Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2

lol. well, yes, i knew that. like i said, it was not really problem to people who chose to include both, obviously. consistency was not their goal, so we shouldn't pay attention to it in a consistency-checking manner. they included both stories each for some other purpose and we should pay attention to that. but it does tell us that they did't care about accuracy or detail, and so we should sort of take it with a grain of salt. there are other forms of truth to be found in these passages. from reading the text, i think it fits pretty well. the problem is that we can only really date the text in its present form. unless we can reasonably show which bits were added. but i think it's fairly obvious from the structure, and differences in passages, that genesis is made up of a number of different sources, and i don't think it's wrong to assume that they weren't all written at once.

dpardo writes:

quote:

---

Genesis 1:27 says:

​

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

​

The verse above simply states that he created them.

---

Remember what I said in another thread about intellectual dishonesty? This is a perfect example.You are absolutely right that Gen 1:27 simply says that humans were created and doesn't mention when they were created.But to then insist that this somehow means that Genesis 1 doesn't mention when humans were created is to simply ignore all the other verses in the chapter.Genesis 1:19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.1:21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.1:22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.1:23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.Now some simple questions:1) Are fowl and whales animals?2) Did this event happen on the fifth day? Please do not play semantic games on what the meaning of "fifth" is.Now, let's take a look at what Genesis 1 says about humans:Genesis 1:23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.1:24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.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.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.1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.1:28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.1:29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.1:30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.Now some simple questions:3) Did this event happen on the sixth day. Please do not play semantic games on what the meaning of "sixth" is.4) Is this not the first time humans are created in the timeline? No other humans are created at any other point? That is, the Bible isn't holding out and not mentioning that humans were actually created on day 3?5) If the answer to 1) above is that indeed, fowl and whales are animals and if the answer to 4) above is that indeed, humans don't show up at any time until the sixth day, does this not indicate that there are animals running around before there are humans?Now, let's see what Genesis 2 says:Genesis 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.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.2:20: And 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.Now, some simple questions:6) Does not the above indicate that Adam, the very first human ever, was alone?7) Does not the above indicate that there were no animals anywhere to be found at the time Adam was created? After all, if there were already animals around, why would god need to create them again in order to find a helpmeet for Adam? Wouldn't he just need to bring the animals that already existed to Adam to be named?8) If 6) and 7) above are yes, does this not mean that the male human was created before animals?Therefore, the final question:9) Don't the answers to 5) and 8) contradict each other?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo writes:

quote:

---

Which is more likely:

​

a. The author contradicts himself in the very next chapter.

​

or

​

b. Some people may have interpreted Genesis 2 incorrectly.?

---

Neither. There's a third option:Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written by different people and thus, we are not surprised to find they contradict each other.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But you never take anybody's word that something is inerrant. To do so means you've turned your brain off.

---

​

I assure you that I have not turned my brain off. I simply have not come across an apparent contradiction that I could not explain, yet.

---

Incorrect.You haven't explained anything. Instead, you have done everything you can to avoid the question...even to the point of outright lying.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

The Hebrew word adam (man) appears in both accounts but is untranslated in the second. Notice how this plays out at chapter 5 verse 2 in the King James Version:

quote:

---

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, ...

---

This word is used in both ways throughout the scriptures. It is up to the reader, or translator, to decide which interpretation is appropriate based on context. Some say that the word itself, which comes from a term denoting red-colored earth, is utilized as a pun in the second chapter, and might be interpreted, tongue-in-cheek, as - Earth Man. The Bible never refers to planet earth, so this 'earth' should be taken to mean land, and the Hebrew term is frequently translated that way. Then again, even in the first chapter, we cannot assume that the writers imagined the 'earth' as a
planet. Notice that the water under the firmament is gathered into one place" and "dry land" appears (vs. 9). "God called the dry land Earth;" and he called the water "Seas." Thus: Seas are not a part of Earth. Clearly not a vision of planet earth.In order to understand the creation story, we must dumb down to the level of Bronze Age 'science.' I believe the first chapter is about the origin of the universe (as the ancients imagined it to be), while the second chapter is about the origin of Hebrew ancestors. We do, after all, know approximately where Eden was located. The myth itself is very like Mesopotamian creation myths in which the Domine (lord god) i.e. King : Think about it. I believe you will find that it explains discrepancies and obviates the need to correlate these two clearly different accounts of creation.db

