Did you notice this?

Question

The Creation


The Two Accounts of Creation

If there is one thing to be said about the Bible, its that it doesn't waste time in contradicting itself. Technically the very first word of the Bible is the beginning of the first contradiction. The very first thing the Bible covers is creation, and there are two accounts of creation in Genesis... two different accounts. The first account starts at Genesis 1:1 and ends at Genesis 2:3. The second account begins at Genesis 2:4 and ends at Genesis 2:25. Now let's see how they differ.

The order of creation in the first account.

1. Heaven and Earth

2. Light (night and day)

3. Sky

4. Plants

5. Sun, moon, and stars

6. Fish and birds

7. Land animals

8. Man and woman at the same time

The order of creation in the second account

1. Man

2. Plants

3. Birds and land animals

4. Woman

There is a reason to this, as there is for many of the errors in the Bible. The first account originated in a time when man wanted to believe that they were God's pride and joy. That this world was made for mankind. God created everything, and made this nice little place for him to put his masterpiece... man. The second account is from a time when men were seeking dominance over women, and justified it by saying man was God's original creation, and worked with God in naming things. Then women were made from a left over part of a man. Women always get dumped on in the Bible.

Errors in the Creation

Aside from the obvious contradictions, there are just a lot of things in this short section of the Bible that just doesn't make sense.

In Genesis 1:1 it says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.", then later on in Genesis 1:8 it says "And God called the firmament Heaven." So did he create heaven twice? Are there two heavens? I thought maybe the first statement was just saying what God did, then it was going to explain in detail how he created heaven and earth... but in Genesis 1:2 the earth has already been created. So I have to believe that there was a double creation of heaven.

On the first day, God created light. No problem there, right? But God didn't create any sources of light until the forth day. So did he only invent the concept of light on the first day, but no light was around until the forth day? If he had light, as well as darkness, and light and day... then why did he have to make the sun, moon, and stars? No matter how you look at the subject of light during the creation, it just doesn't add up.

Sunlight brings us to another problem. We know the sun was created on the forth day... but plants were created on the third day. We know plants require sunlight to live, so why did God make these things in this backwards order? Now if we take the literal time frame, and a day in creation as being a 24 hour period, the plant thing isn't a real problem... plants can survive 24 hours. But then the whole creation story loses credibility... who really believes the universe was created in less than a week? Not even most creationist believe this one. That is why many people say that a day in the creation was 1,000 to 7,000 years (depending on who you ask). Name a plant that can live 7,000 years with perfect conditions... much less with no sunlight.

Creation Science

This is possibly the biggest oxymoron of all time. How could you call anything that supported the story of creation as fact a science? Its amazing that anyone would try to get this stuff taught in class as a fact, do you believe it? With all of these errors? Be honest.

Answer 1

I commend you on reading the Bible and these are exact questions that I began bringing up in Sunday School at the age of 5, all the contradictions. just made no sense. I was labeled a trouble maker by Sister Linda and after Sunday school, which I was sent down to in the basement with all the other children while the parents were upstairs believing this stuff, I was scolded and my Grandmother was told of my trouble making. I also asked many questions regarding the great flood and the animals and how all the many species were able to be brought onto one boat. The simpler really logical ones. See the main reading material as a child in my house was National Geographic and Astronomy & Medical books, so what they were teaching at church just raised valid questions, so I understand exactly where you are coming from.

Answer 2

First let me address the two creation accounts problem. If I asked you to describe your house, you could tell me about it in several different ways. For example you might tell me how it was built; first the foundation. then the framing, then the plumbing and electrical. then sheetrock etc. Or you might tell me about it starting at one end and work your way room by room thru the whole house. Yet another way would be to tell me about your favorite part of the house first then and work you way down to the more mundane. The point is all of these ways would be accurate. The story of creation is the same. The two accounts are not contradictory. They tell the same story with different emphasis.

Light created twice?- okay the first day God said "let there be light". And then on the 4th Day he created the sun moon and stars. Are these the same type of light? The bible often refers to a spiritual or eternal light, such as Mt 5:14 "you are the light of the world"or psalm 104:2 "he wraps himself in light". This is the first type of light mentioned in the bible, the "let there be light" type. Then on day 4 he created the sun and moon etc. The fact that these are mentioned seperately, serves as evidence of the consistency of the bible. It means that there is a difference between the two lights. But that would mean that either the original writer got it all correct or that somebody went back and changed it on all the ancient manuscripts. So the first light mentioned is the "God is light" type of light. and sunlight came to us after the sun was created. Now one may say that he or she does not believe that God is light or that they even believe in God. But we are talking about whether or not these verses of the bible are consistent. As I have shown they are.
As for the plants needing sunlight to survive- This should be simple for you. If there was a Godly light as the bible says there was. Why do you feel that would not suffice? I mean a God that could create all this could certainly maintain it.

