Christ and Genesis 1-2 "contraditions"

[ChetSinger]

I've heard repeatedly from skeptics that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory. I don't think so, and I have my reasons. But I've just learned of an additional reason: Jesus himself apparently held no such beliefs because he blessed both accounts, and in the same sentence, no less.

This has been staring me in the face and I didn't realize it until I read this article: Genesis contradictions?.

He did it here, in Matthew 19:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Here Jesus is conflating two verses from Genesis, one from chapter 1 (...from the beginning made them male and female...) and another from chapter 2 (...a man shall leave his father and his mother...), into a single teaching.

So if these two creation accounts didn't represent any problem for Christ, that's a good reason they shouldn't represent any problem for me, either. Nor, I think for any believer.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I've heard repeatedly from skeptics that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory.

How so?

 

[ChetSinger]

How so?

I don't want to make the effort typing their arguments, but if you go to infidels.org or atheism.about.com you can read all about it. And if you debate atheists in non-Christian forums, you'll eventually be presented with them.

 

[granpa]

there have been lots and lots of creations.

 

[SkyWriting]

I've heard repeatedly from skeptics that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory. I don't think so, and I have my reasons. But I've just learned of an additional reason: Jesus himself apparently held no such beliefs because he blessed both accounts, and in the same sentence, no less. This has been staring me in the face and I didn't realize it until I read this article:Genesis contradictions?

He did it here, in Matthew 19:

Here Jesus is conflating two verses from Genesis, one from chapter 1 (...from the beginning made them male and female...) and another from chapter 2 (...a man shall leave his father and his mother...), into a single teaching.

So if these two creation accounts didn't represent any problem for Christ, that's a good reason they shouldn't represent any problem for me, either. Nor, I think for any believer.

Very good reasoning.
Gen 2 expands on the events of day 6.
There was never any conflict.

 

[Assyrian]

How so?

Because the two chapters describe the creation in two completely different orders.

The order of creation in Genesis 1 is: plants, fish and birds, animals, man and woman.
The order of creation in Genesis 2 is: man, plants, animals and birds, woman.

Of course these two sequences of events are only contradictory if you assume the creation accounts are written as literal history.

 

[Assyrian]

I've heard repeatedly from skeptics that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory. I don't think so, and I have my reasons. But I've just learned of an additional reason: Jesus himself apparently held no such beliefs because he blessed both accounts, and in the same sentence, no less.

This has been staring me in the face and I didn't realize it until I read this article: Genesis contradictions?.

He did it here, in Matthew 19:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
​

Here Jesus is conflating two verses from Genesis, one from chapter 1 (...from the beginning made them male and female...) and another from chapter 2 (...a man shall leave his father and his mother...), into a single teaching.

So if these two creation accounts didn't represent any problem for Christ, that's a good reason they shouldn't represent any problem for me, either. Nor, I think for any believer.

I think what you can tell from Jesus quoting these two chapters is that (1) he considered both passages authoritative and inspired, and that (2) they both described the same thing. This certainly contradicted on Jewish interpretation from that time that the two chapters described the creation of two different Adams, chapter 1 was the original heavenly Adam (Adam Kadmon, popular with kabalists and gnostics today) and a second earthly Adam made of dust in chapter 2. Paul seems to have drawn on this Jewish idea of two Adams, but turned it on its head, the first Adam was the Adam of Genesis, the second Adam is the heavenly Adam, Christ.

Now you can say from Jesus quoting these two passages that he didn't think there was a contradiction, but that doesn't quite solve the problem. It only means there isn't a contradiction if you interpret Genesis the way Jesus did. But the fact is, the plain reading of these two chapter do contradict each other if we take them literally. Jesus treating the two chapters as authoritative and inspired tells us there is a way to read the chapters that isn't contradictory. But it isn't the literal interpretation.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

So if these two creation accounts didn't represent any problem for Christ, that's a good reason they shouldn't represent any problem for me, either. Nor, I think for any believer.

i think that if jesus had been born now, in the west, instead of roman judea, he would have studied at college, and would not have been a bible believer or fundy. i think that jesus was a product of his time and culture.
that dosn't mean that he wasnt inspired with what he taught, or that he wasnt the son of god, but that you need to see jesus in context.

 

[ChetSinger]

i think that if jesus had been born now, in the west, instead of roman judea, he would have studied at college, and would not have been a bible believer or fundy. i think that jesus was a product of his time and culture.
that dosn't mean that he wasnt inspired with what he taught, or that he wasnt the son of god, but that you need to see jesus in context.

