Genesis contradiction

[JimL]

In Genesis, Chapter 1, God creates the animals as well as plants and trees before he creates man. But, in Chapter 2, God creates man previous to his creating animals or plants. I am wondering how apologists explain this contradiction? Is one version correct and the other incorrect, or are we not to take the actual process of creation as it is explained in the Bible literally. If the latter is the case, then is there anything in the creation narrative that should be taken literally? If so, why?

[Whag]

Here's an incredibly long winded answer by an apologist who subscribes to single authorship:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...6&article=1131

[Cerebrum123]

In Genesis, Chapter 1, God creates the animals as well as plants and trees before he creates man. But, in Chapter 2, God creates man previous to his creating animals or plants. I am wondering how apologists explain this contradiction? Is one version correct and the other incorrect, or are we not to take the actual process of creation as it is explained in the Bible literally. If the latter is the case, then is there anything in the creation narrative that should be taken literally? If so, why?

There are a couple of answers that all seem to work.

1 God brings that animals that ha had formed, not formed on the spot. So it'a an issue of translation, and not a contradiction in the originals.
2 Since only birds, beasts of the field, and cattle(no fish or creeping things) are brought to Adam, they were formed on the spot simply to save time, and were not novel creations at that point.

Those are the solutions I know of, and since I think that though Moses was responsible for Genesis, I do think that it is possible that he had access to earlier accounts that had been passed down through the generations, and he compiled some of the different accounts into one book. Anyway, it's probably a much shorter answer than reading the link that Whag gave.

[rogue06]

In Genesis, Chapter 1, God creates the animals as well as plants and trees before he creates man. But, in Chapter 2, God creates man previous to his creating animals or plants. I am wondering how apologists explain this contradiction? Is one version correct and the other incorrect, or are we not to take the actual process of creation as it is explained in the Bible literally. If the latter is the case, then is there anything in the creation narrative that should be taken literally? If so, why?

I don't think Genesis is providing an exact chronological account but informing us that God created everything.

[technomage]

In Genesis, Chapter 1, God creates the animals as well as plants and trees before he creates man. But, in Chapter 2, God creates man previous to his creating animals or plants.

Genesis 1 (actually, Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a) and Genesis 2 (more specifically, Gen 2:4b through 25) have different didactic purposes. Genesis 1's purpose is to establish God as the creator of all things: Genesis 2 is to establish Man as the pinnacle of Creation, and as having dominion over the other created things.

It's been hypothesized that the Genesis 1 account may have come from the traditions of the Priestly community, and their emphasis is on the primacy of God in the universe. Genesis 2 is hypothesized as coming from southern Hebrew traditions (specifically, the kingdom of Judah)--note especially that the Genesis 2 account uses Yahweh as a personal name for God, while the Genesis 1 account uses Elohim. (It should be noted that I do not follow the JEDP hypothesis, but there is some interesting information there.)

[JimL]

Genesis 1 (actually, Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a) and Genesis 2 (more specifically, Gen 2:4b through 25) have different didactic purposes. Genesis 1's purpose is to establish God as the creator of all things: Genesis 2 is to establish Man as the pinnacle of Creation, and as having dominion over the other created things.

But why would the writer have need to contradict the creation account for the purpose of instructing. A contradiction is a contradiction and so the instruction would be wrong. In Genesis 1, God made all the animals and then made man and in Genesis 2, the creation of animals was only an afterthought because God saw that it was not good that man should be alone. It is strange in itself that God thought animals would make a suitable partner, but that is besides the point. The point is that the two accounts conflict, and there should be no need of conflict for the purpose of instruction.

It's been hypothesized that the Genesis 1 account may have come from the traditions of the Priestly community, and their emphasis is on the primacy of God in the universe. Genesis 2 is hypothesized as coming from southern Hebrew traditions (specifically, the kingdom of Judah)--note especially that the Genesis 2 account uses Yahweh as a personal name for God, while the Genesis 1 account uses Elohim. (It should be noted that I do not follow the JEDP hypothesis, but there is some interesting information there.)

I have read that Genesis 2 is probably the oldest account, so I see no reason or need for the conflict. The Genesis 1 account could have remained in the same chronological order as Genesis 2 wherein God created man before creating the animals. I see no reason to change that for purposes of instruction.

[JimL]

Genesis 1 (actually, Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a) and Genesis 2 (more specifically, Gen 2:4b through 25) have different didactic purposes. Genesis 1's purpose is to establish God as the creator of all things: Genesis 2 is to establish Man as the pinnacle of Creation, and as having dominion over the other created things.

But why would the writer have need to contradict the creation account for the purpose of instructing. A contradiction is a contradiction and so the instruction would be wrong. In Genesis 1, God made all the animals and then made man and in Genesis 2, the creation of animals was only an afterthought because God saw that it was not good that man should be alone. It is strange in itself that God thought animals would make a suitable partner, but that is besides the point. The point is that the two accounts conflict, and there should be no need of conflict for the purpose of instruction.

It's been hypothesized that the Genesis 1 account may have come from the traditions of the Priestly community, and their emphasis is on the primacy of God in the universe. Genesis 2 is hypothesized as coming from southern Hebrew traditions (specifically, the kingdom of Judah)--note especially that the Genesis 2 account uses Yahweh as a personal name for God, while the Genesis 1 account uses Elohim. (It should be noted that I do not follow the JEDP hypothesis, but there is some interesting information there.)