I'm not asking that you believe the bible. I'm only saying that your allegations of inconsistency do not hold up. You're arguments can be undone with simple logic and a little more reading of the bible.

Answer 3

Genesis 2:1 and following is an appendix to the history of the creation, more particularly explaining and enlarging upon that part of the history which relates immediately to man. Verses 1-3 is the institution and sanctification of the Sabbath. Verses 4-7 is a more particular account of man's creation. Verses 8-17 is a description of the garden of Eden and the placing of man in it under the obligations of a law and covenant. Verses 18-25 is about the creation of the woman, her marriage to man, and the institution of the ordinance of marriage.
Now...do you still see discrepancies? And besides everything else...it doesn't really matter what we think. We cannot even begin to comprehend how God works. I realize that if we don't understand something, it frightens us, but on this one issue, we should just back up and remember that God is God and is able to accomplish whatever he wants. We weren't made to understand everything.

Answer 4

You are reading it wrong. Genesis does not contradict itself. The first account you speak of is creation, and the Second Chapter (what you refer to as the "Second Account") gives the details of the creation of man and is the beginning of a geneological theme all of which ends with the birth of Christ in the New Testement.

You say that "The order of creation in the second account is
1. Man, 2. Plants, 3. Birds and land animals, and 4. Woman." This is an incorrect reading of the Second Chapter of Genesis. In the Second Chapter of Genesis the plants, bird and land animals had already been created, and the verb tense and context used relects the things were made in the past-tense, and already existed. Moreover, God brings forth the animials before Adam on this day, and Adam gives them all names, thus the animals according to the Holy Bible were created before and existed before man, although without names, until on the Sixth Day Adam gave them names.

In the First Chapter (Verse 27) it states, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created him; male and female created them.

The Second Chapter of Genesis begins, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on seventh day God ended his work which he made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. . . .These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." (See Gen. 2:1-4)

There is no inconsistency with Genesis. Indeed, as my understanding of science progresses along the same path of other persons understanding of science, my belief in the truth of Genesis strenghtens and grows. (i.e., Animals created in sea before land, and also the Chromosome difference between man and women known to modern science.)

The Holy Bible is not wrong, the Christ confirmed it. I think you are just misreading it because you are most certainly misstating it.

Answer 5

The Bible is not meant to be taken as literal as you are interpreting it.. It is and always has been a teaching tool.

Do you really think that the men that wrote the Bible are as educated as we are today... a "day" to them could have been weeks or months. But that isn't even the point.

The point is - The Bible is a guide for Christians to follow. It provides a model of how they are expected to live as Christians and outlines Gods expectations for them through Christ and the Ten Commandments.

People who get caught up in the literal-ness of the Bible do not, in my opinion, have any faith in God. It is the Faith in God that Christians have that let them believe that their God is capable in all the things the Bible tells them is true.

Answer 6

1. I agree with you on your take of Genesis.
2. I believe the question to be valid and was given a lot of thought.
3. I also believe that the majority of your findings should have been in a blog and have your question point to the blog for further explanation.

I will be writing in my blog and will have more thought covering this question and more in time to come.

To answer your question, yes, I have found the same in the scriptures and have asked some priests, ministers, and rabbi's they all basically gave me the same answer, 'god' works in mysterious ways. What a bunch of crock, if you don't know just say "I don't know" for most it is almost impossible to admit.

Answer 7

Actually there are many people who believe in a literal 6, 24-hour days of creation. The details of creation are nearly non-existent - we have a mere outline. But is doesn't really sound to me like you're looking for reasons to believe. It sounds like you're looking for reasons Not to believe. It's a fact of human nature that people find what they're looking for...

Answer 8

Just for future reference, Hebrew contains more than one word for heaven (7 i think). Several are for the sky, one is for outer space, and another is for heaven as in where God resides. The english language doesn't have that many words. So, when it says that God created the heavens and the earth, it is talking about outer space and the planet earth. When it says God created the heavens and called it the firmament, it's talking about the sky.

Answer 9

Did I notice that there are two creations stories in the bible? Yes I did. And as most biblica scholars will tell you, those stories are foundation myths, as in, cultural traditions held dear by a people. They are not expected to be treated as scientific fact.

Answer 10

The Ocean of Tao
Cannot be called an ocean
For there is nothing else to give it name.
There is no sky above it,
No earth below it,
No shore that surrounds it.
And so it "is".
And yet, "it" is not.
For what is "it" if there is nothing else?
And so there is only "one".
And yet, there is not.
For "one" to be, there must be "two".
And there is not.
There is only entire.
And yet, there is not.
For to be entire Is to measure complete.
And can there be measure Of what has no beginning or end?
Void of name; Void of substance; Void of measure.
Such things define nothingness-
But only if such things "are".
And, since the "are" not, What is?
Everything and Nothing-
The Ocean of Tao
That can not be called an ocean,
or even Tao.

i Agree with you.