Eve was already planned before she was created from Adams rib.

[YahuahSaves]

Another thread made me think of what appears to be a contradiction in scripture. Many people seem to think God made Eve solely because Adam was "lonely". The scripture does say it. But that seems to be a gross assumption that somehow Eve was just an "afterthought" and God had no intention of creating humans with equal value. He created all the animals to be "male and female", why would he create Adam first and then Eve? My guess is if he created them at the same time, God could not guide Adam and build a relationship with him as easily if he already had a mate to depend on (perhaps).

I'm not a fan of KJV, but since it was one of the first English translations, I thought perhaps the error was in the translation, but it and my (NLT) version both say "male and female" He created them. I don't know what verse 27 is about, so someone with a KJV bible will have to verify the internet version.

Genesis 1:26-28
King James Version

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Then immediately in Genesis 2, we read:

Genesis 2:18-20

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.” 19 So the Lord God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky. He brought them to the man[a] to see what he would call them, and the man chose a name for each one. 20 He gave names to all the livestock, all the birds of the sky, and all the wild animals. But still there was no helper just right for him.

So is this apparent contradiction in the OG old Testament? I would like to know if it's a mistranslation of the original hebrew. If not, it does seem like God created Eve as an afterthought according to Genesis 2.

 

[Sabertooth]

My takeaway is that God had Adam name all of the [land-based] animals,* first, so Adam would realize how they all fell short as mates. God already knew that, and was prepared to give him a mate that did fit the bill.

*FYI, that makes animal taxonomy the "world's oldest profession...!"
Also, Adam named all of the land animals in less than a day because Eve was created on Day 6 just like he was.

 

[YahuahSaves]

My takeaway is that God had Adam name all of the [land-based] animals,* first, so Adam would realize how they all fell short as mates. God already knew that, and was prepared to give him a mate that did fit the bill.

*FYI, that makes animal taxonomy the "world's oldest profession...!"
Also, Adam named all of the land animals in less than a day because Eve was created on Day 6 just like he was.

Genesis is to be read chronologically, so between genesis 1 & 2, God had created male and female to be fruitful and multiply, just like he did the animals. But then it goes on to say Adam was created first, and Eve was made as a companion because Adam didn't have his "kind" among the animals. Between the 5th and 6th day, God created all the animals and then he created man.

Genesis 1:20-24

20 Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply. Let the fish fill the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.”

23 And evening passed and morning came, marking the fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened.

He then created male and female and told them also to be "fruitful and multiply" but they were given the task in verse 28 to "Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.”

Between genesis 1 & 2 there's another contradiction:

Genesis 1:29-30

29 Then God said, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. 30 And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground—everything that has life.” And that is what happened.

It's almost like the account of creation is elaborated upon in genesis 2, and is actually part of the 6 day creation narrative, but why is it separated? Different writers?

Genesis 2

2 So the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them was completed. 2 On the seventh day God had finished his work of creation, so he rested[a] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because it was the day when he rested from all his work of creation.

4 This is the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth.

The Man and Woman in Eden

When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the Lord God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil. 6 Instead, springs came up from the ground and watered all the land. 7 Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person.

 

[Sabertooth]

Genesis 2:4-7 details the creation of Man, making it Day 6. It is told following the details of Day 7 [Genesis 2:1-3] meaning that the remainder of Genesis 2 was a retelling of Day 6 from Man's point-of-view.

Are There Two Conflicting ''Creation Stories'' in Genesis...?

Some people contend that the Day 6 Creation accounts are contradictory making them unreliable, but I would propose that they CAN be made ...

transcendiary.blogspot.com

 

[YahuahSaves]

Genesis 2:4-7 details the creation of Man, making it Day 6. It is told following the details of Day 7 [Genesis 2:1-3] meaning that the remainder of Genesis 2 was a retelling of Day 6 from Man's point-of-view.

Are There Two Conflicting ''Creation Stories'' in Genesis...?

