What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?

but for Adam there was not found an help meet for himThat seems pretty plain. They checked 'em out. The ewe wasn't suitable.

It may have been a surprise to Adam that none was found. It was no surprise to God. That's my point.Adam checked them out. God checked out Adam to see when he was ready to lose a rib in a deep sleep to obtain his counterpart.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

"And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food"Here we see the plants that were created, and how in more detail, they were planted." And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man"Here, we see more detail how the woman was made that was made.And made they all were, as the first verse of this chapter clearly denotes! "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. "

Don't do this again, please. I said in Message 85 that there was no contradiction between the two chapters as far as the creation of man and woman was concerned. You are arguing me on a point I agree with you on, and it's not solving anything.Perhaps you would like to address the real contradiction: the time of animal vs human creation. Again, Message 85 contains my entire argument. Take a specific part of Message 85 to argue me on (not a part we already agree on), and tell why it isn't a contradiction.Posting one-line bits of scripture without explaining what they mean doesn't help prove your point. Read point 3 in Message 85 and tell me what you think of it.Trék

quote:

---

This tells us that the garden of Eden was made after Man, from the statement "had formed."

---

No. See, the planting of the garden may have been in advance of (east of) Eden. Again, we simply are going back for a close up shot here in chap 2 of something already done -finished.

If it truly is the case that Gen 2 is a more detailled version of Gen 1, then why would it go in such a different order?Trék

The order is in chap 1. In two the 'order' is just going over things that need a little fleshing out. That happens to not be precisely in the order it was created here. By chap 2 all was finished anyhow.

Where in either chapter does it say: "Okay, now let's look at some of this stuff in detail"?You say that Gen 2 is a more detailed version and that order doesn't matter, but you have nothing to base that opinion on. In fact, I'm going to stretch my arm out and say that one can also not assume that Gen 2 is in order. However, we do have the fact that this topic is about a literalist viewpoint in reading. And in reading Gen 2 in a literal sense, it's rather obvious--through words like "then," "and," etc.--that there is an order to the events, and that the order of events in Gen 2 is idependant of the order of events in Gen 1.As I've previously said: a literal and sensible reading of Gen 1&2 is impossible.Trék

No, it is quite possible. Using the word 'then' does not mean we change the order of creation in chap 1. It means that what we are flashing back on happened like this, then we look at that. If we look at it like this it resinates perfect harmony. The universe is safe.

genesis 2 contains a specific order, which is strictly dictated by both the content of the story, and grammar.look:

quote:

---

— , ‘

​

v'kol shich ha-shadeh, terem yeheyeh b'eretz...

​

and-every plant the-field, before was in-earth...

---

it's that "terem" that's the issue. it literally describes order. and look what directly follows it:

quote:

---

— -

​

v'yyatzar yahueh elohim et-ha-adam...

​

and-made [the lord] god (d.o.)-the-man

---

the man is made before the plants of the field. there is no other way to read this:

quote:

---

, —‘ -

​

v'adam ain, labod et-ha-adamah

​

and-man none, to-till (d.o.)-the-ground

---

there were no plants yet because there was no man to till the ground. genesis 2 depicts creation as depending on mankind: it was all made for us. we were first, and then everything we needed was created for us.now, in this context, "of the field" might relate to "domesticated," ie: crops. this would make perfect sense in context. however, in genesis 3, the serpent is called:

quote:

---

, —

​

arom, m'kol chayat ha-shadeh

​

(the most) subtle, from-all souls (animals) the-field

---

with the clear implication (in the hebrew, at least) that he is a member of the of the "beasts of the field." snakes are not domesticated, usually. and in genesis 25, esau is called ish shadeh, or "man of the field." esau was anything but domestic. he was what we'd call a wild man.there's a few other usages, too:

quote:

---

Lev 26:22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your ways shall be desolate.

---

here we have "shadeh" next to the word for desert, "midbar." clearly not a farm:

quote:

---

Jos 8:24 And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them...

