Question for Christians or Jews about the biblical creation stories.?

Question

I started my bible study again, and I decided to start from the very begining, so I hope that you all can answer some questions for me.

The first question is more about what your specific religion/denomonation believes, so please tell me what you are when answering.
1. In the bible we see two counts of creation, the priestly tale and the story commonly referred to as J. Just a refresher for everyone, the priestly tale speaks of God creating the Heavens and Earth, then the animals in the sea, then the animals on land and then finally creating humankind (both male and female at once). In J we get God creating Man first, then the animals and then Woman out of Man's rib.
My question is which story was taught to you? Was it one or the other or a combination of both? Were the inconsistencies talked about and how are they reconciled?


This is not a loaded question, I am really seeking answers, I don't need to read about how the bible is a lie or God does not exist.

Sorry, ran out of room

I am really seeking answers so please be considerate of everyone. I will not report you, but your critisism is a waste.

Thank you to anyone who is kind enough to answer.

Djmantix:
I'm uncertain how you come to that conclusion when their are two different tales of creation in Genesis. The first one is from Gen 1-2:3 and the second is from Gen 2:4-25.
I understand there is only one creation, but there are two stories of that one creation in Genesis

Answer 1

Genesis chapter 1 is a complete overview of the creation week. Genesis chapter 2 is a more detailed description of events that happened during the creation week. They are both accounts of the same story, same week. There are no contradictions between the two.

When you are saying that the animals were created after man in chapter 2, the verse you are referring to is obviously 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."

The Hebrew verb translated “formed” could easily have been translated “had formed.” In his Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold stated:

Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible (1942, p. 130, emp. added).

Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupold’s assessment of Genesis 2:19 as he also recognized that “it is possible to translate formed as ‘had formed’ ” (1990, p. 176). Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their highly regarded Old Testament commentary that “our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the Holy Spirit, via Moses, intended to communicate—EL] would be simply this: ‘God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed’ ” (1996, emp. added). Adding even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New International Version (NIV ) renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emp. added). Although Genesis chapters one and two agree even when yatsar is translated simply “formed” (as we will notice in the remainder of this article), it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the NIV , all believe that it could (or should) be rendered “had formed.” And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree.

The main reason that some do not see harmony in the events recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible is because they fail to realize that Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (actually 2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Chapter two never was meant to be a chronological repeat of chapter one, but instead serves its own unique purpose—i.e., to develop in detail the more important features of the creation account, especially the creation of man and his surroundings.

Answer 2

Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of Creation begins. However, close examination of the text will show that what is recorded in 1:1-2:3 is an introductory summary of the events of creation, and that what begins with verse 2:4 is a more detailed account of the Creation of mankind. There is nothing in the two Creation accounts that contradicts. Genesis 2:4-25 should be understood as a further explanation of what happened in Genesis 1:26-31. It is comparable to taking a magnifying glass to Genesis 1:26-31 to take a closer look at the Creation of mankind.

Recommended Resource: Biblical Creationism by Henry Morris.

Answer 3

Well first of all I am a non denominational Bible Believing Christian. I believe in both stories. The best way to explain it is from Dr. Kent Hovind's article.

One story is the general overview of creation ( chapter 1) Chapter 2:4-6 is a summary of the first five days and 2:7-25 is describing what happened in the Garden of Eden on day 6.

The trees described in Genesis 2:8 are only in the Garden (the rest of the world is already full of trees from day 3). The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world. Notice that the second creation of trees was still on day 6 and was only those trees that are "pleasant to the sight and good for food."

The birds created out of the ground on day 6 are only one of each "kind" so that Adam can name them and select a wife. The rest of the world is full of birds from day 5.

Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them (Gen. 2:19) and select a wife (Gen. 2:20). Adam, not finding a suitable one (God knew he wouldn't), God made Eve (Gen. 2:21-22).

There are no contradictions between these two chapters. Chapter 2 only describes in more detail the events in the Garden of Eden on day 6. If ancient man had written the Bible (as some scoffers say), he would never have made it say that the light was made before the sun! Many ancient cultures worshiped the sun as the source of life. God is light. God made the light before He made the sun so we could see that He (not the sun) is the source of life.

Answer 4

Paganmon,

Your question has validity, and because you are seriously interested, I'll try to help.

Recently, I went to the trouble to research the Bible's statement about where Noah's ark got stuck after the flood. It proved impossible to pin the answer down. Why?

Because the scholars render the translation as "from the east" and also "into the east" thus giving us two directly opposite directions to choose from.
------

Why do I mention this? Because it shows how important the translation is in understanding such points of seeming conflict.

In regard to your question, I will use this translation: (DRC) You will see that when its translation is used, no discrepancy is found at all!

Here is Gen 2:19 that is giving us the trouble you are talking about: "And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. "

As you can see, here the verb form is "having formed."

It indicates an action already complete. This differs from the KJV significantly, but then the KJV is very old. Realize please that the translators not always are that exact in their renditions of the nuances found in the original language. John 1:1 is a good example of that. (See this page: http://bythebible.page.tl/Trinity_John-1-d-1.htm)

Not only that, but as you can see, the DRC translation makes chapter two harmonize with chapter one.

If there is any further question about something I have overlooked, please ask. Or perhaps you have further questions about things you want some light shed on? I'll be happy to help if able to.

Answer 5

The explanation from the Jewish POV:
Genesis 1 states when everything was created- it does nto mean that it manifested immediately. Rashi, one of the major commentators, states that all the trees etc were put in place, but did not come out of the ground because, as it says in 2:5 '...because the Lord God had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil" So only once there was a man, Adam, to appreciate the rain and the miracle of the plants did they emerge from the ground- but they had been planted earlier awaiting the birth of Adam.

Answer 6

From a Christian point of view, I was taught both, because both are correct.
Genesis one gives a timeline of events, and Genesis 2 goes into greater detail concerning Genesis 1.

These are not two separate accounts, but one account.
General, then detail is filled in.

With the creation of Adam first, it is viewed that Adam's DNA would have been complete, but then in Genesis 2, we read clearly that something was removed from Adam to make him less than the full image of God. From what was taken away from Adam, God made woman.

Answer 7

They are one creation Genesis provides a synopsis.

Edit... of course there are two stories one is detailed they are the story of creation not stories of different creations, a synopsis and general overview and then the detailed story.
Gen. 1 God said Let US create man in OUR image...Genesis two shows how man is created in God's image.

Answer 8

I was taught God created heavens and earth; then Adam. Animals for Adam to rule over, then Eve to keep him company and help rule the animals. We never discussed the other one. Was raised a Free Methodist; small branch off of First Methodists.

Answer 9

I believe God created Man first, then woman from Adam's rib. I don't have my Bible here in front of me, but I think when it says something about 'Male and female created He them', it may be referring to God's creation of both sexes in all species of animal... I'll try to get back with you on that..

Answer 10

Jewish view:

I've learned both versions along with Lilith. In addition to the first version, from a feminist viewpoint, God created living creatures from the most basic to the most advanced -- making the female more advanced than the male! Love it.

We always debate the "inconsistencies." Our rabbis are teachers -- they love questions and debates! What kind of a teacher wouldn't allow questions? Read allonyoav's answer for an example of Jewish answers. There's no end to those kinds of answers in Judaism!
.