Genesis contradictions?

Creation.com ^ | September 1996 | Don Batten

[GonzoII]

In Genesis chapter 2 the order of creation seems to be different to that in chapter 1 with the animals being created (2:19) after Adam (2:7). Doesn't the Bible contradict itself here?

Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) 'out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air'. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23-25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb 'formed' in (Genesis 2:19 to mean 'had formed' or 'having formed'. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), 'Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field ...', the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just 'another' account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God's perspective; it is 'the big picture', an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man's perspective.

Genesis 2:4 says, 'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens'. This marks a break with chapter 1. This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1, where it reads 'This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man'.

'Generations' is a translation of the Hebrew word toledoth, which means 'origin' or 'record of the origin'. It identifies an account or record of events. The phrase was apparently used at the end of each section in Genesis2 identifying the patriarch (Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, etc.) to whom it primarily referred, and possibly who was responsible for the record. There are 10 such divisions in Genesis.

Each record was probably originally a stone or clay tablet. There is no person identified with the account of the origin of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1-2:4), because it refers primarily to the origin of the whole universe, not any person in particular (Adam and Eve are not mentioned by name, for example). Also, only God knew the events of creation, so God had to reveal this, possibly to Adam who recorded it. Moses, as 'author' of Genesis, acted as a compiler and editor of the various sections, adding explanatory notes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The toledoths acknowledge the sources of the historical records Moses used. This understanding underlines the historical nature of Genesis and its status as eyewitness history, contrary to the defunct 'documentary (JEDP) hypothesis' still taught in many Bible colleges. [Ed. note: for a refutation of this fallacious and anti-Christian theory, see Did Moses really write Genesis?.]

The differences in the toledoth statements of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1 affirm that chapter 1 is the overview, the record of the origin of the 'heavens and earth' (2:4)-whereas chapter 2 is concerned with Adam and Eve, the detailed account of Adam and Eve's creation (5:1,2). The wording of 2:4 also suggests the shift in emphasis: in the first part of the verse it is 'heavens and earth' whereas in the end of the verse it is 'earth and heavens'. Scholars think that the first part of the verse would have been on the end of a clay or stone tablet recording the origin of the universe and the latter part of the verse would have been on the beginning of a second tablet containing the account of events on earth pertaining particularly to Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:4b-5:1a).

Let us apply this understanding to another objection: some also see a problem with the plants and herbs in Genesis 2:5 and the trees in Genesis 2:9. We have already realized that Genesis 2 focuses on issues of direct import to Adam and Eve, not creation in general. Notice that the plants and herbs are described as 'of the field' in Genesis chapter 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not just plants in general. Also, the trees (2:9) are only the trees planted in the garden, not trees in general.

Genesis was written like many historical accounts with an overview or summary of events leading up to the events of most interest first, followed by a detailed account which often recaps relevant events in the overview in greater detail. Genesis 1, the 'big picture' is clearly concerned with the sequence of events. The events are in chronological sequence, with day 1, day 2, evening and morning, etc. The order of events is not the major concern of Genesis 2. In recapping events they are not necessarily mentioned in chronological order, but in the order which makes most sense to the focus of the account. For example, the animals are mentioned in verse 19, after Adam was created, because it was after Adam was created that he was shown the animals, not that they were created after Adam.

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the 'big picture' and Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of creation.

The final word on this matter, however, should really be given to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 and 5, the Lord is addressing the subject of marriage, and says: "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"

Notice how in the very same statement, Jesus refers to both Genesis 1 (verse 27b: 'male and female he created them') and Genesis 2 (verse 24: 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.'). Obviously, by combining both in this way, He in no way regarded them as separate, contradictory accounts.

[raygunfan]

Bookmark

[Zuriel]

**You’re dead when your bain is dead.**

And your brain is dead when the blood is dead. Life is in the blood.

