How can Genesis 1 and 2 both be true?

Question

For the Biblical inerrants out there... how do you reconcile these two stories? If somebody asks which was created first, animals or humans, what do you answer?

For the non-inerrants: which story do you prefer? Why?

Answer 1

You are basing your belief that the two accounts are contradictory on your interpretation of Genesis 2:19. You believe it says that man was created before the animals in contrast to the first chapter of Genesis which says the animals were created first. The NIV has perhaps the best translation of Genesis 2:19, saying God "had formed" the animals. This is a pluperfect, indicating the animals were created before man. Even if one were to translate this verse as a simple past tense the statement is easily seen as a parenthesis. I will give an example of two fictional comments:

"I got on Yahoo answers tonight to see if someone had a question about the Bible. Then I found this question about Genesis."

"I have read the question about Genesis. I got on Yahoo answers tonight to see if someone had a question about the Bible."

These two statements have the same meaning even though they have a different order. In the first statement the events are related in strict chronological order. The second statement uses a parenthesis, talking about an action after one that comes after it in time (it speaks of getting on Y/A after mentioning the reading of the question). This kind of parenthesis is a very common device in the English language and it was in the Biblical languages as well.

Thus we have three options here.

1) The Hebrew should be translated as a pluperfect, thus eliminating any possibility of a contradiction.

2) The second account uses the common device of the parenthesis.

3) The authors (or, if you insist, editors / redactors) of Genesis were extremely careless with this text which was very holy to them. No one seemed to notice this was a contradiction. Furthermore, no one else did until someone pointed it out in the 21st century.

Options 1 & 2 are possibilities. Option 3 does not seem credible. I prefer both stories since they do not contradict each other. In fact they complement (fill out the meaning of) one another. BTW, I think you meant to say inerrantists. Non-inerrant means “containing errors.”

Answer 2

At Genesis 1:24-26, the Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2:7, 19, 20, it seems to say that man was created before the animals. Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints. The first describes the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them. (Genesis 1:1–2:4) The second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.—Genesis 2:5–4:26.

The first account is constructed chronologically, divided into six consecutive “days.” The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. (Genesis 2:7) Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) Jehovah tells Adam to name “every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” Now, then, is the time to mention that “Jehovah God was forming from the ground” all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.—Genesis 2:19; 1:20, 24, 26.

Answer 3

Two things going on in 1 and 2.

In one, there is an account of ALL the things that were made.
in two, there is an account of the creation as well as the place where man was situated once all was done.

some call the 2nd chapter, the 8th day man because it does not give an account of man being created but formed.

So, chapter 1 says that God created man and female. And they were given a specific command: To replenish the earth and subdue it.

Chapter 2 says that God was giving "inventory" and that he formed man out of the dust.

Chapter 2 pretty much goes into greater detail on what God did with man and the history of life actually follows after these two whose specific job it was to take care of the Garden of Eden.


your sister,
Ginger

Answer 4

When no man was ever thought of God was there, so I will take God's word over a pile of dirt and water (man) which only lives by God's grace - Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Come on - BIg Bang something from nothing we have it today, yea right

Answer 5

We are actually animals also just special and more advanced animals. Just imagine only humans are the living creatures that are not referred to as an animal.
this isn't fair to other creatures like the elephant, they're bigger than us, the whales, they're way bigger than us and can swim way faster as well and other animals as well.
I would say that animals were created first because in the bible it says that humans were created to look after animals.
so really if animals weren't created we we also wouldn't have been created

Answer 6

Have you had your fill of rationalized poppycock yet? Jesus gave us the accurate account of creation in The Apocryphon of John and discredits the Moses account in Genesis. Wake up! Believe Jesus, not Moses after all The Son of The Living God should know, don't you think?

Answer 7

Of course the animals came before humans.

I don't understand the issue.

Answer 8

Both are True