Some people contend that the Day 6 Creation accounts are contradictory making them unreliable, but I would propose that they CAN be made ...

transcendiary.blogspot.com

Yes, I thought it possible Genesis 2 was another narrative of day 6, although it is said we read scripture chronologically starting with genesis 1-11, and then moving on to Job 1-42.

 

[PloverWing]

It's almost like the account of creation is elaborated upon in genesis 2, and is actually part of the 6 day creation narrative, but why is it separated? Different writers?

Yes, different writers. The creation story is being told in two different ways, by two different writers.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Another thread made me think of what appears to be a contradiction in scripture. Many people seem to think God made Eve solely because Adam was "lonely". The scripture does say it. But that seems to be a gross assumption that somehow Eve was just an "afterthought" and God had no intention of creating humans with equal value. He created all the animals to be "male and female", why would he create Adam first and then Eve? My guess is if he created them at the same time, God could not guide Adam and build a relationship with him as easily if he already had a mate to depend on (perhaps).

I'm not a fan of KJV, but since it was one of the first English translations, I thought perhaps the error was in the translation, but it and my (NLT) version both say "male and female" He created them. I don't know what verse 27 is about, so someone with a KJV bible will have to verify the internet version.

Genesis 1:26-28
King James Version

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Then immediately in Genesis 2, we read:

Genesis 2:18-20

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.” 19 So the Lord God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky. He brought them to the man[a] to see what he would call them, and the man chose a name for each one. 20 He gave names to all the livestock, all the birds of the sky, and all the wild animals. But still there was no helper just right for him.

So is this apparent contradiction in the OG old Testament? I would like to know if it's a mistranslation of the original hebrew. If not, it does seem like God created Eve as an afterthought according to Genesis 2.

I reconcile Genesis 2 by seeing it as the symbolism of marriage, "one flesh" represented by Adam's rib.

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

 

[YahuahSaves]

I reconcile Genesis 2 by seeing it as the symbolism of marriage, "one flesh" represented by Adam's rib.

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Yeah...it does seem like 2 separate narratives of day 6 of creation though. Perhaps why it appears like a contradiction. I still believe God planned to make Man and Woman, just like he planned Jesus would be the lamb slain before the creation of the world. I don't know why Adam's "lonely" narrative entered into scripture at all.

 

[Samson2021]

We understand the things of the spiritual by the things of the natural.
Meaning that since there was no help meet for Adam in all creation God had to remove a part of Adam to make the mate.
This analogy though true was also the predicament of the Father in that there was nothing that had been created that would suffice for the beginning material from which He would produce His sons, thus the Father used something from within Himself to begin that process.
We were with God from the beginning of God for we were a part of God that He removed from within Himself in order to create those sons.

Some might wonder how is that possible. Does anything exist outside of God? NO. So when we are told that we were predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Son, we garner the necessary info to know that we were before the creation as well. Example Titus 1:2
"In hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised BEFORE the world/time began." Unto whom did He make that promise? US.

The human race are the group of spirits from within God that are referred to as the ELOHIM, "substance of diety"and plural. Think of the Elohim
as eggs of a woman that must receive seed from her husband in order to produce a child, a new independent living being distinct from its
original parents but containing all the characteristics of the parents. "I have espoused you to one Husband"
In our case the original eggs(our spirits) in these earthen vessels, which came out from God, need the masculine seed which is only available through the perfected overcomer Jesus Christ. Once received, these are then empowered to become the sons of God for they have been born of the Spirit and possess all the spiritual genetics necessary to mature into what their genetics require. A son of the living God for both halves of their genetics are from the same God. Are we not called the Bride of Christ? Kind from kind.
"What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit."

I would suspect this is alien information to most and unacceptable for the doctrines of man will deny that God is doing this, as their doctrines
are weak and insufficient to encompass an all loving God that began a process to create dispensers of His love (agape), but would rather you
to believe that it's all up to your choices. God help us all if that were true, we'd never get there.

"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness" then the rest will be added unto you. Romans 3 and 5:18 will help.