[Iscool]

The HUGE mistake that many people make is to take an English version of the Hebrew Bible and accept it (no pun intended) as gospel. No, it isn’t. It was written in Hebrew, which is a very complex language with many subtleties that get lost when translating it to other languages. Then it was translated into Greek; then to Latin and then to old English, and finally to the English that we speak, read and write today. MUCH understanding has been lost by the vast majority of the world, which doesn’t read or understand Hebrew (and doesn’t care to, for that matter).

And the people who speak and read Hebrew are lost as well...There is no original Hebrew scripture to compare it to...

And the Greek??? The Greek has been a dead language for centuries...And there certainly aren't any original Greek manuscripts to compare anything to....All we have are copies of copies and translations of those copies...

So why do you suppose God would have had his scriptures written in a language that he knew would vanish away for the most part and his original written words would vanish as well??? What did God epect his children generations down the line to do???

God said he would preserve his words forever...You figure he lied about that??? If he didn't, where are they???

[Iscool]

You're dead when your bain is dead.

You are dead when your spirit leaves your body...

[Ancesthntr]

With all due respect, you are incorrect regarding the Hebrew Scriptures. The five Books of Moses, commonly called the Torah, have been faithfully transcribed by hand without any changes for millennia. There is even a specific commandment that not one letter is to be added, and not one letter is to be taken away.

My brother is a scribe, and he has gone over the process with me on many occasions in great depth. There are so many safeguards, most involving other scribes, rabbis and learned members of the community comparing newly written versions with older versions that are known to be correct, that it would be virtually impossible for a changed text to emerge.

Thus, the fact that there are no existing original Torahs that are 3300 or so years old is of no consequence.

[eastsider]

By definition, yes. But I wasn’t addressing the definition of death I was addressing Zuriel’s implicit contention that brain death is not a reliable metric for death. It is reliable, and the reason it is reliable is because we can measure brain waves. The person with no brain waves is dead. You can pull the plug in good conscience.

[jjotto]

Just FYI:

The fast day on the Hebrew date 10th of Tevet was originally mourning the translation of the Sefer Torah from Hebrew into Greek, because of the disasters that would result.

[betty boop]

The title of this thread is "Genesis Contradictions?"

I don't see any contradictions as between the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts, nor would I expect to: God's Word is errant. Any perceived difficulties with the congruence of the two accounts come only from the side of human understanding.

So, I would enjoy the opportunity to revisit that conversation about Adam and Eve that was truncated a month or so ago!

I'm looking forward to hearing from you re: this matter, dear brother in Christ!

[betty boop]

YIKES!!! In my last, I meant to say God's Word is INerrant!

Sorry... I'm feeling a little groggy today, having spent the morning undergoing a routine medical procedure that required anesthesia. Please forgive my grotesque blooper.

[metmom]

You can rewrite it and post it and ask the mods to delete the first one.

[xzins]

I knew you, so I knew it was an error earlier today. :>)

So far as genesis contradictions, without going into any detail at all, our sister, Alamo, still has my favorite take on the happenings in early Genesis.

[betty boop]

So far as genesis contradictions, without going into any detail at all, our sister, Alamo, still has my favorite take on the happenings in early Genesis.

Oh, please do reprise her general take on Genesis for us here, dear brother in Christ!

I believe I have some understanding of Alamo-Girl's take on Genesis matters. Basically, it boils down to differentiating between the spiritual creation of Genesis 1, and the subsequent physical creation of Genesis 2 -- which really doesn't qualify as a "separate" creation at all; for it is merely the "outplay" or "material" instantiation of the Word of the spiritual creation, which is physical creation's ultimate and eternally abiding cause.

If indeed this is how my dearest sister in Christ sees this (I really dislike speaking "for" her), then all I can say is: I am entirely persuaded that her understanding is TRUE in all respects. By the Grace of God....

Or did you mean by your remarks to refer me to A-G's take on Genesis 1 exclusively? I.e., as when you said "the happenings in early Genesis?"

[betty boop]

Naw, too much trouble, dear sister in Christ! Plus it's nice to be reminded that I am fallible.

Somehow, after writing, I had an incoming message from out of the blue while sitting outside on my back deck, just watching the birds, that I had used the word "errant" when what I intended to say was "inerrant." (This sort of thing happens a lot.)