Huh? If the incarnation had waited until now, Jesus would have come down from heaven from the Father and not believed the scriptures? Whoa, that's a real zinger. Don't forget his preexistence, and that "all things were created through him".

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Huh? If the incarnation had waited until now, Jesus would have come down from heaven from the Father and not believed the scriptures? Whoa, that's a real zinger. Don't forget his preexistence, and that "all things were created through him".

no, jesus would have been incarnate of the virgin, whoever, same as the last time. but he'd be a sceptic, due to his education. and he wouldn't be crusified obviously, so he'd have a long life, and would be a philiosopher, as judaism is old hat, and no one believes in it any more.
islam might have been created, but it would have been based on judaism, instead of christianity and judaism.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Because the two chapters describe the creation in two completely different orders.

The order of creation in Genesis 1 is: plants, fish and birds, animals, man and woman.
The order of creation in Genesis 2 is: man, plants, animals and birds, woman.

Of course these two sequences of events are only contradictory if you assume the creation accounts are written as literal history.

I briefly re-read Genesis 2 and even if it is interpreted literally there doesn't appear to be any contradiction at all:

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. 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.

Genesis 2:5-8 (NIV)​

(My emphasis added) Judging by the tenses used plants were created before man, which matches with what Genesis 1 says.

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. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

Genesis 2:19-20 (NIV)​

(My emphasis added) Again, judging by the tenses used, animals were created before Man, which is also what Genesis 1 says. This passage comes after one about plants, suggesting that plants were created before animals, which again is also what Genesis 1 says.

Genesis 2 isn't describing the chronological order in which everything was created - Genesis 1 did that. It's describing God introducing Man [Adam] to all the things He has already created. Looking at the passages it's pretty clear than Adam and Eve were created last.​

 

[pshun2404]

I've heard repeatedly from skeptics that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory. I don't think so, and I have my reasons. But I've just learned of an additional reason: Jesus himself apparently held no such beliefs because he blessed both accounts, and in the same sentence, no less.

This has been staring me in the face and I didn't realize it until I read this article: Genesis contradictions?.

He did it here, in Matthew 19:


Here Jesus is conflating two verses from Genesis, one from chapter 1 (...from the beginning made them male and female...) and another from chapter 2 (...a man shall leave his father and his mother...), into a single teaching.

So if these two creation accounts didn't represent any problem for Christ, that's a good reason they shouldn't represent any problem for me, either. Nor, I think for any believer.

The subject of Genesis 1 is creation (bara) and the subject of Genesis 2 is formation (yatzar or giving form to) so I agree...no conflict whatsoever...

In Genesis 1 God creates mankind male and female...created He them...but when He gives them form the male is first and then the female...two parts of the one process...

Genesis 2 says, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made (yatzar) 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. The Lord created before they came into material existence in the temporal reality...

Creation precedes formation...formation being the created manifest...

And also I think the animals created and then made after Adam were those intended to be company for mankind (animals that could be domesticated) and that these were not the already extant beasts of the field, and crawling and flying things or the sea creatures...but that part is purely my opinion...

Paul

 

[grasping the after wind]

no, jesus would have been incarnate of the virgin, whoever, same as the last time. but he'd be a sceptic, due to his education. and he wouldn't be crusified obviously, so he'd have a long life, and would be a philiosopher, as judaism is old hat, and no one believes in it any more.
islam might have been created, but it would have been based on judaism, instead of christianity and judaism.

Since originally Jesus was born into a fundamentalist Jewish family of the Essene sect . I would be more inclined to believe that if He were not born until today to be born into similar circumstances He would be born into a family of fundamentalist Jews. The world would , due to the lack of any Christian influence over the past 2000 years, be nothing like the way it is today so I very much doubt that we can make any valid assumptions.

 

[Aman777]

Paul:>>The subject of Genesis 1 is creation (bara) and the subject of Genesis 2 is formation (yatzar or giving form to) so I agree...no conflict whatsoever...

Dear Paul, Genesis Chapter One is the entire History of the creation of the 3rd Heaven, from beginning (Genesis 1:1) until the entire "host" of heaven is in heaven. Genesis 2:1

Paul:>>In Genesis 1 God creates mankind male and female...created He them...but when He gives them form the male is first and then the female...two parts of the one process...

Doesn't agree with Genesis 2:4-7 which tells us tht man was "formed" or squeezed into shape by the Hands of Jesus, on the 3rd Day.

Genesis 2 says, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made (yatzar) 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.

