before 850 BCE while the second may not have been written until after the Babylonian exile i.e. after 538 BCE. That would put the respective authors over 3 centuries apart.

But there is no avoiding the gap from 722-609 as a minimum difference in the period of writing.

So they are two separate accounts. (Note: this does not imply that they are contradictory.)

"Genesis 2:4-5

The first verses that appear to cause difficulty are four and five.
[snip]
Is this another account of creation? No, it is intended to be a summary of days one through three in Genesis chapter 1."

There is absolutely no way in which this is possible. The author of the second creation account cannot possibly have intended to summarize the account in chapter 1 because that account had not been written yet!

It is the account in chapter 1-2:4a which was written after 609 BCE by the priest. The account beginning in 2:4b is the one which was written by the Judean of the divided kingdom prior to 722 BCE.

The account which was chronologically earlier cannot be a summary or explanation or more detailed version of an account that did not appear until more than a century later.

It is actually chapter 1 which is an expansion of chapter 2. Chapter 2 focuses on the human creation and gives very sketchy details about the rest of creation. Chapter 1 provides an account of the pre-human creation which is not in chapter 2 at all and summarizes the human creation in a single verse.

btw, the difference in the order of creation was one---but only one---of the tip-offs that there were two separate accounts. The fact that there are two accounts does not mean they have to be contradictory, but the differences do confirm that there are two separate accounts.

Another note. One of the things that even translators seem to forget from time to time is that the chapter and verse divisions are not part of the original scripture. This is notable in the translation of 2:4 you provided.

Also worthwhile remembering is that there is no punctuation in the ancient manuscripts---no spaces between words, no periods at the end of sentences, etc. It takes a solid knowledge of Hebrew to decipher where words and sentences and paragraphs come to a stop.

You will note that the second creation account does not begin at the beginning of chapter 2 or even at the beginning of a verse in chapter 2. It begins in the middle of verse 4.

In the translation of this passage you provided (I haven't checked which version it is, not that it matters) vv.4-5 are run together as a single sentence.

"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, 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."

Yet the beginning of v. 4 was written over a century later than the rest of this passage and by a different writer. Like this:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created." (end of account begun at Gen. 1:1)

"In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,....." (beginning of second account--which is chronologically the earlier account)

Freedom777 · May 15, 2004

I would like to inform you that, your opinion that there were 2 authors of genesis, does not hold up to the overwelming evidence from many sources including the bible itself. and i would also be interested in the source in which you got your information,becuase i would very much like to read it.And i would also like to add that mainstream archealogy's dating method differs somewhat from the biblical dates.

gluadys · May 17, 2004

Freedom777 said:
I would like to inform you that, your opinion that there were 2 authors of genesis, does not hold up to the overwelming evidence from many sources including the bible itself. and i would also be interested in the source in which you got your information,becuase i would very much like to read it.And i would also like to add that mainstream archealogy's dating method differs somewhat from the biblical dates.

LOL, what you call "my opinion" was developed from the evidence of the bible itself. It is not "my opinion" or even an opinion at all. It is a fact. These facts were ascertained by study of the texts in the original Hebrew, using the most ancient manuscripts available.

A brief summary for a layperson is available in "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard E. Friedman. The bibliography provides a list of primary research.

Captain_Jack_Sparrow · May 17, 2004

Freedom,

you seem to be as bad an apologetic as a scientist.

To say Genesis 1 and 2 are consistent is just foolish.

*Sigh* - another reason non-Christians view us as borderline fools.

GenemZ · May 19, 2004

Freedom777 said:
I would like to inform you that, your opinion that there were 2 authors of genesis, does not hold up to the overwhelming evidence from many sources including the bible itself. and i would also be interested in the source in which you got your information,because i would very much like to read it.And i would also like to add that mainstream archaeology's dating method differs somewhat from the biblical dates.

There is one glaring difference in the Hebrew words found in Genesis 1, and 2.

The word "bara" only appears as being performed in Genesis 1. "Bara" is a Hebrew word that amongst religious Jews is only spoken in reference to God. For only God can create "out from nothing." The theological term often times referred to is "ex- nihilo"...

God rested (or ceased) from "bara" when he finished creating all that was needed for the future of this creation. In Genesis 2 the Lord no longer creates anything out from nothing (bara). He only takes what had been provided in Genesis 1, and now molds and forms it (yatsar) and even builds (banah) up what was removed from Adam's side. No more creating anything out from nothing. God rested from any more "bara."

God had "asah" made (designed) man to be in his image. But, that actual design he made was "bara", created out from nothing. The soul.

