Replies

If you know anything about the bible, you must be aware that it is saturated with accounts of supernatural events which totally defy all physical laws known to man.

So is Greek mythology and every other epic literature of every other civilization of that era.

To try and explain away some of them as metaphorical or symbolic fictitious events can only lead to a dismissal of all supernatural events, and the conclusion that the entire bible is nothing more than biggest sci-fi novel of all time. So... is it truth? or is it fiction? That's what YOU are supposed to decide for YOURSELF... But you cannot have it both ways, and also claim to know very much about the bible.

Genesis 1 writes that God created the Beasts before he created Man:

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 1:26 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.

Genesis 2 writes that writes that God created Man before he created the Beasts :

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

GEN 2:19 And 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.

If we are supposed to see Genesis not as a religious parable that teaches us that God created both Man and Beast but, rather, as an explanation as to how, exactly, God did that then which one of the different Genesis accounts is true?

Why is there never an endless agument between Genesis 1 "Beast Firsters" and Genesis 2 "Man Firsters"?

Could it be that it does not matter since the Big Picture is that God created both?

Could it be that even those who insist on strict interpretation of some verses in Genesis switch to "parable mode" when confronted with an obvious contradiction?

The answer to an apparent contradiction is not necessarily to throw one out in favor of the other, but rather to identify what went wrong in translation. Genesis 1 is a brief summary of creation of the heavens and the earth. Genesis 2 retells parts of that account, going into greater detail about man and beast. It is very easy to assume from Genesis 2 that the creatures God formed for Adam to name were the first creatures created, but does not state that as fact. I would further submit that maybe God didn't finish creating new creatures for Adam to name for quite a long time. Genesis 1 sets the time lines and order. Genesis 2 describes that order in more detail. The apparent contradiction is probably the result of a poorly translated word in Genesis 2 describing tense.