The above verse is telling us that Lord God (YHWH/Jesus) "formed" man of the dust of the ground on the SAME Day the first Earth was made. The first Earth was made the 3rd Day. Notice that this was BEFORE the plants, herbs, and rain. The plants grew on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:12

Paul:>>The Lord created before they came into material existence in the temporal reality...

Creation precedes formation...formation being the created manifest...

Not according to the New Testament which tells us of Adam:

1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Adam, like ALL men, was first made physically and after that was made Spiritually, by God (Elohim-The Trinity). Adam was made the 3rd Day, the SAME Day the Earth was made and Eve was made the 6th Day after the beasts of the field and fowl were made from the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:22

BOTH Adam and Eve were "created in God's Image" or born Spiritually on the 6th Day. Genesis 1:27 AND Genesis 5:1-2 This agrees with 1 Corinthians 15:45 and shows that Adam did NOT evolve from ANY other living creature as Theistic Evolutionists falsely believe.

I realize that this does NOT agree with the traditional religious story, BUT it does agree with God's Holy Word.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Calminian]

The subject of Genesis 1 is creation (bara) and the subject of Genesis 2 is formation (yatzar or giving form to) so I agree...no conflict whatsoever...

In Genesis 1 God creates mankind male and female...created He them...but when He gives them form the male is first and then the female...two parts of the one process...

Genesis 2 says, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,

Even more accurately, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created."

This is actually a subscript applying to the text that preceded it. There is only one creation account in Genesis and it spans from Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a, ending with this subscript, "this is the account of the heavens and the earth......."

2:4b starts the next account which covers the creation of the Garden of Eden, the Banishment and early history up to Seth's birth. That is followed by the subscript, "This is the written account of Adam’s line" —Gen. 5:1a

The first major creationist to take up this issue was Henry Morris in his commentary the Genesis Record. You can read excerpts from his book here.

Answers in Genesis has a good article on it here.

in the day that the Lord God made (yatzar) 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. The Lord created before they came into material existence in the temporal reality...

Creation precedes formation...formation being the created manifest...

I would agree.

And also I think the animals created and then made after Adam were those intended to be company for mankind (animals that could be domesticated) and that these were not the already extant beasts of the field, and crawling and flying things or the sea creatures...but that part is purely my opinion...

Paul

I would agree that the animals mentioned in Adam's account (assuming the toledoths are colophons), where specific animals that were indigenous to the Garden, and made to specifically live in it. I would disagree though, they were made after Adam. While it's possible, it's not necessary by the text. There's nothing in the text itself designating the time of the creation of the animals Adam mentioned. But since this text originally stood alone, it was important to make mention of their origin.

The same with the plants. Clearly this is speaking of a different kind of plant in Adam's account, one that needs to be cultivated by humans. The text explicitly says that these plants of the field need a human tiller and need to be watered. It couldn't have been speaking of wild plants.

With Adam as the author of the second account, it makes sense he was describe the formation of cultivated plants as he was the first cultivator. But his account is limited to plants and animals and events that went on in the Garden.

Bottom line, the creation account and Adam's account don't contradict each other in any way, and very nicely complement each other.

And I hate to be so dogmatic about the tablet theory, but it truly does resolve all the apparent textual issues that have puzzled genesis commentators for years, and it avoids all the strange speculations of the post above mine in where they try to move Adam's creation to day 3 for the sake of some texts in Gen. 2 (though I appreciate the effort). Once you understand the basics of ancient writing structures, it really is an incredibly fluid and easy to understand account. Thank God for men like Henry Morris and Dr. Mortenson and Bodie Hodge, etc. who have brought this to light (and thanks most of all to PJ Wiseman, of course).

 

[ChetSinger]

And I hate to be so dogmatic about the tablet theory, but it truly does resolve all the apparent textual issues that have puzzled genesis commentators for years, and it avoids all the strange speculations of the post above mine in where they try to move Adam's creation to day 3 for the sake of some texts in Gen. 2 (though I appreciate the effort). Once you understand the basics of ancient writing structures, it really is an incredibly fluid and easy to understand account. Thank God for men like Henry Morris and Dr. Mortenson and Bodie Hodge, etc. who have brought this to light.

I think the tablet theory has something good going for it.

And there may even be internal evidence for it, too. At the start of the Song of Moses in Deut 32, Moses speaks of how the nations were divided up by God. That division was the first major event after the Flood, yet Moses says (sings?) to the Israelites "ask your father, and he will show you, your elders, and they will tell you.".

