Doesn't Genesis One Contradict Genesis Two?

[Radrook]

Doesn't Genesis One Contradict Genesis Two? Not by a long shot!

Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the universe and life on planet earth as it happened in chronological sequence. Genesis 2 is simply an expanded explanation of the events that occurred at the end of the sixth creation day - when God created human beings. Genesis one provides virtually no details about the creation of human beings (other than the idea that humans were created in the image of God). For a book that is dedicated to the relationship between humans and God, four verses seems like a rather poor explanation for the creation of God's preeminent creature. This is because Genesis one was never intended to stand apart from Genesis 2 and 3. Genesis 2 describes God's preparation of a specific location on earth (Eden) for habitation by the first human beings. Part of the confusion results from our English translations, which use the term "earth" when the Hebrew would better be translated "land."
Doesn't Genesis One Contradict Genesis Two?

 

[bling]

This is more complicated then I can address, so you need to do more research. It appears there are two separate accounts from two different perspectives. The both are right but different.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Gen. 1 talks about "bara", Gen. 2 is "asher". Both Hebrew words mean create, but refer to different parts of it. Gen. 1 is God setting things up in heaven, Gen. 2 is how they appear on the earth. It is no different from a person preparing a banquet for several people. He may start preparations with the dessert, if it is complicated, set the meat to roast midday, and put the vegetables on to cook an hour before, and make the salad last. Yet he serves them in the order salad, meat and vegetable, dessert.

 

[Hillsage]

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

As I recall, and therefore in a very thin 'nut shell'; Chapter one is God declaring/speaking those things that are not as though they are. And because He spoke it, it will be done. Chapter two is the beginning of those things spoken, coming to pass. The things in chapter one were only "good" every day until the last day, or culmination of what He's spoken, when it was declared to be "very good". We are approaching the end of the first chapter's 6th day chronologically, where a day is as a 1000 years.

My resource, for a better post, is at the office and was written by A.P. Adams.

 

[MWood]

Chapters 1&2 cannot be reconciled. They are two separate events of two separate times.

In chapter 1 God CREATED man AND woman at the same time. Just like He created the heavens and the earth, and all that there is there in, with the breath of His mouth.

In chapter two, God FORMED Adam from the dust of the ground, then He planted a garden east of Eden. Some time later He MADE Eve from the flesh of Adam.

How do you reconcile those two chapters without adding to the Word of God, or ignoring what is written?

 

[Hillsage]

Chapters 1&2 cannot be reconciled. They are two separate events of two separate times.

"Two separate events/times", and I believe I did reconcile them.

In chapter 1 God CREATED man AND woman at the same time. Just like He created the heavens and the earth, and all that there is there in, with the breath of His mouth.

IMO, in chapter one he created an 'individual' which contained the whole 'species' or 'mankind'; per Strong's definition;

SRN 120 'adam: ruddy,i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.).

And this 'individual' created as 'mankind' was androgenous. Which means containing both male/female capability, just like the plural GODS/Elohim who spoke 'mankind' into creation, to begin with, in Genesis 1. A problem here is man already did "add to the Word of God" as you warned, and that's why we so easily stumble in search for the truth. The italicized words below are not in the Hebrew.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man/120 'adam/mankind in his own image, in the image of GodS/elohim created he him; male and female created he them.

And the GodS who created this 'mankind' individual, was Elohim/GODS plural which is androgenous.

In chapter two, God FORMED Adam from the dust of the ground, then He planted a garden east of Eden. Some time later He MADE Eve from the flesh of Adam.

No, it wasn't "GOD FORMED" it was LORD/Jehovah GODS/Elohim in chapter 2. It was JEHOVAH ELOHIM who took the female part of androgenous 'adam/mankind out of 'Adam (the individual) and formed Eve.

120 adam is not 'Adam 121 the name of 'a man' until Chapter 2:21.

GEN 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon 'Adam/121, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

121 'Adam: Adam, the name of the first man, also of a place in Pal.

How do you reconcile those two chapters without adding to the Word of God, or ignoring what is written?

I know this is admittedly complex. And this explanation does need to be studied more in depth, but hopefully this has offered some food for thought.

 

[JackRT]

They are two accounts written about several centuries apart. Genesis 2 is earlier and reflects a society in transition between nomadic herdsmen and settled farmers. Genesis 1 is a far more sophisticated and intellectual account. They certainly do represent two quite different points of view.

 

[Ken Behrens]

SRN 120 'adam: ruddy,i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.)..

Just wanted to add, "adam" is a plural noun. Check the Hebrew at the end of the book of Jonah. The population of Nineveh is given, and "persons" is "adam", not "adamim".

 

[MWood]

"Two separate events/times", and I believe I did reconcile them.