---

so it doesn't seem to me that "of the field" here means that genesis 1 applies to all plants and animals, but genesis 2 applies to agriculture and domesticated animals. it also doesn't seem that genesis 2 is an elaboration -- genesis 2 does possess an order, and it is contradictory to genesis 1. the two stories contain many of the same elements, are of roughly the same length, and read very well as two separate stories.

---

quote:

---

genesis 2 contains a specific order, which is strictly dictated by both the content of the story, and grammar.

---

No, not really, any order has nothing to do with created order. It was all done here. Finished, right in verse one. Can't ignore that.

quote:

---

it's that "terem" that's the issue. it literally describes order. and look what directly follows it:

---

Not created order. Plants were made first that is clear. Any other order really doesn't matter much. One cannot read chap 2 to conflict with the finished creation, the order of which was already given. Finito.

quote:

---

the man is made before the plants of the field. there is no other way to read this:

---

Of course there is.
Look a little futher in the chapter, there it has this"8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 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. "
Here the planting of the garden comes before making the man.

quote:

---

there were no plants yet because there was no man to till the ground. genesis 2 depicts creation as depending on mankind: it was all made for us. we were first, and then everything we needed was created for us.

---

No, sorry. The order is not negotiable. I could have a stab at what this means as well. Could it be talking about how God made plants somewhere else, before He planted the garden? Why?-Because there was not yet man to tend the garden on earth, He hadn't made us yet!

quote:

---

with the clear implication (in the hebrew, at least) that he is a member of the of the "beasts of the field." snakes are not domesticated, usually. and in genesis 25, esau is called ????? ?????? ish shadeh, or "man of the field." esau was anything but domestic. he was what we'd call a wild man.

---

What are you saying here, that the serpent was vastly different than the snake we know? Of course. So what?

quote:

---

so it doesn't seem to me that "of the field" here means that genesis 1 applies to all plants and animals, but genesis 2 applies to agriculture and domesticated animals. it also doesn't seem that genesis 2 is an elaboration -- genesis 2 does possess an order, and it is contradictory to genesis 1. the two stories contain many of the same elements, are of roughly the same length, and read very well as two separate stories.

---

I read them as talking about the same thing. The order is in chap 1, and in 2 we get more detail. Like how the woman was made, exactly. She was already made, chap 2 just goes back, and shows us more detail of how it was done. Any other reading of these texts will leave you thinking God is incompetant. He isn't.

It seems as though your arguement hinges on your belief that God could not have written a conflicting account of creation. This is not true, however, because we haven't any evidence that God did write Genesis--or any other part of the Bible for that matter. It doesn't matter if Chapter 1 says it's finished. If there are two seperate stories, then the ending of one has no bearing on the second. And besides, even if we ignore the whole problem with order, we still see that the reason for creation is different in the chapters. As arachnophilia has said (and many others here) it is clear that in Genesis 1 God made the world, then He made Man to look over it. In Genesis 2, God made Man, and then He made the world as companionship for the Man. You keep saying this, but you've given no reason as to why the words in the chapters don't show order. "Then" shows progression. Dictionary.com gives this definition for the word:

quote:

---

# Next in time, space, or order; immediately afterward: watched the late movie and then went to bed.

---

Do you see? Disregarding what arachnophilia has pointed out about the original text showing clear order, the English translation shows it too.We've told you why the words used in Genesis 2 show order, now if you could, please show us why you think they don't. And just because one order is already established in the previous chapter, doesn't mean that the following chapter cannot disagree.But, like I've said, unless you are bent on a literal reading, you should be perfectly happy in just reading the text to say that God created all the Universe, and not try to reconcile a difference in a text that is thousands of years removed from its original form.Trék

If you are interested, there is a Catechism of Creation which is an Episcopalian understanding of Genesis 1 & 2, a look at why they are different and what each is telling us in terms of GOD's message. It goes into some depth on the relationships shown in the two stories and why both were included in the Bible, even though written long apart in time (Genesis 1 is actually the later tale and considerably younger than the story in Genesis 2) and by two different cultures. I hope this is of interest to you.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

It doesn't matter if Chapter 1 says it's finished. If there are two seperate stories, then the ending of one has no bearing on the second.

