Genesis Chapters 1-14 Theological Foundations

[ivebeenshown]

Not if you alter the accounts to force them to agree, no. Ignore a word here, add another there, and they'll line up perfectly, no doubt. That's not honest exegesis, though.

I neither ignored nor added words. There is no "then" or "after" in the list of 'ands' in Genesis 2. I don't see the need to add "Now the LORD God had formed every beast..."

That would be adding words. I'm saying the King James Version does a great job of translating (almost entirely) word-for-word and the meaning stays -- like my 'Polly the bird' story, you really can't disprove it since there is no 'then' or 'after' in the second account.

 

[gluadys]

This is indeed very interesting (about Sam and Chron) and something I will look into.

The other objection I would have is the JEPW or whatever it is, where supposedly Genesis has multiple authors and chapter 1 and 2 were written by different people. How do we know that it wasn't just the Holy Spirit writing in a different perspective or personality for each chapter?

It's JEPD (for Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly & Deuteronomist) "Yahwist" gets a J instead of a Y because the theory originated with German scholars and in German the J sounds like an English Y.

By this theory, the first creation account is a P document and the second a J document.


We know it wasn't just a different perspective or personality for three reasons.
1. There are also significant differences in language, some of them tied to chronological changes in the Hebrew language as a whole. Time-wise the writing of the second account pre-dates the writing of the first account.
2. The difference of perspective is not minor but pervades the whole of the J & P writings. i.e. it is a difference that affects not just these two chapters but continues on through Exodus and Numbers as well. (No J writings in Leviticus, no J or P writings in Deuteronomy). This suggests a completely different life-situation. It would be like saying one person could have the overall perspective of both a cotton-farmer in Georgia and an Inuit trapper in Alaska.
3. Most theories of inspiration affirm that the Holy Spirit did not overwhelm the personality of the human writer but allowed the personality of the writer to shape the writing. So a difference in personality indicates a difference in person.

A good overall view of JEPD is Richard Elliot Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible" (somewhat misnamed because he really deals only with the Torah). He has also published an English translation of the Torah "with sources revealed" which distinguishes the J, E, P, and D documents by colour and font as well as the additions from the Redactor who created the final product.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Of course the reason why many Christians today aren't Young Earth Creationists has nothing to do with compromising "with the world", but rather because a non-literal reading of Genesis 1 has been a rather standard reading since antiquity. You can go back to Augustine or Origen to see that.

Augustine specifically warns against having a reading of Scripture that, when shown to clearly contradict obvious facts about the world, ultimately makes not only the Christian look ignorant, but the Biblical writers themselves.

No, I don't read Genesis 1 as pre-historic sacred mythology and theology because "that's what the world thinks", it's because A) as a Christian I'm not forbidden from using plain reason and critical thinking and B) many of the great Fathers and Doctors of our faith were saying much of the same centuries before Darwin was a glimmer in human history.

I'm not agreeing "with the world", I'm siding with Augustine and Aquinas and many of the great theologians who came before me.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Assyrian]

The Torah doesn't really seem to use metaphors.

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." (did Jesus literally step on this snake's head when he redeemed us?)
Gen 49:27 Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbvu3lsJ6Ck&feature=fvw
Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. (The bible says the Israelites walked out of Egypt, not that they were carried by giant birds)
Exodus 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. (The Israelites all lived in a single house?)
Deut 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
Deut 32:10 "He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.
11 Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that flutters over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pinions,
12 the LORD alone guided him, no foreign god was with him.
13 He made him ride on the high places of the land, and he ate the produce of the field, and he suckled him with honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock.
14 Curds from the herd, and milk from the flock, with fat of lambs, rams of Bashan and goats, with the very finest of the wheat-- and you drank foaming wine made from the blood of the grape.
15 "But Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked; you grew fat, stout, and sleek; then he forsook God who made him and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation.
16 They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger.
17 They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded.
18 You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth. Of course while I highlight particular metaphors here, the whole passage of Israel as God's son Jeshurun is an extended metaphor.

