Bible enthusiasts: One chapter of Genesis says beasts were created, God saw it was good, so he created man. The next chapter says God created man, then made animals and let Adam name them all.
So, which one do you go with?
2007-03-16 13:04:47 · 29 answers · asked by KS 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes, thank you to the evolution answers....that's obvious. Didn't you notice the "Bible enthusiasts" part? I want to know which one the holy rollers are picking.
2007-03-16 13:08:15 · update #1
Okay...you want me to back it up with the "references"....
Gen 1:25 and 26 for the animals being first
Gen 2:18 and 19 for the man being first
2007-03-16 13:13:35 · update #2
Hey, stop it with the sex stuff will ya? This is a religious discussion. LOL
2007-03-16 13:09:21 · answer #1 · answered by Starjumper the R&S Cow 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The beast came first and as we know there was a male and female made of every kind. As it says, God saw this was good. Then He decided to make Adam in His own image. In Genesis where you thought Adam was alone, it means that he didn't have anything in his own image yet(like the beasts did) and that's why he was alone. The bible is referring to the Creation of Eve, not the creation of animals after Adam. Sadly, some people spend way too much time trying to pick the bible apart instead of seeing the beautiful message that is within.
2007-03-16 20:29:55 · answer #2 · answered by Angela F 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps you misunderstood Genesis 1 & 2. Animals and then Adam. Adam got to name them but the animals were made before he was. Gen. 1:21 - 1:28 is the chronological time line of it all, and chapter 2 goes into more detail about the hows, of creation.
Thus the chicken and then man.
2007-03-16 20:14:45 · answer #3 · answered by All 4 His Glory 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why are you so technical? Isn't this the same old metaphysical question disguised? Here is THAT old metaphysical question : If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear the sound it made, did it make a sound when it fell?
O.K. God created some type of bird (can I call it a bird?) but it wasn't called a chicken. Then Adam came along and called THAT bird a chicken. Before Adam called it a chicken, WAS it a chicken? Whatever it was NOT called does not affect the fact that THAT particular item was in existence before it was so named. So, yes, the chicken WAS created first (even though it was not so named)!!!
2007-03-16 20:27:41 · answer #4 · answered by flandargo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
* God made Creatures before Man...
Genesis 1:21 = Created Sea & Flying Creatures
Genesis 1:25 = Created Animals that move on the earth
Genesis 1:27 = Created Man
Genesis 1:28 = God gave Man dominion over everything living
2007-03-16 20:15:16 · answer #5 · answered by Golden Smile 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The verses in question, for those playing the home game, are these:
Genesis 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.
Genesis 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.
Genesis 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.
I'm not a "Bible enthusiast" by any means (as I think will be blatantly obvious from the following observations...), but as a student of comparative mythology I can think of several arguments to reconcile the apparent conflict:
1. Genesis is not meant to be a chronological record like a blog or a Daytimer entry. That is, it's not like, "Thursday, 8:17 AM -- made fishes, whales, and all things that swim. Had trouble with octopus; kept slipping out of jar. 2:16 PM -- made chickens. Not entirely satisfied; noisy and smelly, but they should taste hella good with eleven secret herbs and spices. Friday, 3:21 PM -- made Adam. Not entirely happy with the whole foreskin thing; I'll have to talk to him about cutting it off. And I'd bet deities to donuts that the appendix is going to be more trouble than it's worth, but no use crying over spilt manna."
2. There's a missing line from the beginning of 2:19 that was meant to say, "Previously in Genesis: God makes chickens. Tonight: Adam names them."
3. These are actually Schrodinger's Chickens, for which there is a 50% probability that they were made before Adam and a 50% probability that they were made afterwards. As Einstein said, God does not play dice; but perhaps he isn't averse to the occasional coin toss.
4. Gary Larson fans, of course, know the real answer -- God made chickens first for practice, which is why they look so freakin' funny. (One of my all-time favorite Far Side cartoons shows one of Larson's typical little chubby-cheeked boys with a crewcut and glasses, playing with a chemistry set, his face and arms blackened with scorch marks and a cloud of feathers floating around him, with the caption: "God as a small boy tries to make a chicken in his room.")
If asked for a serious interpretation, I'd go with #1 -- well, maybe without the reference to foreskins -- because it's very common in other mythologies for a verse to repeat something from a previous verse, as a way of reminding the listeners (remembering that the Bible was originally transmitted orally, like the Iliad and Beowulf) of an important fact. So it's a valid interpretation of the text, I believe, to propose that the repetition in 2:19 isn't intended to show God creating chickens twice, but is intended to remind the faithful that while God created chickens first, he then gave Man dominion over them and name them.
The repetition of a particular phrase is also a poetic structure used elsewhere in Genesis ("and God saw that was good;" "and the evening and the morning were the Nth day;" etc.) I would love to hear those phrases in the original; they're probably quite lyrical, which is why the original compilers repeated them, like the chorus to a song (and they also make oral histories easier to memorize).
I'm inclined to show a little compassion here for the original compilers of the Bible -- perhaps because I don't believe that if every dotted i and crossed t isn't literally true, my own life has no meaning -- and give them this one as poetic license.
And besides, maybe God just really really likes chickens, so much so that he created them twice. Or maybe the first time was a Rhode Island Red and the second time it was those little rock Cornish game hens or something. There are more chickens in heaven and Earth, Horatio...
2007-03-16 20:58:22 · answer #6 · answered by Scott F 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The chicken came first. I think Genesis 3 is like a recap of what happened with more information thrown in. God made animals and plants, God made man and then brought them before Adam to be named.
2007-03-16 20:19:53 · answer #7 · answered by V 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The chicken. God did not ever mention that He created the man to name the animals first. In the seven days of creation, he created the beasts first, and that is the official Bibical explanation for creation.
2007-03-16 20:13:08 · answer #8 · answered by † FriendofGod † 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, if i remember correctly, god made birds on... the 3rd or 4th, maybe even fifth day? It was before the sixth. So, chicken came first. And for an evolution statement: the birds were made before man, a little bit after dinosaurs, then mammals, then us.
So either way, chicken came first. But the real question is what came first; the chicken or the egg?
2007-03-16 20:23:20 · answer #9 · answered by Gale 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry! Nothing in the bible about animals being created after man. Read it again
2007-03-16 20:11:43 · answer #10 · answered by mindtelepathy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Man
2007-03-16 20:07:15 · answer #11 · answered by Dr Universe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