 

[eleos1954]

Another thread made me think of what appears to be a contradiction in scripture. Many people seem to think God made Eve solely because Adam was "lonely". The scripture does say it. But that seems to be a gross assumption that somehow Eve was just an "afterthought" and God had no intention of creating humans with equal value. He created all the animals to be "male and female", why would he create Adam first and then Eve? My guess is if he created them at the same time, God could not guide Adam and build a relationship with him as easily if he already had a mate to depend on (perhaps).

I'm not a fan of KJV, but since it was one of the first English translations, I thought perhaps the error was in the translation, but it and my (NLT) version both say "male and female" He created them. I don't know what verse 27 is about, so someone with a KJV bible will have to verify the internet version.

Genesis 1:26-28
King James Version

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Then immediately in Genesis 2, we read:

Genesis 2:18-20

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.” 19 So the Lord God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky. He brought them to the man[a] to see what he would call them, and the man chose a name for each one. 20 He gave names to all the livestock, all the birds of the sky, and all the wild animals. But still there was no helper just right for him.

So is this apparent contradiction in the OG old Testament? I would like to know if it's a mistranslation of the original hebrew. If not, it does seem like God created Eve as an afterthought according to Genesis 2.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

"man" is referring to mankind .... them .... mankind .... the human race.

 

[Jonaitis]

Yes, different writers. The creation story is being told in two different ways, by two different writers.

Yahwists and Elohists?

 

[PloverWing]

Yahwists and Elohists?

I believe the current guess is Priests for Genesis 1 and Yahwists for Genesis 2-3, but, yes, that's the kind of thing I have in mind.

 

[Jonaitis]

I believe the current guess is Priests for Genesis 1 and Yahwists for Genesis 2-3, but, yes, that's the kind of thing I have in mind.

I have heard many practitioners of Judaism refer to the priestly influence as opposed to the sectarian influence on various parts of the biblical text.

 

[YahuahSaves]

We understand the things of the spiritual by the things of the natural.
Meaning that since there was no help meet for Adam in all creation God had to remove a part of Adam to make the mate.
This analogy though true was also the predicament of the Father in that there was nothing that had been created that would suffice for the beginning material from which He would produce His sons, thus the Father used something from within Himself to begin that process.
We were with God from the beginning of God for we were a part of God that He removed from within Himself in order to create those sons.

Some might wonder how is that possible. Does anything exist outside of God? NO. So when we are told that we were predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Son, we garner the necessary info to know that we were before the creation as well. Example Titus 1:2
"In hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised BEFORE the world/time began." Unto whom did He make that promise? US.

The human race are the group of spirits from within God that are referred to as the ELOHIM, "substance of diety"and plural. Think of the Elohim
as eggs of a woman that must receive seed from her husband in order to produce a child, a new independent living being distinct from its
original parents but containing all the characteristics of the parents. "I have espoused you to one Husband"
In our case the original eggs(our spirits) in these earthen vessels, which came out from God, need the masculine seed which is only available through the perfected overcomer Jesus Christ. Once received, these are then empowered to become the sons of God for they have been born of the Spirit and possess all the spiritual genetics necessary to mature into what their genetics require. A son of the living God for both halves of their genetics are from the same God. Are we not called the Bride of Christ? Kind from kind.
"What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit."

I would suspect this is alien information to most and unacceptable for the doctrines of man will deny that God is doing this, as their doctrines
are weak and insufficient to encompass an all loving God that began a process to create dispensers of His love (agape), but would rather you
to believe that it's all up to your choices. God help us all if that were true, we'd never get there.

"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness" then the rest will be added unto you. Romans 3 and 5:18 will help.

I don’t have a clue how your response is any way related to my post, but perhaps your views would be better shared in these 2 threads:

Sheol: is it a place or a state of being?

As a Christian: do you believe we exist beyond the death of our physical body?

 

[YahuahSaves]

@eleos1954 what's your point of quoting my posts with no response?