That says to me that the elders of Israel had records going back to the post-Babel period, and that Moses considered those records reliable.

 

[Calminian]

I think the tablet theory has something good going for it.

And there may even be internal evidence for it, too. At the start of the Song of Moses in Deut 32, Moses speaks of how the nations were divided up by God. That division was the first major event after the Flood, yet Moses says (sings?) to the Israelites "ask your father, and he will show you, your elders, and they will tell you.".

That says to me that the elders of Israel had records going back to the post-Babel period, and that Moses considered those records reliable.

I've never noticed that before. Thank you.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Since originally Jesus was born into a fundamentalist Jewish family of the Essene sect . I would be more inclined to believe that if He were not born until today to be born into similar circumstances He would be born into a family of fundamentalist Jews. The world would , due to the lack of any Christian influence over the past 2000 years, be nothing like the way it is today so I very much doubt that we can make any valid assumptions.

there would be no christianity, obviously, but the greeks might have developed gnostic beliefs, which might have replaced the pantheism, perhaps, or maybe a bit.
islam could have been created by mohammed, and that would be based on judaism. islam if it existed would have had no opposition in europe.
it depends where jesus was born, today. if it was in israel, bethlehem or nazareth, then jesus would probably be a palestinian arab, and either a panthiest, gnostic or muslim or atheist.
muslims are not known in this day to be great thinkers, so if jesus was born a muslim, he would have been a victim of that culture, and would not be known to anyone, no matter what he did.

 

[pshun2404]

Paul:>>The subject of Genesis 1 is creation (bara) and the subject of Genesis 2 is formation (yatzar or giving form to) so I agree...no conflict whatsoever...

Dear Paul, Genesis Chapter One is the entire History of the creation of the 3rd Heaven, from beginning (Genesis 1:1) until the entire "host" of heaven is in heaven. Genesis 2:1

Paul:>>In Genesis 1 God creates mankind male and female...created He them...but when He gives them form the male is first and then the female...two parts of the one process...

Doesn't agree with Genesis 2:4-7 which tells us tht man was "formed" or squeezed into shape by the Hands of Jesus, on the 3rd Day.

Genesis 2 says, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made (yatzar) 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.

The above verse is telling us that Lord God (YHWH/Jesus) "formed" man of the dust of the ground on the SAME Day the first Earth was made. The first Earth was made the 3rd Day. Notice that this was BEFORE the plants, herbs, and rain. The plants grew on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:12

Paul:>>The Lord created before they came into material existence in the temporal reality...

Creation precedes formation...formation being the created manifest...

Not according to the New Testament which tells us of Adam:

1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Adam, like ALL men, was first made physically and after that was made Spiritually, by God (Elohim-The Trinity). Adam was made the 3rd Day, the SAME Day the Earth was made and Eve was made the 6th Day after the beasts of the field and fowl were made from the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:22

BOTH Adam and Eve were "created in God's Image" or born Spiritually on the 6th Day. Genesis 1:27 AND Genesis 5:1-2 This agrees with 1 Corinthians 15:45 and shows that Adam did NOT evolve from ANY other living creature as Theistic Evolutionists falsely believe.

I realize that this does NOT agree with the traditional religious story, BUT it does agree with God's Holy Word.

In Love,
Aman

Sorry Aman, you totally missed what I was talking about. I agree Adam was "made" physically first (no scripture suggests on day three) and I never suggested that he evolved from some earlier creature...

I said Genesis 1 described creation (bara) and then Genesis 2 addresses God giving His creatures there material forms...that's all...creation and formation...whether as a process or almost simultaneously as we would perceive it is irrelevant to the OP...I have my view from the Hebrew and that would be that God created the plants and then He made them in a formative sense (which could be one momentary phenomena) my example of creating mankind male and female but giving them form as first the male then the female should have made that clear...where you got what you read into it I have no idea...but the Lord bless you...

As for Genesis 2 account of Adam and Eve, since it follows the 7th day rest of Elohim it could be the 8th day (which is a type of first day) but that is another issue again based on the language itself...

Paul

 

[Calminian]

...As for Genesis 2 account of Adam and Eve, since it follows the 7th day rest of Elohim it could be the 8th day (which is a type of first day) but that is another issue again based on the language itself...

Hi Paul. You're saying exegetically the text puts the events of chapter 2 on day 8? I'm wondering how you got that.

God created man, both male and female on day 6, and Eve was made in the Garden from Adam's rib in the chapter 2 events. Therefore, it must have been an expansion of day 6.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying.