Creationists, what's up with two creation stories?

[Scotishfury09]

I urge Creationists to explain to me how they can justify two completely different accounts of creation.

First creation story - Genesis 1:1-2:4a
Second creation story - Genesis 2:4b-25


In the first creation story birds and sea creatures are made on the fifth day. Land animals are made first on the sixth day, then Human beings.
In the second creation story God forms man from the dust and decides he needs a helper so he forms all of the animals and brings them to Adam.

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
Genesis 2:18-19 (NASB)

When were animals created? Before or after humans?

 

[juvenissun]

I urge Creationists to explain to me how they can justify two completely different accounts of creation.

First creation story - Genesis 1:1-2:4a
Second creation story - Genesis 2:4b-25


In the first creation story birds and sea creatures are made on the fifth day. Land animals are made first on the sixth day, then Human beings.
In the second creation story God forms man from the dust and decides he needs a helper so he forms all of the animals and brings them to Adam.

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
Genesis 2:18-19 (NASB)

When were animals created? Before or after humans?

It does not take a creationist to answer your question. A LOT answers have been provided and can be easily found on Internet.

 

[theFijian]

Yeah who needs web based discussion forums anyway!!

 

[crawfish]

This is from a link given by answersingenesis, and it does amuse me:

In fact, our Skeptic has simply done no more than show us that while complete ignorance is rather dangerous, a little knowledge is even more so. They have certainly reported the text of the grammar correctly, but the "waw consecutive" is rather a more complicated beast than this person supposes, for it does not ALWAYS indicate temporal sequence, as indeed the grammar indicates. There are examples in the OT, NT, and in Egyptian and Assyrian literature of "dischronologized" narratives where items are arranged topically rather than chronologically, and this would justify our own use of the pluperfect for the sake of context; indeed, even commentators that prefer to keep the simple past tense suppose not that these is a contradiction, but that G2 is reporting the order out of sequence purposely in order to stress man's dominion over the created animals.

Note that, all of a sudden, it's ok that things are out of order. The order is strictly enforced in Genesis 1, but you hit Genesis 2 and you can fudge a little. Note in the article that it never explains exactly why we shouldn't take it sequentially - only that we don't have to. It's another example of them taking scripture allegorically when they have no other choice.

The funny thing is, they probably get it right. For those of us who accept that neither account is attempting to give a blow-by-blow recounting of what actually happened but to communicate a message in the best way possible, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Scotishfury09]

It does not take a creationist to answer your question. A LOT answers have been provided and can be easily found on Internet.

Juvenissun, I want your answer. Tell me why you think the Bible gives two accounts of creation.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvenissun, I want your answer. Tell me why you think the Bible gives two accounts of creation.

At this time, my answer is not better than theirs. Nothing new from me YET. (The fact is, I do not have time to study this issue now)

 

[Scotishfury09]

At this time, my answer is not better than theirs. Nothing new from me YET. (The fact is, I do not have time to study this issue now)

I can accept that you haven't studied this particular subject and may not have time at the moment. I hope you'll take the time as it seems fairly pivotal to your theology.

Any other Creationists?

 

[busterdog]

I can accept that you haven't studied this particular subject and may not have time at the moment. I hope you'll take the time as it seems fairly pivotal to your theology.

Any other Creationists?

I am with Juve. The answer is obvious. You already know it. If you have doubts, go look it up.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I am with Juve. The answer is obvious. You already know it. If you have doubts, go look it up.

Well, BD, I'm not so sure the answer is all that obvious. Crawfish already explained that a sudden change in chronology from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 is hypocritical and the only other answers I could find for my contradiction say that ch. 2 of Genesis does not specifically speak of chronology.

"The text of Genesis 2:19 merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man; it says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology."

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194

​

It's true that verse 19 does not speak of chronology, but he forgot about verse 18. Let's look at what the Scriptures say...

And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Genesis 2:18 (KJV)

Man is already in existence, he was made back in verse 7.
Now, take a look at what is translated as "will make"

'asah - (v.) - will make

It's important to notice that it says "will"--not "already have", not even "am in the process of", but "will". God will make a helper for him. THIS is in chronological order. God has made man and will make him a helper.


So, as far as I can see, unless you have another "obvious" explanation, busterdog, there's no reason for Creationists to assume the stories are not contradicting. If you have a better explanation say it and don't ask me to go do research for you, because it looks like you don't have an answer and assume someone else does. If it is that good and obvious it shouldn't take that long to post anyways.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, BD, I'm not so sure the answer is all that obvious. Crawfish already explained that a sudden change in chronology from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 is hypocritical and the only other answers I could find for my contradiction say that ch. 2 of Genesis does not specifically speak of chronology.

"The text of Genesis 2:19 merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man; it says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology."

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194

​

It's true that verse 19 does not speak of chronology, but he forgot about verse 18. Let's look at what the Scriptures say...

And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Genesis 2:18 (KJV)

Man is already in existence, he was made back in verse 7.
Now, take a look at what is translated as "will make"

'asah - (v.) - will make

It's important to notice that it says "will"--not "already have", not even "am in the process of", but "will". God will make a helper for him. THIS is in chronological order. God has made man and will make him a helper.


So, as far as I can see, unless you have another "obvious" explanation, busterdog, there's no reason for Creationists to assume the stories are not contradicting. If you have a better explanation say it and don't ask me to go do research for you, because it looks like you don't have an answer and assume someone else does. If it is that good and obvious it shouldn't take that long to post anyways.

I am not arguing for the details. But how about this:

Gen 1 is chronological, but Gen 2 is not.

If you do not agree, what is your reason? Why should God repeat the same narration twice with discrepancy? If you think this is an obvious contradiction, then no matter how would one interpret it, factually or spiritually, it will still be a contradiction. Are you suggesting God made a mistake? Or Moses made a mistake?

 

[Scotishfury09]

I am not arguing for the details. But how about this:

Gen 1 is chronological, but Gen 2 is not.

Crawfish already went over this. If you assume that Genesis 1 is chronological and Genesis 2 is not, you are putting your own translation where you see fit. There's no reason for that assumption other than the fact that it doesn't match your theology.

If you do not agree, what is your reason?

As crawfish has also already mentioned, this reasoning coincides with TE rather than Creationism. I don't disagree, you should disagree because it challenges your belief system --A system where the Bible is factually correct at all times (I remind you of the four-legged insects).

Why should God repeat the same narration twice with discrepancy?

You tell me.

If you think this is an obvious contradiction, then no matter how would one interpret it, factually or spiritually, it will still be a contradiction.

Not if you believe that the stories are two completely different stories that convey different truths.

Are you suggesting God made a mistake? Or Moses made a mistake?

I don't believe that God or Moses wrote this particular section, but that's not what's important. I don't believe whoever wrote it made a mistake because they weren't trying to be factually correct.

 

[Assyrian]

I am not arguing for the details. But how about this:

Gen 1 is chronological, but Gen 2 is not.

If you do not agree, what is your reason? Why should God repeat the same narration twice with discrepancy? If you think this is an obvious contradiction, then no matter how would one interpret it, factually or spiritually, it will still be a contradiction. Are you suggesting God made a mistake? Or Moses made a mistake?

Why not say Gen 2 is chronological and Gen 1 is not? After all it is Gen 2 that is given in the form of a narrative and Moses shows us he didn't take God's days literally in Psalm 90. If they can't both be chronological, what basis is there for saying either of them is chronological? Why can't they both be different figurative descriptions of creation?

What make you think chronological contradictions between the two account means Moses or God made a mistake? Why can't it mean the accounts were never mean as literal chronologies?

 

[juvenissun]

I don't believe that God or Moses wrote this particular section, but that's not what's important. I don't believe whoever wrote it made a mistake because they weren't trying to be factually correct.

But, according to you, the author STILL made a contraction, was he not?

 

[Scotishfury09]

But, according to you, the author STILL made a contraction, was he not?

Seriously, do you read what you write? No I do not believe he made a contradiction. I believe it was two separate writers writing at two separate times. Neither one should be taken as a scientific fact. That's the point I'm trying to make here, juvie.

 

[Assyrian]

They are only contradictory if they were meant as literal chronologies.

Did Jesus contradict himself when he said he was the bread of life, and that he was a grape vine? One says he was made of flour the other wood, did Jesus make a contradiction? No because he wasn't talking literally.

 

[juvenissun]

They are only contradictory if they were meant as literal chronologies.

Did Jesus contradict himself when he said he was the bread of life, and that he was a grape vine? One says he was made of flour the other wood, did Jesus make a contradiction? No because he wasn't talking literally.

OK, no contradiction. Then you suggest the question in the OP is misleading. Right?

 

[juvenissun]

Seriously, do you read what you write? No I do not believe he made a contradiction. I believe it was two separate writers writing at two separate times. Neither one should be taken as a scientific fact. That's the point I'm trying to make here, juvie.

OK, that is what you are trying to say. That is what you read from other people's interpretation. It is a simple one and has nothing to do with creation or not.

Two authors !? Ha.
May be three, or four. Who knows?
Just like a geology joke: whenever a problem shows on a geological map, draw a fault and the problem is taken care of.

 

[Scotishfury09]

OK, no contradiction. Then you suggest the question in the OP is misleading. Right?

Are you saying you believe the creation story is no longer capable of being factually correct and should no longer be understood to truly convey how the world came into existence? At least, that's what I assume you mean if there's no contradictions.

 

[Scotishfury09]

OK, that is what you are trying to say. That is what you read from other people's interpretation. It is a simple one and has nothing to do with creation or not.

You can be very frustrating at times. Yes, it does have to do with creation. You Creationists believe what you believe because you think that what Genesis says is exactly what happened, so YES it does have to do with creation. Why am I explaining Creationism to you? Do you even understand it?

Two authors !? Ha.
May be three, or four. Who knows?
Just like a geology joke: whenever a problem shows on a geological map, draw a fault and the problem is taken care of.

Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis

 

[juvenissun]

You can be very frustrating at times. Yes, it does have to do with creation. You Creationists believe what you believe because you think that what Genesis says is exactly what happened, so YES it does have to do with creation. Why am I explaining Creationism to you? Do you even understand it?



Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis

Your two-author hypothesis is not better than my two-purpose hypothesis. Why would your question give more problem to Creationist? It is a non-issue.