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill

​

The Hebrew word adam (man) appears in both accounts but is untranslated in the second. Notice how this plays out at chapter 5 verse 2 in the King James Version:

---

Hi doctrbill,In my current opinion, the first usage of "Adam" as a proper name is in Genesis 4:25. And, interestingly, it is coincident with the conception of Seth.Amlodhi

Good to see that you are still active here Amlodhi. What about verse 1? "And Adam knew Eve his wife, ..."While we're on the subject of Seth; I find the 3rd verse of chapter 5 most interesting:This sounds a lot like the wording of chapter 1 where man is created in the image and likeness of God. This would seem to create a problem for those who teach that these words mean something other than physical appearance. Eh? And if God looks just like us, then what's to say he isn't simply a deified ancestor whose accomplishments have been exaggerated all out of proportion to reality? (Just an entertaining excursion into the myth.)db

Hi PaulK,Genesis 2:18-22 says: It is my assertion that when God stated: that God was talking about Eve.You say: Do you honestly think God created animals and birds (male and female) in an attempt to create a suitable helper for Adam rather than just create a female version of him first?That seems to be what you're saying. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Hi Arachnophilia,I quoted Genesis 1:27 here: Then I said: to which you replied: It does not state that he created them at the same time. You are interpreting that.

Are you really as dense as you would like us to believe? Do you think nip picking about the time of day is a meaningful argument?It is clearly indicated that they were made on the same day, and after the animals were made. Chapter two, ... well, you have already been pointed to the differences there. Why should I disturb your blissful ignorance with further recitation of the facts?db

Hi Rrhain, I'm not sure I understand your argument here.Genesis 1 does state that humans were created on the 6th day. 1. No2. Genesis 1 21-23 states the fowls and whales were created on the fifth day. and to your subsequent question regarding the creation of animals and man happening on the sixth day, my answer is: "yes". Regarding the above quote, it indicates that, with reference to Eve not having been created yet, he was alone. But the animals had already been created.Genesis 2:19 is where I see the apparent contradiction regarding the chronology of humans and animals.

I apologize for ending the post abruptly.I had created a longer post but, upon hitting the "preview" button, it prompted an error page.I will try to continue momentarily.

Let's look at Genesis 2:19: If we had not already been given a chronology, it would be reasonable to assign one at this point. BUT, since we were already given one in Genesis 1, there is no logical reason to assume that we are being given a new one.Genesis 2:19 is simply stating how he created the animals and the fowl of the air (again, this is consistent with the general-specific theory) and that he brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.

Hi Doctrbill,Your interpretation of my posts has been noted.Thank you for your response.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill

​

What about verse 1? "And Adam knew Eve his wife, ..."

---

Hi doctrbill,Verse 1 says האדם (ha'adam) = the man.Verse 25 says אדם (adam) and is followed by the singular attached pronoun "his" in "his wife", and thus = Adam.Verses 25-26 appear to be a redaction connecting chapter 4 to the following "book of the generations of Adam" (chapter 5) which makes no mention of Cain or Abel.

quote:

---

doctrbill:

​

While we're on the subject of Seth; I find the 3rd verse of chapter 5 most interesting:

​

"And Adam ... begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image: ..."

​

This sounds a lot like the wording of chapter 1 where man is created in the image and likeness of God.

---

It is exactly the same terminology and I too find it interesting. Albeit, we are dealing with the tradition of Seth here, whose lineage will eventuate in the righteous Noah. As such, I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised that he is accorded special status.Good to hear from you again, doctrbill. I agree that there are many interesting details in this section of the text. If you have anymore insights, I will be eager to hear them. I always enjoy talking with you.Amlodhi