The *invisible* souls of both creatures and man were created "out from nothing" (bara) in Genesis 1. The bodies needed for those souls to live in were formed and supplied out of the earth in Genesis 2. That is where those who do not understand the different Hebrew words used and the conflicting sequences get fouled up. God had rested from any more creating (bara).

Genesis 2:2-3 niv

"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating (bara) that he had done."

God rested from any more creating "out from nothing." But, he continued in his plan for creation by forming and molding (yatsar) out from the elements of the earth the bodies of the animals and Adam. No conflict in the sequence, as long as we understand Genesis 2 was to be the second phase of the creation. It was not a second account.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

zoink · May 19, 2004

gluadys said:
LOL, what you call "my opinion" was developed from the evidence of the bible itself. It is not "my opinion" or even an opinion at all. It is a fact. These facts were ascertained by study of the texts in the original Hebrew, using the most ancient manuscripts available.

A brief summary for a layperson is available in "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard E. Friedman. The bibliography provides a list of primary research.

So no one who knows anything about Hebrew would disagrees with you?

Sincerely,
zoink

gluadys · May 19, 2004

zoink said:
So no one who knows anything about Hebrew would disagrees with you?

Sincerely,
zoink

Sure they would--if their prior commitment to literalism requires them to shut their eyes to the evidence.

Lots of people disagree with the conclusions of academicians engaged in the analysis of biblical texts, but I haven't seen them come up with alternatives that explain the facts of the text as well.

Most literalist analyses seem to be "just so" stories invented on the spot with no backing from the text itself. Personally, I prefer the realism of the standard academic analysis.

gluadys · May 20, 2004

genez said:
There is one glaring difference in the Hebrew words found in Genesis 1, and 2.

The word "bara" only appears as being performed in Genesis 1. "Bara" is a Hebrew word that amongst religious Jews is only spoken in reference to God. For only God can create "out from nothing." The theological term often times referred to is "ex- nihilo"...

God rested (or ceased) from "bara" when he finished creating all that was needed for the future of this creation. In Genesis 2 the Lord no longer creates anything out from nothing (bara). He only takes what had been provided in Genesis 1, and now molds and forms it (yatsar) and even builds (banah) up what was removed from Adam's side. No more creating anything out from nothing. God rested from any more "bara."

You are right about the use of the word "bara". It does not appear in chapter 2:4b ff at all. In chapter 1 it is used only at the beginning and in relation to the creation of humans. (Not of animals IIRC).

God rested from any more creating "out from nothing." But, he continued in his plan for creation by forming and molding (yatsar) out from the elements of the earth the bodies of the animals and Adam. No conflict in the sequence, as long as we understand Genesis 2 was to be the second phase of the creation. It was not a second account.

You are right. It was not a second account. It was a first account, written at least a century before chapter 1. Therefore it was never intended to describe a "second phase" of creation. It was intended simply to describe creation.

Genesis 1:1-2:4a is the second account. Consider it a prequel written to provide a backstory for the following account.

GenemZ · May 20, 2004

gluadys said:
You are right about the use of the word "bara". It does not appear in chapter 2:4b ff at all. In chapter 1 it is used only at the beginning and in relation to the creation of humans. (Not of animals IIRC).

Apparently, you did not check this out before you wrote. Not so... Animals were also "bara." It was also used in relation to the Heavens and Earth.

You are right. It was not a second account. It was a first account, written at least a century before chapter 1. Therefore it was never intended to describe a "second phase" of creation. It was intended simply to describe creation.

You are getting to be annoying. You blatanly ignore every detail I gave you because it appears you can not admit you have been a sucker for such a silly theory that someone deviced as a "fine sounding argument."

Genesis 1:1-2:4a is the second account. Consider it a prequel written to provide a backstory for the following account.

I have no idea what mental hoops someone had to jump through to conclude that, but I am not surprised. I have seen enough illogical attempts to rectify a desired goal to know there are no limits to how far one will go. After all, when dealing with supernatural faith, many assume it is by nature something to be illogical that is to be accepted by what they call faith. This sort of thing is what causes unbelievers to be justified in thinking Christians are only seeking a crutch for not being able to handle reality. But, it is not the case. Faith when properly understood, is both logical, and makes sense. Logos has it root in the word for logic. Apparently, you appear to be pushing the envelope with your claim. It is nonsense. You mean God created the Heavens and Earth in the second account? What difference should what you say make anyway? The sequences are not the same either way you look at it.