 

[shernren]

With shernren, he was assuming that I was using the 'and consecutive' to order Genesis 1 when that is not the case. Genesis 1 is ordered by "first day" "second day" "third day" and so on. I am not relying on any sort of 'consecutive and' scheme because just saying 'and this, and that, and this' does not always imply a chronological order unless you use "then's" and "after's".

Thanks for your belated response. But hey, if you get to declare the waw consecutive non-consecutive, what's there to stop me from declaring the numbered days non-consecutive? After all, we make non-consecutive numbered lists all the time. Even the Bible does it:

And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. (1Cor 12:28, ESV)
​

But the apostles spoke in tongues (on the day of Pentecost) before they prophesied and taught and worked miracles (in the church that was founded on the day of Pentecost), to say nothing of the fact that prophets and miracles and healing were found in the Old Testament while apostolic authority only arose in the New. So this list of "first", "second", and "third" is non-chronological.

Indeed, how do you know that the order of Genesis 1 is chronological and that of Genesis 2 is not - is it not equally valid to assume the reverse? In fact, I would say it is more valid to assume the reverse. For the waw consecutive is used frequently and thoroughly throughout the Old Testament to refer to a consecutive historical narrative, while numbered days appear only in Genesis 1. Isn't it safer to make an exception of the more isolated, esoteric chronological system than of the one which is used in practically every other narrative passage?

You may be interested in the hermeneutical approach of John C. Collins. He argues, like you, that the waw consecutive in Genesis 2 is thematic rather than chronological; but he also argues along the same hermeneutical lines that the six days of Genesis 1 are "analogical" rather than chronological, and that the Earth must have existed for much longer than six days prior to the creation of man for Genesis 2:5 to make sense.

And regarding the OP, may I point out that mark kennedy himself does not actually interpret the six days of creation literally:

It doesn't say that the sun and moon were created later, the perspective is always from the earth. The light is introduced on the first day, there can be no 'day' while the earth is shrouded in darkness.

and has (only a few days ago!) said that the age of the earth was a side issue:

I've felt for some time that the age of the universe and the earth were beside the point. My thing has long been human evolution and the assumed lineage from apes seems like such a stretch that it's hard to take it seriously anymore. The time factor isn't really even that big of an issue since God could have created the heavens and the earth and then created life on this planet after a massive overhaul of the environment which is what I honestly think Genesis is describing.

I mean, so what if the earth is millions or billions of years old, life isn't.

It's a bit rich for someone who is functionally a gapper or an old-earth creationist to be lecturing TEs on interpreting the Bible literally. And it's a bit hypocritical for the guy who couldn't answer an open theist (ClearSky) in his own camp to suddenly paint himself as the defender of all doctrine that is true and right. Meanwhile, I'm having a civil and enjoyable discussion with no less than a geocentrist on the meaning of the days of Genesis 1, which gives the lie to the OP's claim that creationists should feel unwelcome in OT.

If mark feels unwelcome, I suggest he reflect on his unwavering hostility towards people who often bend over backwards to try to communicate with him ... or at least try to figure out why a transcription error isn't a mutation.

 

[janwoG]

