By the way, cothrige, I want to thank you for the cordial discourse we are having. It’s so nice to discuss these things without a lot of drama.
I was just thinking about what you were saying, and in your defense, if there were no chapter 1 of Genesis, if all we had was chapter 2, looking at some English translations, it could appear that man was created before the animals. This is because some translations render the passage in simple past tense, “God formed” rather than as a plu-perfect, “God had formed”.
According to Biblical language scholars (I am not one of those), either translation is permissible, but both assume that animals were created prior to man based on the information in Chapter 1. The simple meaning of verse 19 is, “God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed”, or in other words, the animals were already around, it is just that NOW God brought them to the man for him to name. This explanation is from two highly respected Biblical language authors (see Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Again, chapter 1 gives a chronological order of creation (stars, sun, moon, animals, then man/woman etc.) while Chapter 2 is only giving somewhat of a recap, plus some added detail in regard to man being placed in the garden, and that man needed a compatible companion – woman.
By the way, cothrige, I want to thank you for the cordial discourse we are having. It’s so nice to discuss these things without a lot of drama.
I should rather say thank you, as I am the one whose post is open to accusations of controversy, though that is not my intention. And, I definitely agree, it is always nice to be able to discuss something without all the personality and heat.
I was just thinking about what you were saying, and in your defense, if there were no chapter 1 of Genesis, if all we had was chapter 2, looking at some English translations, it could appear that man was created before the animals. This is because some translations render the passage in simple past tense, “God formed” rather than as a plu-perfect, “God had formed”.
I can certainly understand your point, and others, about the tenses and how that can affect the meaning, however, I personally think this way of understanding the text still requires a somewhat unnatural reading. It just makes little sense for the author to keep inserting odd comments meant to apply at a different time, and yet keep all the words consistent for a more linear reading.
Let me draw attention to what I think may be a good example of what I mean. God's statement that "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." is followed immediately by the story of the actual creation of the animals and birds which is ended by the very meaningful statement: "but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him." These two phrases regarding a "helper fit for him" bookend the animal section leaving little room to avoid the natural conclusion that these animals were created in response to the need for a helper and were found wanting in that regard. It is only then that the woman is created. I won't deny what you suggest regarding previous creation and only then bringing them to him, but I just think that requires a strange way of viewing the text as it makes things bounce from one form of narrative to another, back and forth. It can work, but it just seems to require quite a lot of creative reading in order to maintain perfect consistency, and I am not convinced that such was ever the intent of the Spirit or the authors.
BTW, I hope I am not coming across as dogmatic on this. I have no reason to think my opinion is superior to anyone else's, but rather it just happens to be the one I feel most comfortable personally taking. I don't pretend to have any expertise on the subject.