IMO, in chapter one he created an 'individual' which contained the whole 'species' or 'mankind'; per Strong's definition;

SRN 120 'adam: ruddy,i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.).

And this 'individual' created as 'mankind' was androgenous. Which means containing both male/female capability, just like the plural GODS/Elohim who spoke 'mankind' into creation, to begin with, in Genesis 1. A problem here is man already did "add to the Word of God" as you warned, and that's why we so easily stumble in search for the truth. The italicized words below are not in the Hebrew.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man/120 'adam/mankind in his own image, in the image of GodS/elohim created he him; male and female created he them.

And the GodS who created this 'mankind' individual, was Elohim/GODS plural which is androgenous.


No, it wasn't "GOD FORMED" it was LORD/Jehovah GODS/Elohim in chapter 2. It was JEHOVAH ELOHIM who took the female part of androgenous 'adam/mankind out of 'Adam (the individual) and formed Eve.

120 adam is not 'Adam 121 the name of 'a man' until Chapter 2:21.

GEN 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon 'Adam/121, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

121 'Adam: Adam, the name of the first man, also of a place in Pal.

I know this is admittedly complex. And this explanation does need to be studied more in depth, but hopefully this has offered some food for thought.

After you having said all of that, it just goes to show that there are some who will go to great lengths to add to the Word of God. The Word of God was not written to be so complex that only the well educated can know the truth of it. And then only after many hours of study. The truth of Gods word is simple enough for any one with a minimum of education to read and understand it.

 

[Radrook]

This article is very relevant to the discussion:

Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?

 

[ViaCrucis]

They contradict one another if read strictly literally.

And so it's a pretty good reason not to take them strictly literally.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

Yup. This is one of many reasons that a lot of us don't think the Bible is intended to be read like a history or science textbook.

You'll see lots of attempts to reconcile the two stories. Look at them carefully and see if you think they actually make sense. If you want it enough, you can convince yourself of anything.

But I prefer to start with what the Bible actually is, rather than forcing it into what I want it to be. What it actually is, is documents of quite a variety of literary types collected over a long period of time from people who experienced God and God's acts in history. God adoption of Israel, and his work with it, and his sending of his son to us, are the primary public ways he revealed himself to us. So the Bible is the foundation of Christianity. But it's still written by humans.

Instead of trying to force it into our conceptions of how God should have worked, it's worth starting with the Bible as it actually is, and asking why God would give fallible humans such a major role in representing him to others.

 

[Hillsage]

Just wanted to add, "adam" is a plural noun. Check the Hebrew at the end of the book of Jonah. The population of Nineveh is given, and "persons" is "adam", not "adamim".

I'm just sharing from memory, something that made sense a long time ago...even though not perfectly understood. I'm certainly not a Hebrew scholar and I'm not even sure whether, what you're sharing, agrees or disagrees with what I've shared?

 

[Hillsage]

After you having said all of that, it just goes to show that there are some who will go to great lengths to add to the Word of God. The Word of God was not written to be so complex that only the well educated can know the truth of it. And then only after many hours of study. The truth of Gods word is simple enough for any one with a minimum of education to read and understand it.

What can I say? The scriptures are as much a veil as they are a revelation...and as deep or as shallow as those who read it.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I'm just sharing from memory, something that made sense a long time ago...even though not perfectly understood. I'm certainly not a Hebrew scholar and I'm not even sure whether, what you're sharing, agrees or disagrees with what I've shared?

It agrees. I am just adding another proof of the fact that "adam" can stand for all of humanity. Since you felt your statement was complex, I thought another viewpoint might help make it clearer.

 

[Hillsage]

It agrees. I am just adding another proof of the fact that "adam" can stand for all of humanity. Since you felt your statement was complex, I thought another viewpoint might help make it clearer.

Oh...that's good then...in my opinion anyway. I just didn't know where the "adamim" word you quoted came from or how it fitted into things. I don't remember, ever seeing it, before.

There's so many views about so many things in scripture. And it's obvious that there isn't a false doctrine to be found that doesn't have a "it is written", in the bible 'as it is written' to back them all up.

Merry Christ-mass to all....as it's coming to a close.

 

[MWood]

As you read through the book of Genesis it obvious that it is written chronological. The story flows from the Creation to the death of Joseph.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Contradict. No they actually compliment each other.

Consider the difference in view point of the two stories. One is poetic, ethereal and deals with God acting on all of creation, a God view. The other is a story from mankind, earthy and focuses not on all of creation but in God's dealing with mankind.

 

[Radrook]

Contradict. No they actually compliment each other.

Consider the difference in view point of the two stories. One is poetic, ethereal and deals with God acting on all of creation, a God view. The other is a story from mankind, earthy and focuses not on all of creation but in God's dealing with mankind.

True, also, many of the things mentioned in the second account are specific to the Garden of Eden.