Since the sun has been ´created during the fourth day of creation, who could affirm God's day duration is a solar day? Since God lives in eternal present, one God`s day can last very long. Every believer of God should accept that creation came out of intelligent design. Now if one thinks that the creation have been during 6 solar days, let him be happy. However, it could be that it may be a stumbling block to take it seriously by the majority of people, believing the universe is from 10 to 15 billion years old.
janwoG's basic education has been train as amolecular biologist, therefore I consider the molecular evolution as the most likely. In other words, if one believes that God is an artist who has made the man with his hands and humid earth, let him be happy. Personally, I believe that He is the Great Statistician who has selected rare events to create life which is a temporary decrease of entropy, until death.
Let me tell me my personal story:
In 1968-1969, I was a post-graduate student in an institute of molecular biology. My spiritual state was the one agnostic, considering the existence of God unlikely. At that time, I read a book “chance and necessity written by an atheist, Jacques Monod, a patriarch of molecular biology. This book was reviled by many Christian philosophers, what amused me at that time. Just to explain the main features of this book. In thermodynamics, it is said that the universe tends irreversibly to more entropy, in picturesque words to more disorder or chaos. J. Monod explained that life goes in the opposite direction, to less entropy or more order, by the auto selection of rare events, which in turn there is a positive feedback of life, selecting more effectively the rare improbable events. This ended up to man with his conscience of self during a long evolution, a man increasing his mastering of life against the odds of chance, especially bad luck. Of course, at death, the general law of increasing entropy takes again its job.
For me, that life is , at least a momentarily, a diminution of entropy, was so amazing in its signification, that I pondered it. What happens at entropy O? Is there nothingness or a reality beyond space and time? It was the starting point for me to study the bible. Then, I got the intuition that beyond the microcosm, there is the Reality called Alpha and beyond the macrocosm, there is a Reality, called Omega. Out of this. I became a believer in God.
When I read genesis, I meditate on the parabole of creation and I see that in lieu to create all the creation during the first of hour of the first day, God introduces the parameter time and did it in six "days"; time is all about evolution.
What will be seen by humans what will be between alpha and omega, will change according to future scientifically derived concepts. The important thing is to recognise God in creation, and this depends on faith. Therefore, I consider the fight between creationists and evolutionists as futile. The important thing to day is to get prepared for Christianity to overcome the increasingly predominating one world religion under the form of global paganism in worshiping self.

I pray the Only One God by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to grant us strength and wisdom to overcome the challenges to come.

 

[Assyrian]

Thanks for your belated response. But hey, if you get to declare the waw consecutive non-consecutive, what's there to stop me from declaring the numbered days non-consecutive? After all, we make non-consecutive numbered lists all the time. Even the Bible does it:

And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. (1Cor 12:28, ESV)
​

But the apostles spoke in tongues (on the day of Pentecost) before they prophesied and taught and worked miracles (in the church that was founded on the day of Pentecost), to say nothing of the fact that prophets and miracles and healing were found in the Old Testament while apostolic authority only arose in the New. So this list of "first", "second", and "third" is non-chronological.

Ezek 10:14 And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was a human face, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.

 

[sfs]

Genesis

Antediluvian Period:

1) Historic 6 Days of Creation (Romans 1:18-22; Heb. 11:3) The profound theological principles inextricably linked to the sin of Adam and the judgment of the Flood makes historicity of Genesis essential to Christian theism. If arguments to the contrary exist then I have yet to see them except in the most superficial of rationalizations. Dismissing them as figurative does a grave injustice to the authority of Scripture and the Christian scholarship surrounding them for almost 2,000 years before the advent of Darwinism.
​

So that what we say may be understood quite concretely, let us now bring the argument to bear upon actual passages in Scripture. To what person of intelligence, I ask, will the account seem logically consistent that says there was a "first day" and a "second" and "third", in which also "evening" and "morning" are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven? And who will be found simple enough to believe that like some farmer "God planted trees in the garden of Eden, in the east?" and that He planted "the tree of life" in it, that is a visible tree that could be touched, so that someone could eat of this tree with corporeal teeth and gain life, and, futher, could eat of another tree and receive knowledge "of good and evil"? Moreover, we find that God is said to stroll in the garden in the afternoon and Adam to hide under a tree. Surely, I think no one doubts that these statements are made by Scripture in the form of a type by which they point toward certain mysteries. . .

But there is no need for us to enlarge the discussion too much beyond what we have in hand, since it is quite easy for everyone who wishes to collect from the holy Scriptures things that are written as though they were really done, but cannot be believed to have happened appropriately and reasonably according to the narrative meaning.

I don't think Origen was responding to Darwinism.

 

[crawfish]

Mark, you have a huge victim complex. There would be a lot fewer TE's on here as well if we were as thin-skinned as the creationists. "Not welcome" seems to mean "I'm telling you the truth and you're trying to debate me".

Personally, I think it's just an excuse you make to justify not reading our posts.