---

It is the crux of the matter. It was finished, there can be no other created order! The stories are not seperate, but the same, Eve was the woman we see created in chap 1. And so on.

quote:

---

In Genesis 2, God made Man, and then He made the world as companionship for the Man.

---

It simply explains why things were made that were made already. If it explains man was lonely, and a woman was made, that is mere added detail, to the woman being created we see in chap 1.

quote:

---

You keep saying this, but you've given no reason as to why the words in the chapters don't show order.

---

Yes I have, it was already finished, The order was history here already. No other creation order is happening in any way! There is a sequence to the explanations of what went down already, but so what? Something has to be mentioned before something else, and since it was already finito, that tells us something.

quote:

---

We've told you why the words used in Genesis 2 show order, now if you could, please show us why you think they don't. And just because one order is already established in the previous chapter, doesn't mean that the following chapter cannot disagree.

---

The order it shows is not the created order, as it is crystal clear it was finished before this chap got to verse 2! Of course it cannot disagree. God is smart.

uh, no. let's try this again. genesis 2 should start about halfway through verse 4, not verse 1. notice that verse 2 continues the story of genesis 1?

quote:

---

And on the seventh day...

---

the story ends in verse 4:

quote:

---

These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created

---

period, the end. that's the bookend of the story. the next story picks up in the other half of verse 4:

quote:

---

In the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven...

---

which clearly echoes the first chapter's introduction:

quote:

---

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...

---

the ‘ ("in the day") of genesis 2:4 is a common idiom in hebrew that means "when." so it says "when the lord god made earth and heaven..."this is clearly where the chapter SHOULD break, and modern translations usually split this verse in two as such. you have to remember that in the original hebrew there are no verse numbers and chapter divisions. these were added arbitrarily by later christian translators. the numbers in modern jewish bibles were added to match christian versions -- although they frequently don't actually match all that well. no, genesis 2 makes it very clear that man was created before the plants -- the plants were made with the idea that man would tend the garden. no man, no garden. this is implicit in the logic, and explicit in the grammar. so you are writing off part of the bible? this is grammatical evidence of a contradiction. the problem that is the premise of this discussion is that genesis 1 and 2 do, in fact, contradict each other. the question is, how do you reconcile it? did you miss something here?man is made in verse 2:7. the garden is planted and plants are made in verses 8 and 9. verse 8 says, as you quoted, and read closely:

quote:

---

And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

---

man is formed, then the garden is planted, then man is placed in the garden. i'm not negotiating. i'm quoting the bible. the bible says, in genesis 2, that man was made first, then plants, then animals, then woman. it's not my problem that this is what it says. i spent the majority of my last post addressing the concern that genesis 2 is talking only about agricultural plants -- ie: the garden of eden, but rather that it is talking about all plants. so no, it's not talking about the garden. i'm saying that the serpent is called "a beast of the field" which is further evidence that "of the field" does not refer to domesticated animals or agricultural plants.he was only vastly different in that he seems to have been upright (possibly walking on legs, but it doesn't say). the problem with that is that we don't get more detail in chapter 2. we just get DIFFERENT detail. have you heard of lilith? her name was used for a prominent womens' music festival a few years back. lilith is the traditional first wife of adam. even a thousand years ago, people saw problem with woman being created twice -- and so they made up this story to try to reconcile genesis 1 and genesis 2.the story goes that man and woman were first created together, but adam's first wife (lilith) was too powerful, or dominant, or whatever, and so she became a demon -- and eve was created second, out of adam so she would be more subservient.(i will suggest a different reconciliation, more in line with your reading, if you'd like)

---