Now, go back please, and, this time really read what I wrote. Read the definitions until you understand what I was saying. If you can, it may help in opening up your eyes to see that Genesis 1, and 2, are perfect just as they are. No need for mental gymnastics. No need for panic solutions.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

GenemZ · May 20, 2004

gluadys said:
LOL, what you call "my opinion" was developed from the evidence of the bible itself. It is not "my opinion" or even an opinion at all. It is a fact. These facts were ascertained by study of the texts in the original Hebrew, using the most ancient manuscripts available.

A brief summary for a layperson is available in "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard E. Friedman. The bibliography provides a list of primary research.

This is funny. Did you know, this book got a great review from the secular U.S. News and World Report? Real spiritual insight they have!... And, I don't think Zondervan was the publisher on this one.

I think you need a second opinion for sure... Try this link.

Who wrote, "Who wrote the Bible?"

Its simply an old argument with a new skirt on...

Grace and truth, GeneZ

Karl - Liberal Backslider · May 20, 2004

genez said:
Apparently, you did not check this out before you wrote. Not so... Animals were also "bara." It was also used in relation to the Heavens and Earth.

You are getting to be annoying. You blatanly ignore every detail I gave you because it appears you can not admit you have been a sucker for such a silly theory that someone deviced as a "fine sounding argument."

You misunderstand the situation. Actually, you are getting annoyed because the nasty nasty evolutionist won't turn round and so "Oh gosh you're right how could I have been so stupid thank you for educating me". Happens all the time.

Faith when properly understood, is both logical, and makes sense. Logos has it root in the word for logic.

Bit of a stretch really. Logos is a word that can mean 'word' or 'discourse', or by extension, reason. Arguments about the roots of words can be very misleading. It's a bit like arguing that the end of a film is actually a ladder because that's what Climax means in Greek.

The sequences are not the same either way you look at it.

Put this next to:

If you can, it may help in opening up your eyes to see that Genesis 1, and 2, are perfect just as they are. No need for mental gymnastics. No need for panic solutions.

Correct. Two perfect accounts that are contradictory if read as literal accounts, but not if read as being figurative. Problem indeed solved. The mental gymnastics only comes in if one is forced by a prior commitment to harmony to attempt to factually harmonise the accounts.

Dust and Ashes · May 20, 2004

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Correct. Two perfect accounts that are contradictory if read as literal accounts, but not if read as being figurative. Problem indeed solved. The mental gymnastics only comes in if one is forced by a prior commitment to harmony to attempt to factually harmonise the accounts.

I thought genez's original post was saying that Gen. 2 was a continuation of Gen. 1 because the term "out of nothing" was used in Gen. 1 but not in Gen. 2. Basically that God created everything "out of nothing" in Gen. 1, then took what He had created and made everything out of the raw materials. Or did I misunderstand the post?

Karl - Liberal Backslider · May 20, 2004

That was the gist. To my mind, this is a perfect example of mental gymnastics.

GenemZ · May 20, 2004

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Correct. Two perfect accounts that are contradictory if read as literal accounts, but not if read as being figurative. Problem indeed solved. The mental gymnastics only comes in if one is forced by a prior commitment to harmony to attempt to factually harmonise the accounts.

Really? I said that? They are only appearing to be contradictory when read in English, not the Hebrew. I just explained that. And, its not to be taken as figurative. Ironically, its the literal Hebrew that solves the problem.

Mark 4:24-25 niv

"Consider carefully what you hear," he continued. "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you--and even more. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him."

So far, nobody here, hears. They all patronize and add their own desired flavor to what I have been saying. And in doing so, try to appear like they are in agreemnent. This our spiritual life, folks. Its not, a political one. Hello? This is what we will appear before the Lord for! He will not be evaluating us on how well we manipulated the debate to gain the upper hand. He wants to see truth. Truth that will make one free from evil thinking. There are real answers out there to be found. If there is a God, there are! We are not required to make stuff up so we can appear to have an answer. Nor, are we required to accept answers that satisfy those secularists attacking God's Word. He wants our faith to be based upon what is genuine. Not, on how clever we were in creating an illusion of knowing something better than the next person.

Debates may in fact bring truth to the surface. Yet, those who wrongly debate, do so in order to suppress truth. Humilty requires deference to the truth when it is brought out. It requires taking up our cross and eating crow if need be. That is, if one truly wishes to follow after Christ. Now if one is seeking their own glory in the name of Christ... to glory before Christ for who they are...please ignore what I just said.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

lucaspa · May 20, 2004

Freedom777 said:
Genesis chapter 1 is an overview of the six days of creation and chapter 2 gives more detailed information about the events surrounding day 6 (the Garden of Eden, the first man, and his activities).

A severe problem is that birds are created on Day 5 in Genesis 1 but after Adam in Genesis 2. That makes birds, by this theory, created on Day 6!