So I skipped back inside and made my correction and apology.

Thank you for your very kind thought!

[TXnMA]

Are you sure that A-G describes the creation of mankind in Genesis 1 as "spiritual" -- and the (special) creation of Adam & Eve in Genesis 2 as "physical"?

~~~~~~~~~~~

Please re-check that order! IIRC, that is not what we have discussed in the past, at all!! (Does "ensoulment" of Adam & Eve sound familiar...?)

If that ("spiritual" then "physical") order is correct for both of you, then we are diametrically opposed in our beliefs re the creation of mankind.

I am working offline on an extensive, graphical testimony as to why I believe that it was Genesis 2 that described the creation of Mankind in the ("spiritual") image and likeness of God [Spirit].

~~~~~~~~~~~

Much work to do; more later...

[xzins]

I hesitate to speak for Alamo. She is much smarter than I am, and she is far more guided by the Spirit in this understanding than am I.

I cannot look up all of her many explanations, but here is a concise one: (Found at:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2288826/replies?c=16

To: xzins

I think that is an perfectly fine way of putting it, dear brother in Christ!

My central point is that the tree of life is in the midst of the garden of Eden and also in the midst of Paradise.

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. – Genesis 2:9

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. – Revelation 2:7

And that the first three chapters of Genesis are not speaking only of the physical Creation but all of it:

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And 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. – Genesis 2:4-5

So whereas I perceive that Adam was created in/for the non-physical realm (whether we call it heaven or spiritual realm) - I can also see where Eden/Paradise can be perceived as an intersection between the two like the Temple, Tabernacle, Ark, Holy Mountain, you and me.

16 posted on 07/09/2009 9:44:16 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl

[Alamo-Girl]

I think that is an perfectly fine way of putting it, dear brother in Christ!

My central point is that the tree of life is in the midst of the garden of Eden and also in the midst of Paradise.

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. – Genesis 2:9

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. – Revelation 2:7

And that the first three chapters of Genesis are not speaking only of the physical Creation but all of it:

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And 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. – Genesis 2:4-5

So whereas I perceive that Adam was created in/for the non-physical realm (whether we call it heaven or spiritual realm) - I can also see where Eden/Paradise can be perceived as an intersection between the two like the Temple, Tabernacle, Ark, Holy Mountain, you and me.

[TXnMA]

Thank you. That is closer to what A-G and I had discussed previously...

[betty boop]

My central point is that the tree of life is in the midst of the garden of Eden and also in the midst of Paradise.

And thus Alamo-Girl points to the central, unifying principle of God's four-fold revelation to us humans, His children: That He alone is Life, Grace, Light; and ultimately, the Sustainer, Judgement and Salvation of human souls.

To say as much doesn't leave much of a role for "scientific testing." Indeed, it seems to me that such "divine claims" are utterly beyond the reach of the scientific method.

The scientific method is the "wrong tool" for making such determinations. For the scientific method reaches only to direct observables. Which does not obviate the fact that God and His works are never "direct observables."

Which is to suggest that a man who wishes to "reduce" God and His works to what can be described by "science" is probably barking up the wrong tree.

For this would be an attempt to "reduce God" and His action in the world of creation to the finite categories of human intellection and understanding. Which attempt, if successful, only defaces and diminishes the very Face and Presence of God with us.

Having said that, I am still very open to, and would warmly welcome, alternative accounts of these matters, especially if posed from the direction of the scientific method and scientific thinking more generally.

[TXnMA]

Dear Sister in Christ,

You wrote: To say as much doesn't leave much of a role for "scientific testing." Indeed, it seems to me that such "divine claims" are utterly beyond the reach of the scientific method."

Do I sense a whiff of "excluded middle" (actually, "excluded other half") in this post?