 

[Papias]

I'vebeenshown, to give an example for gluadys' post, remember that Bible scholars know this text well, have studied it and the culture of the times involved for years, and know the original hebrew(s).

So to them, it feels like when you read a book that has sections like this:

Ful ofte a day he swelte and seyde `Allas,'
For seen his lady shal he nevere mo;
And shortly to concluden al his wo,

So muche sorwe hadde nevere creature,
That is, or shal whil that the world may dure.

His slep, his mete, his drynke is hym biraft,

That lene he wex and drye as is a shaft.
Hise eyen holwe and grisly to biholde,
His hewe falow and pale as asshen colde;



Interspersed with paragraphs that read like this:

Groovy Darlene,I’m at the pad now,but gotta split the scene,go scarf some grub,then head back to the pad and crash;you dig?

It would be obvious to you that one is from english hundreds of years old, while the other is from the 1960s, right? That's how obvious it is to Bible scholars. Then, when you separate those out, they are different in other ways, as gluadys listed. It's not even disputed anymore in Biblical scholar circles, though now they look at even more complicated breakdowns.

Papias​

 

[ivebeenshown]

Groovy Darlene,I’m at the pad now,but gotta split the scene,go scarf some grub,then head back to the pad and crash;you dig?

Papias​

LOL! That was a good one. Also, good post on the metaphors in the Torah. What I meant was, I don't think I've seen a whole chapter that was just a big metaphor in Genesis, like some of Psalms or Proverbs or revelation can seem to be.

Thanks for your belated response. But hey, if you get to declare the waw consecutive non-consecutive, what's there to stop me from declaring the numbered days non-consecutive? After all, we make non-consecutive numbered lists all the time. Even the Bible does it:

And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. (1Cor 12:28, ESV)
​

But the apostles spoke in tongues (on the day of Pentecost) before they prophesied and taught and worked miracles (in the church that was founded on the day of Pentecost), to say nothing of the fact that prophets and miracles and healing were found in the Old Testament while apostolic authority only arose in the New. So this list of "first", "second", and "third" is non-chronological.

Indeed, how do you know that the order of Genesis 1 is chronological and that of Genesis 2 is not - is it not equally valid to assume the reverse?

Unfortunately, 1 Corinthians 12:28 is not dealing with a chronological series of defined time periods which contain events. It is counting off various types of church figures. If there is an example of 'first, second, third' in the bible (let alone any truthful source) describing periods of time I would be baffled but I would also reconsider my position. Almost had me!

In Genesis 2, the repeated use of 'and' does not strictly imply 'and then'. This is true even in our own language.

I am more than happy to adopt a new outlook but I am dependent on scriptures to define all the small details (the big detail came to me without scripture! )

 

[Assyrian]

In Genesis 2, the repeated use of 'and' does not strictly imply 'and then'. This is true even in our own language.

I am more than happy to adopt a new outlook but I am dependent on scriptures to define all the small details (the big detail came to me without scripture! )

'And' may not imply 'then in English but it does in Hebrew where the 'and' comes from a waw consecutive construction as it does in Genesis 2. Glad you are keeping an open mind here

 

[shernren]

Unfortunately, 1 Corinthians 12:28 is not dealing with a chronological series of defined time periods which contain events. It is counting off various types of church figures. If there is an example of 'first, second, third' in the bible (let alone any truthful source) describing periods of time I would be baffled but I would also reconsider my position. Almost had me!

1. I had a house.
2. I bought a bird named Polly.
3. I bought a birdcage for Polly
4. Then I put her in the cage, then I bought some food for Polly; then I put the food in the cage. Then Polly was given dominion over the food and the cage.

"First, second, third" are just the numberings above, but in verbal form.

In Genesis 2, the repeated use of 'and' does not strictly imply 'and then'. This is true even in our own language.

But does your experience of English prove that the same is true in Hebrew? After all, different languages are different. In Chinese, say, the word "and" is quite specific; a sentence might begin with the equivalents of "therefore" or "moreover", but not "and". Since no coherent Chinese passage would have sentences strung together with "Ands", therefore I should conclude that Genesis 1 and 2 are not coherent at all, let alone forming any sort of narrative!

