In the first, Adam was created after the animals. In the second, he was made before.
What is the Christian response to the (seemingly?) conflicting accounts in Genesis?
2007-07-26
14:04:15
·
20 answers
·
asked by
JWill
4
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
1Genesis 27 and 2Genesis 18
2007-07-26
14:08:31 ·
update #1
1Genesis 27 and 2Genesis 18
2007-07-26
14:08:42 ·
update #2
Carp: But God makes animals on that day (in the 2nd story).
2007-07-26
14:09:36 ·
update #3
Holy Holly and Sisterzeal: Although I think there is a much more logical and simple explanation, those were not bad apologist's answers. Thanks!
2007-07-26
14:47:15 ·
update #4
To give Xtians practice at creative tap dancing.
"The Bible is a mystery and so is God"
First movement...
"most of them find it is unerring. "
Second movement. A lesson in deception and sleight of hand and mind. State a falsehood and hope it's believed.
2007-07-26 20:11:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
God makes the world. Then He makes the animals, finishing with Adam, who is made in God's image. In chapter 2, God puts Adam in Eden. Then, in Eden, God brings every animal to Adam, or possibly He creates each one in front of Adam (can't remember the exact details), but anyhow, chapter 1 is referring to the world. Chapter 2 is referring to Eden specificly. Then, when none of the animals were suitable for Adam, God created Eve from Adam's rib. By the way, God only brought the general kinds of animals to Adam to name, which would be in the thousands; not every single species we have today. Adam was smart, so he probably named everything in a few hours. After all that naming, imagine if you had to name all the animals, he probably had serious brain cramps and was tired. He gladly went to sleep so God could make Eve.
2007-07-26 21:16:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by fuzz 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the universe and life on planet earth as it happened in chronological sequence. Genesis 2 is simply an expanded explanation of the events that occurred at the end of the sixth creation day - when God created human beings. Genesis one provides virtually no details about the creation of human beings (other than the idea that humans were created in the image of God).
2007-07-26 21:11:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by tebone0315 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
The book of Genesis shows that it was edited to reach its present form. There are at least 4 other identifiable sources. That is the explanation for the 2 seemingly conflicting stories of creation. There is one from the Yahwist source and one from the Elohist source.
The editor, and of course the Holy Spirit, saw the same conflicting things as we do. It is simple to explain: Each story is to emphasize religious truths from different perspectives. The "conflict" only exist when trying to make it a book of science which it is not.
2007-07-26 21:10:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by jakejr6 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Because the Elhoist author of Genesis 1:1-2:4a and the Yahwist author (2:4b et al) didn't agree on it.
If you look, "Lord" appears in all caps in the second version. This is because the original Hebrew reads "YHWH", the divine "name". The first version does not. Two different authors wrote the two different versions.
The first author has God creating man to rule over the animals (actually, "men and women", note the plural). The second author has God creating the animals to serve as a companion for man, but none work. He finally makes woman (Eve, note the singulars in this version).
2007-07-26 21:08:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by The Doctor 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
The book of Genesis contains several sections that begin with the phrase which we sometimes render, "These are the generations of..." The word "generations" is the Hebrew toledot and has the connotation of a family history or succession. There are nearly a dozen recurrences of the toledot introduction and method, and one of these, interestingly enough, is Genesis 2:4-4:6. What does this mean? It means that G2 is not actually a creation account as such, but a "family history" of the first men in creation
2007-07-26 21:09:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by G 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
The bible shouldn't be taken literally, least of all the Genesis story. Genesis was written a long, long time ago to answer people's questions about how and why we exist. It was just a story. The conflicting accounts are very trivial (in this case); it doesn't matter.
Any Christian who actually takes the first part of Genesis seriously deserves to be shot for a lack of common sense.
2007-07-26 21:18:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by The Rationalist 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
Which Bible are you reading? It is only one version written by two different author. Yavista and Eloista. This story was written after the Hebrews were sent Off their land by Nabucodonosor. Esdras and Nehemiah's recompiled the scripts and began to put them in order. Man has always ask him self, "Who am I, where did I come from? So the story of Adam and Eve came to an sewer this question. But we are a creation of God, like everything else, including Angel==God's messengers.
2007-07-26 21:22:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
The way you asked the question makes it seem that you are not a Christian. If this is the case, what difference does it make to you and who are you trying to convince. The Bible has been researched and picked over by "Knowledgable Men" and most of them find it is unerring. The first story is an overview of the events and the second story is more detailed. Even a simple person like myself can see that.
2007-07-26 21:18:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by LeeBoy 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
I think what happened was two stories were popular at the same time and people couldn't decide which one to include so they put both in.
Personally I've always wondered why no one ever decided to edit one of the stories out of the Bible. Probably because one story refers to the creation of the whole universe and one refers to the creation of life on earth.
2007-07-26 21:09:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Don't Fear the Reaper 3
·
3⤊
1⤋