You wrote: "Which is to suggest that a man who wishes to "reduce" God and His works to what can be described by "science" is probably barking up the wrong tree."

~~~~~~~~~~

Have you ever seen this scientist "reduce" God when discussing evidence of the majesty of His creation?

Au contraire! I always strive to use the evidence of His handiwork to magnify our conception of God and "open our eyes" to His majesty as our Creator...

I recognize and admire the power of your philosophical viewpoint. I also recognize and deplore this "preemptive strike". (Does the term, "shouted down" sound familiar?

It would appear that, sans the mediating presence of A-G, any effort on my part to prepare and share insights based on "direct observations" is a priori abjured by you.

That is no basis for "discussion", and certainly is no incentive for me to expend the considerable effort required to elucidate and share my recent insights.

~~~~~~~~~~

Have I "mis-read" you? (My scars say not...)

[betty boop]

I recognize and admire the power of your philosophical viewpoint. I also recognize and deplore this "preemptive strike". (Does the term, "shouted down" sound familiar?)

Oh dear, brother in Christ, it seems that here you are strongly suggesting that I am acting in bad faith. But if that's so, then why do you want to talk to me in the first place?

You wrote:

I always strive to use the evidence of His handiwork to magnify our conception of God and "open our eyes" to His majesty as our Creator. [I added the bolds]

I don't see anything wrong with that : You want to use "science" the way proto-Renaissance people used cathedrals....

You wrote:

It would appear that, sans the mediating presence of A-G, any effort on my part to prepare and share insights based on "direct observations" is a priori abjured by you.

Good grief! You're imputing even more so-much "stuff" against me. On what grounds? What "scars" have I ever caused you???

You mentioned Alamo-Girl, my dearest sister in Christ. As you know, she is on extended sabbatical. I don't know when (or if) she will be coming back. I miss her terribly.

As you also know, she and I go back a long 'ways. We collaborated on two major book projects. The first one -- Timothy -- took two+ years to complete. A-G and I co-wrote this one. At bottom, it was dedicated to the proposition that faith and reason, theology and science, are not mutually opposed and/or mutually exclusive entities. Rather, they are everlastingly dynamic complementarities. In Neil Bohr's sense of that word. [Which boils down to: You cannot see the "particle" aspect AND the "wave" aspect of a given entity at the same time. But you need BOTH descriptions if you want to describe the overarching system of which they are both constituents. Consider that a kind of analogy....]

The two of us were perfect for this job. We were of such different backgrounds -- she, science and mathematics; me, philosophy and the humanities. She, a self-described American Baptist; me, an unchurched Christian of orthodox leaning. We co-wrote this book in a back-and-forth dialogue captured in Word over many months. Some of the ideas that made the book were field-tested at FR over an extended period of time. In one or two cases, we even directly quoted a Freeper. (But these Freepers remain anonymous to this day, because we put their "speeches" into the mouth of "Froggie," a character in the book. I don't remember the screen names, now.)

In all this time, there was never any instance of dispute between Alamo-Girl and me, over any aspect of the book. It was an effortless collaboration. We were always working together, towards the same goal, for the same reasons. We were blessed....

Just a little remembrance of a very dear one.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you again, dear brother in Christ!

[Ezekiel]

Thanks for quoting AG here:

So whereas I perceive that Adam was created in/for the non-physical realm (whether we call it heaven or spiritual realm) - I can also see where Eden/Paradise can be perceived as an intersection between the two like the Temple, Tabernacle, Ark, Holy Mountain, you and me.

That does a lot to explain the meaning of a dream (oft repeated over a few years now, they are similar in detail with the same theme) I had last week, only this one had a different ending than the others. Unlike the others, this one arrived at its destination, but had to go "back to the future" in order to do so.

Furthermore (providing confirmation), the date of her post (July 9, 2009) was just before (~ a couple weeks) the time when I actually went to that specific destination [in real time], so I was busy preparing for the trip, which was integrated into a move/relocation. Thus, the trip [to Paradise] was truly an intersection between the two [locations].

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created...

Divine rectification. Or how to change the past. Well when the properties of a physical entity are conditional upon its being observed.. one thing is not like the others, even though it's the "same". The soul is changed, which is the very substance of the thing.

Genesis 2:7-8
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.