You would (quite rightly) point out that Genesis 1 and 2 were not written in Chinese! But if my Chinese example is not valid proof of my Chinese interpretation (that Genesis 1 and 2 are incoherent), why should your English example be valid proof of your English interpretation (that Genesis 2 is not necessarily chronological)?

As it is, I'm not very sure how much the dys-chronology of Genesis 2 is worth. The passages can be reconciled in the way that you describe - but that is only on the assumption that Genesis 1-2 is a unified narrative. Someone who assumes that it isn't, will obviously have a priori reason to disagree with you - just as your reason for disagreeing with them is (you should admit) quite a priori. To me the more suggestive question to ask of the text is this: just when does the seventh day finish?

 

[Papias]

LOL! That was a good one.

Thanks! However, I didn't mean that there are metaphors in there. I was supporting gluadys' point that the different stories are clearly different authors writing at different times, and so trying to pretend they agree with each other not only makes no sense, but weakens your ability to study the Bible.

It is amazing the sheer volume of study that has gone into scholarly Bible study over the past several hundred years and more. If you love someone, you want to learn as much as you can about them, and that goes for scripture too. Just with the new testament, check out just this bare summary of some of the work. You also find similar textual evidence being discussed for many of the books as were with Genesis (see titus, etc.)
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

What I meant was, I don't think I've seen a whole chapter that was just a big metaphor in Genesis, like some of Psalms or Proverbs or revelation can seem to be.

But chapters that are mixed metaphor and literal are all through those books too. In most metaphors are plenty of words that are used literally.

Papias

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

 

[ivebeenshown]

1. I had a house.
2. I bought a bird named Polly.
3. I bought a birdcage for Polly
4. Then I put her in the cage, then I bought some food for Polly; then I put the food in the cage. Then Polly was given dominion over the food and the cage.

"First, second, third" are just the numberings above, but in verbal form.

But does your experience of English prove that the same is true in Hebrew?

To me the more suggestive question to ask of the text is this: just when does the seventh day finish?

One: That's not how my story of Polly was written, though. I didn't put 'then' or 'after' in my second account of the story of Polly: just the repeated use of 'and'. My first account implied a very specific chronological order and the second account just used 'and' to throw a bunch of details together, malleable enough to not conflict with the first account. You could number the sentences in the order the sentences appear but since I did not use any 'then' or 'after' or 'next' or 'first, second' in the second account, the numbering of the verses/sentences cannot be viewed as part of the text itself, but as a reference point. In fact that is all the verse and chapter numbers provide -- reference points.

Two: Not in itself, but I believe that the other instances of such a use of 'ands' in Hebrew proves that it is not strictly chronological and that Genesis 1 and 2 do not automatically conflict as a result.

Three: That is a very good question! The LORD ordained a sabbath day because it was a day in which he rested from work. We can see that very soon, Adam and Eve disobey God, and then God has to punish them, and do more work -- creating clothes for the man and woman, banishing them, cursing the serpent, and creating cherubim with flaming swords. This would have been done after the seventh day was past, in my understanding.

Genesis 2
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

In the seventh day God had rested, indicating an event which is past, which is written even prior to Christ and the rest we receive in Him.

 

[Siyha]

What makes you think that the verse sequence equivalents to the time sequence? This is so in Gen 1. But it does not have to be so in Gen 2. It is the structure of the writing and has nothing to do with literalism.

All verbs at the beginning of chapter 2 are prefixed in the original Hebrew with the Waw Conversive.

It is important to understand that the Waw Conversive and converted verbal forms are used primarily in narrative sequences to denote consecutive actions, that is, actions occurring in sequence. For example, "I sat down, and then I opened my book, and then I studied Hebrew" describeds a sequence of consecutive actions occuring in the past. page 192-193

God made man THEN he planted the garden THEN he made the beasts of the earth. There is everything in this text to think these events are happening in the order they appear.

*edit: as for the original poll of the thread, I think they are welcome here, but not respected. It is very much a TE atmosphere.