I have read that Genesis 2 is probably the oldest account, so I see no reason or need for the conflict. The Genesis 1 account could have remained in the same chronological order as Genesis 2 wherein God created man before creating the animals. I see no reason to change that for purposes of instruction.

[OfficialPro]

But why would the writer have need to contradict the creation account for the purpose of instructing. A contradiction is a contradiction and so the instruction would be wrong. In Genesis 1, God made all the animals and then made man and in Genesis 2, the creation of animals was only an afterthought because God saw that it was not good that man should be alone. It is strange in itself that God thought animals would make a suitable partner, but that is besides the point. The point is that the two accounts conflict, and there should be no need of conflict for the purpose of instruction.

I have read that Genesis 2 is probably the oldest account, so I see no reason or need for the conflict. The Genesis 1 account could have remained in the same chronological order as Genesis 2 wherein God created man before creating the animals. I see no reason to change that for purposes of instruction.

Genesis 2 is a condensed retelling of Genesis 1 at the very start: "Thus the Heavens and the Earth were complete in their vast array" (NIV). After that, God is going into DETAIL about how he created Man. Detail that wasn't there in Genesis 1. It is a CONTINUATION of Genesis 1. The Garden would have been created on the Third Day, and was already there. The Lord HAD planted a garden, indicating a PAST action, not a current one. Then it says "Now the Lord HAD formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field (day 6, same day) and all the birds of the air (day 5). Again, this is indicative of a PAST action that is being referenced. These animals were already alive and running around. So God had them go up to Adam.

I am so sorry you cannot read or comprehend what you are reading.

[JimL]

Genesis 2 is a condensed retelling of Genesis 1 at the very start: "Thus the Heavens and the Earth were complete in their vast array" (NIV). After that, God is going into DETAIL about how he created Man. Detail that wasn't there in Genesis 1. It is a CONTINUATION of Genesis 1. The Garden would have been created on the Third Day, and was already there. The Lord HAD planted a garden, indicating a PAST action, not a current one. Then it says "Now the Lord HAD formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field (day 6, same day) and all the birds of the air (day 5). Again, this is indicative of a PAST action that is being referenced. These animals were already alive and running around. So God had them go up to Adam.

I am so sorry you cannot read or comprehend what you are reading.

Well, most Biblical scholars disagree with you on that. Genesis 2 was written long before Genesis 1. And in Genesis 1 God merely had to speak created things into existence, in Genesis 2 he formed them out of the existing matter.

[37818]

The simple answer. ¶1. In the six day account God makes man on the sixth day. ¶2. In the garden account, what God did in the [sixth] day He made man and woman.

[Cerebrum123]

Well, most Biblical scholars disagree with you on that. Genesis 2 was written long before Genesis 1. And in Genesis 1 God merely had to speak created things into existence, in Genesis 2 he formed them out of the existing matter.

Well, on the second one you would be wrong.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.

Doesn't sound like a creation ex nihilo for this specific situation.

[Daniel7:14]

Cere,

Just a point to make, perhaps silly, but none the less:

If you are stating: "Let the land produce".....then the land would have certainly been..."existing matter..., NO? So how might the second statement be viewed as incorrect? You are correct that :24 says; let the Earth bring forth.........does that not qualify as existing matter?

Just a thought on that.

I have my own (now, don't laugh) perspective and that would involve viewing the two chapters as being "recapitualative" (did I spell that right?) only to a certain point. I know that many embrace recapitualation and think it answers the many questions raised concerning the "early" years. I think that those unanswered questions suggest another perspective. One chapter outlines some events, while the other speaks on additional events, not found in the first.

Off topic and I apologize.

Bless,

Dan

[technomage]

But why would the writer have need to contradict the creation account for the purpose of instructing.

Jim, your question premises that both passages were written by the same person, for the same purpose. They weren't.

Despite the claims of those who insist on a single-authorship, these are two narratives from different times, written by different authors, and used for different purposes. Do they contradict? Certainly--when examined from a strict historicist point of view--but that point of view is precisely the wrong standard of judgment to use.

It's like attempting to reconcile the tales of Washington (chopped down the cherry tree, threw a silver dollar across the Delaware river) with a real history of the Revolutionary War--you're trying to compare an apple with a coconut, then asking why they don't both give orange juice.

Edited to add:

I have read that Genesis 2 is probably the oldest account, so I see no reason or need for the conflict.

It's entirely likely that the author of the Genesis 1 account had never even read the Genesis 2 account.

[Cerebrum123]

Cere,

Just a point to make, perhaps silly, but none the less:

If you are stating: "Let the land produce".....then the land would have certainly been..."existing matter..., NO? So how might the second statement be viewed as incorrect? You are correct that :24 says; let the Earth bring forth.........does that not qualify as existing matter?

Just a thought on that.

I have my own (now, don't laugh) perspective and that would involve viewing the two chapters as being "recapitualative" (did I spell that right?) only to a certain point. I know that many embrace recapitualation and think it answers the many questions raised concerning the "early" years. I think that those unanswered questions suggest another perspective. One chapter outlines some events, while the other speaks on additional events, not found in the first.

Off topic and I apologize.

Bless,

Dan

Actually, my point is that "let the land produce" does in fact mean preexisting matter. Jim said that in Genesis 1 you don't have that happening, but you do in Genesis 2, that clearly isn't the case. So, yes I am implying preexisting matter for the animals in Genesis 1, and in Genesis 2.

[Jedidiah]

JimL, any time you have a flawed understanding of any text you can find all sorts of problems.