 

[YahuahSaves]

I believe the current guess is Priests for Genesis 1 and Yahwists for Genesis 2-3, but, yes, that's the kind of thing I have in mind.

Explain what you mean please?

 

[PloverWing]

Explain what you mean please?

Genesis covers a very long span of time. There are multiple generations from Abraham to Joseph, and many multiple generations before that when you look at the Creation, Noah, and Babel stories. No one person was an eyewitness to all of that. So one hypothesis is that Genesis is the writings of multiple people, written down at different times and eventually collected into a single book. With the two creation stories, we have two different styles of storytelling, and we see two different names used for God ("God" in chapter 1, "LORD God" in chapters 2-3). This suggests that two different people may have each written down their accounts of creation, and that the person or people who compiled the book of Genesis thought both stories were valuable and ought to be included.

This idea is called the Documentary Hypothesis. The names that @Jonaitis and I were using (Yahwist, Elohist, Priest) are some of the labels that scholars have used for some of the conjectured writers of the source material. Figuring out exactly when the various parts were written down and compiled is difficult -- partly because Genesis is so very old -- and scholarship is ongoing.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Genesis covers a very long span of time. There are multiple generations from Abraham to Joseph, and many multiple generations before that when you look at the Creation, Noah, and Babel stories. No one person was an eyewitness to all of that. So one hypothesis is that Genesis is the writings of multiple people, written down at different times and eventually collected into a single book. With the two creation stories, we have two different styles of storytelling, and we see two different names used for God ("God" in chapter 1, "LORD God" in chapters 2-3). This suggests that two different people may have each written down their accounts of creation, and that the person or people who compiled the book of Genesis thought both stories were valuable and ought to be included.

This idea is called the Documentary Hypothesis. The names that @Jonaitis and I were using (Yahwist, Elohist, Priest) are some of the labels that scholars have used for some of the conjectured writers of the source material. Figuring out exactly when the various parts were written down and compiled is difficult -- partly because Genesis is so very old -- and scholarship is ongoing.

So what's the difference between the writers?

Priests for Genesis 1 and Yahwists for Genesis 2-3,

 

[PloverWing]

So what's the difference between the writers?

What I see in Genesis 1 is a grand poem in seven stanzas. Each of the first six stanzas of the poem begins with God saying "Let...", followed by some creative command: "Let there be light", "Let the water teem with living creatures", etc. In stanzas 1-3, God creates light, sky and sea, and dry land. In stanzas 4-6, God refines and expands on what was done in 1-3: the light is formed into celestial bodies, the sky and sea are filled with life, and the dry land is filled with life. God pronounces each of these developments as good, and each stanza ends with "evening" and "morning", the Nth day. Stanza 7 is the completion, a Sabbath.

Genesis 2 is more a story (not a poem) about some specific individuals who lived in a garden. There's a man and a woman, a talking snake, a forbidden tree, and God -- almost human-like? -- walks in the garden in the cool of the evening and has a conversation with the man and woman.

If I imagine a community interacting with these two stories, I see Genesis 1 as something a choir might sing, if it was set to music, an anthem in 7 verses. Genesis 2 is more like a story you'd tell around a fire to an audience who wants to know what's going to happen next. Is Adam going to find a good companion? Is Eve going to be tricked by the snake? What are they going to say to God when God comes walking through the garden tonight?

 

[YahuahSaves]

What I see in Genesis 1 is a grand poem in seven stanzas.

Genesis 2 is more a story (not a poem)

I would have to disagree and say the layout and wording of Genesis 1 is more "logical" and describes the species ability to reproduce. Just talking about DNA on another thread the other day and it was said it wasn't possible for Adam and Eve to have DNA but that's illogical because if they didn't have the foundation of DNA they wouldn't be able to reproduce more of their "kind" and neither would the animals. The upside to Genesis 2 is it goes into detail on how Adam was made "from the dust" (although it was more likely clay) we just have to look at what makes up DNA and the scriptures make sense.