 

[Siyha]

They don't. 'Waw-consecutive' is just a fancy term for "a narrative going and this... and that... and this..."

I have already demonstrated how this 'consecutive and' writing does not strictly imply a chronological order for every event.

Yes it does... 99.9% of the time.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Yes it does... 99.9% of the time.

What composes this likely on-the-spot number of 00.1%?

Would you argue that it is better to assume that the cardinal number ordering of the periods of time in Genesis 1 is easier to bend than to assume the form of the verbs in Genesis 2:18,19 could in fact be pluperfect, as found in Numbers 1:48 and in the NIV translation of Genesis 2, given the fact that Hebrew does not have a particular way of expressing the pluperfect (though they do occur) and such interpretation is reliant on certain assumptions about the timing of specific events?

In Numbers 1:47, Moses does not number the Levites.
In Numbers 1:48, we are told why: because God had said not to. It is the same verb form found in Genesis 2:8,19.

Did Moses choose to not number the Levites on a whim, and then receive the command or had God given the command earlier?

Groovy Darlene,I’m at the pad now,but gotta split the scene,go scarf some grub,then head back to the pad and crash;you dig?

Genesis 1 and 2 both use ELOHIM as the name for God. I just checked it to confirm. Is there something else I am missing?

 

[Siyha]

What composes this likely on-the-spot number of 00.1%?

Would you argue that it is better to assume that the cardinal number ordering of the periods of time in Genesis 1 is easier to bend than to assume the form of the verbs in Genesis 2:18,19 could in fact be pluperfect, as found in Numbers 1:48 and in the NIV translation of Genesis 2, given the fact that Hebrew does not have a particular way of expressing the pluperfect (though they do occur) and such interpretation is reliant on certain assumptions about the timing of specific events?

In Numbers 1:47, Moses does not number the Levites.
In Numbers 1:48, we are told why: because God had said not to. It is the same verb form found in Genesis 2:8,19.

Did Moses choose to not number the Levites on a whim, and then receive the command or had God given the command earlier?

No. But you can tell easily from the context that the verb is being attached to the previous clause to explain it - thus the translation into pluperfect.

But there is nothing in the context of Genesis 2 to indicate this type of connection between the clauses. They are sequential.

Especially when you have the author declare that there were no plants yet because:
1) No water
2) No man to cultivate

So water comes
Then man comes
Then plants come

Then you have "It is not good for man to be alone" so God THEN makes the animals, of which there is no suitable helper to be found, so THEN adam falls alseep and God makes Eve from his rib.

To pluperfect either of those would not make any sense, nor fit the context and flow of the narrative.

*edited to fix quote box

 

[ivebeenshown]

Especially when you have the author declare that there were no plants yet because:
1) No water
2) No man to cultivate

So water comes
Then man comes
Then plants come

Correction: 5And 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 author does not declare that there were no plants yet, just that there were no plants of the field. He could have wrote 'plants on the earth' or 'plants of the earth' but instead used 'of the field', leaving open the possibility for a garden.

Now, is God going to create Adam, the first man, and make him wait years for the trees in the garden to grow?

As an aside, is the geographic description of the rivers, including Euphrates, running off from the garden just there to elaborate upon a myth or parable, or are the descriptions of the riverheads there for the understanding of the garden of Eden as a literal place?

Then you have "It is not good for man to be alone" so God THEN makes the animals, of which there is no suitable helper to be found, so THEN adam falls alseep and God makes Eve from his rib.

To pluperfect either of those would not make any sense, nor fit the context and flow of the narrative.

*edited to fix quote box

Correction: God formed the animals. He made the woman.

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19And 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. 20And 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. 21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

God didn't say he would 'form' an help meet for Adam. Likewise, God 'made' and did not 'form' the woman. Why is this? God formed every living creature and Adam from the dust of the earth, but Eve was made from Adam's rib, not the dust.

3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

But I guess I really just want to stray from the "Do Genesis 1 and 2 align chronologically" debate and get into "Is Genesis 2 a true historic account as evidenced by verse 4?"