Genesis 2:4-5

The first verses that appear to cause difficulty are four and five.

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,

Did you see the bolded part? The transliterated Hebrew word is "beyom". The prefix "be" is added to "yom" and denotes a period of 24 hours or less. It is used in Genesis 2:2 to fix the 7th day to 24 hours. So, having just told us that it took 4 days to make the earth and heavens in Genesis 1, Genesis 2:4b says that those events happened in a single day! Contradiction.

Henry Morris states that the phrase before it grew indicates a mature creation, or creation of apparent age. The plants did not grow from seeds but were created full grown (The Defenders Bible, 1995, p. 9).

In which case we have the fallacies of Oomphalos. That "creation of apparent age" means God is a deceiver! Thanks, Morris, for nothing!

Comparison of Scriptures and the order of events

Beginning in Genesis 2:7 we read a more detailed description of day 6 and the things that took place in the Garden of Eden.

Below is a comparison of the verses in Genesis chapter 2 that appear to be in a different order from Genesis chapter 1.

Only beast of the field and birds are brought before Adam. God does not bring the sea creatures or small animals (things that creepeth), or insects to Adam.

Yes. Another contradiction. Genesis 2 doesn't have the creation of these.

Genesis 2:19 (birds and animals)

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 could appear that birds and animals (beast of the field) were created after Adam (man) when Genesis chapter 1 states that birds were created on day 5 (Genesis 1:20) and land animals on day 6 before Adam (Genesis 1:24-25). This could mean that God created more creatures after Adam. It would not be all the animals, just selected kinds.

Doesn't matter. You still have birds on day 5 in Genesis 1 and after humans on day 6 in Genesis 2.

Also the word used for beast in verse 19 is chay (pronounced khah-ee), which means wild beast or non-domesticated or unclean animals. This is in contrast to the other word commonly used for beast behemah (pronounced be-hay-maw), which means domesticated animals such as cattle. In addition, the word cattle can have two meanings; one is behemah or beast (meaning domesticated animals) and the other is miqneh meaning livestock (as in cow). So in verse 19 God only appears to be forming the wild beast (chay) not the domesticated beast (behemah or cattle). But Adam gave names to the cattle as well as the beast. In Genesis 2:20 we read:

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.

Where did the cattle come from if they were not already created prior to Adam? There is no mention of God creating cattle (domesticated animals).

What is the word used in Genesis 1? You skipped over that, didn't you? Now, looking at Strong's Lexicon, we find that "chay" is used in Genesis 1:20, 1L21, 1:24, 1:25, 1:28, 1:30, 2:19, and 2:20. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/freqdisp.cgi?book=ge&number=02416&count=57&version=kjv

So, in Hebrew we have the same word used for creating animals before man in Genesis 1 and after Adam in Genesis 2! The argument above collapses.

The verb formed can mean had formed (see Genesis 2:8). This would indicate that God had already formed these creatures as stated in Genesis chapter 1 and was just bringing them to Adam to name.

In that case the text would have said it was bringing the animals to Adam. This is twisting the text out of the "plain meaning" demanded by literalists.

You also haven't resolved that humans -- male and female (men and women in Hebrew) were created together in Genesis 1 but sequentially in Genesis 2.

So there are contradictions you haven't even addressed yet, besided failing to get rid of the contradictions you did address.

lucaspa · May 20, 2004

genez said:
Really? I said that? They are only appearing to be contradictory when read in English, not the Hebrew. I just explained that. And, its not to be taken as figurative. Ironically, its the literal Hebrew that solves the problem.

The literal Hebrew makes it worse, because now we have to deal with a sudden shift in the name of God.

He will not be evaluating us on how well we manipulated the debate to gain the upper hand. He wants to see truth. Truth that will make one free from evil thinking.

Right. Which is why we don't close our eyes to evidence that contradicts a literal reading of Genesis, such as God's Creation.

Nor, are we required to accept answers that satisfy those secularists attacking God's Word.

What exactly do you mean by "God's Word"?

Debates may in fact bring truth to the surface.

Debate is a terrible way to reach truth, which is why I don't do that. This is a discussion, and the textual evidence is clear that we have two separate creation stories in Genesis 1-3. All the handwaving in the world won't get around that. So, instead of trying to make them one because you want creationism to be true, the next step is to see what those stories are trying to tell the people of the time. What theological message was intended in them? In focussing so hard on trying to make the stories fit and be literal history, you are ignoring the most important aspect of the Bible: it is a theological text, not a science or historical one. Whatever history is there is only there to illustrate or demonstrate the theological message.

GenemZ · May 20, 2004

lucaspa said:
The literal Hebrew makes it worse, because now we have to deal with a sudden shift in the name of God.

Why do you have a problem of that? God, (Elohim) refers to the Trinity. Lord, refers to the Son, or an individual of the Trinity doing something.

Some people who lack proper understanding, assume that everyone else is as dumb as they are, and present an argument that they know they themselves have no capacity to refute. Such is the way of this theory.

In the Bible you are going to see the name of God interchanged quite often. Not simply in Genesis 1, and 2. That is sheer nonsense, and only can work with those walking in ignorance.

The Trinity is conferring with each other in Genesis 1. "Let us make man in our image," etc. In Genesis 2, it is the Son doing the work. No big deal, unless its when some pseudo intellectuals try and disprove the Bible.

1 Corinthians 3

Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."

Note: Amplified translation...

19 For the wisdom of this world is ridiculous with God.
For it is written {Job 5:13},
"He (God) takes the wise in their own craftiness".

This means that God uses their devices against them.

20And again {Psalm 94:11},
"The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise,
that they are vain or empty (futile or void of content)".

God allows those who think they are wise (by human standards) to devise an attack. And then turns their very devise against them to expose them. These so called pseudo intellectuals who devised this concept of using different names of God have not shown how smart they are. They only reveal how stupid they are when it comes to understanding the Word of God. They may trap the carnal believer who walks outside of the Holy Spirit's leading. But, this argument will not stand the scrutiny of those who are spiritual. In essence, these so called "wise" ones, are what Jesus called, "the blind leading the blind."

God's name is used in many ways throughout the entire Bible, not just in Genesis 1 and 2! Its a stupid argument. But, its maybe impressive to those who are naive spiritually, lacking in knowledge of the Word.

Dead beat? Or, Debate? Sometimes I can not tell the difference between the two. The plurality of God (Elohim) is expressed throughout many parts of the Scriptures, not just in Genesis 1! It is a stupid argument. Those who wallow in it, waste precious time.

Grace and truth... GeneZ

gluadys · May 20, 2004

genez said:
Apparently, you did not check this out before you wrote. Not so... Animals were also "bara." It was also used in relation to the Heavens and Earth.

Some animals anyway. Of the 8 times 'bara' is used in Gen. 1 all but one refer either to the heavens and earth or to humans. The exception is Gen 1:21 "And God created (bara) great whales, etc.

Interestingly, 'bara' is not used in1:25.

You are getting to be annoying. You blatanly ignore every detail I gave you because it appears you can not admit you have been a sucker for such a silly theory that someone deviced as a "fine sounding argument."

I am not ignoring your arguments. I am pointing out that they are moot if the chronology of writing I have pointed to is correct. If the first creation story to be written is the one that appears in chapter 2 any argument which suggests this writer knew the account in Genesis 1 and was refining/expanding/clarifying/focusing, etc. falls as error. The earlier writer does not expand on the thought of a document which does not yet exist.

I have no idea what mental hoops someone had to jump through to conclude that, but I am not surprised.

Some of the arguments can be pretty arcane, but there is plenty of literature in the field for you to explore if you wish.

But one of the basics is familiar to me in principle. Languages change over time. Some change more than others, but all change. They change their vocabulary, their pronunciation, their typical phraseology, their style of writing, etc.

The study of these changes is included in the study of linguistics.

I have a bit of familiarity with linguistics as it applies to English and French. I know that if I have in front of me three or four unmarked, undated passages in either language, taken from texts composed at least a century apart, I can probably arrange them in the correct chronological order and maybe even place them in their correct century simply by the way the author uses the language. If I were to see them in their original script (instead of typed) that identification would be even easier because of the way writing styles changed.

The historical linguistics of Hebrew is one of the means used to date Old Testament texts. And there is nothing illogical in it at all.

What difference should what you say make anyway? The sequences are not the same either way you look at it.

Right, the sequences are not the same either way you look at it. But your whole argument is premised on the idea that the second account is not a separate account but a continuation of the first. That cannot be if the chapter 2 account was written centuries before the chapter 1 account. If that is the case, we have to see the chapter 2 account as existing independently for quite some time before chapter 1 was written. And we have to presume that the writer of chapter 1 was familiar with the story in chapter 2, so that any alterations in the order were a deliberate deviation from the order in chapter 2.

No need for mental gymnastics. No need for panic solutions.

Indeed not. That is one reason I like Friedman's thesis (which is by no means original with him either). It eliminates the complex mental gymnastics of trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

Alleged Contradiction between the order of events in Genesis

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Legend

Active Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

:-)

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency