# Biblical Creation: two Creation stories in the Bible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 1, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177 "2003-02-01T22:37:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/21 "2003-02-02T06:50:51Z")
You’re the one who is omitting context in an attempt to conceal the meaning of the text. From the NKJV, here are verses [2:4-7](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN%2B2%3A4-7&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NKJV&x=13&y=8) > [@](#): > > This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. > 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 being. Here’s the same passage in the [NIV](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN%2B2%3A4-7&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NIV&x=10&y=7): > [@](#): > > This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. > > When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens–and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground–the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Here are the same verses from the [New American Standard Bible](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN%2B2%3A4-7&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NASB&x=10&y=8): > [@](#): > > This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The mental gymnastics of Biblical inerrantists never cease to amaze me. And as I pointed out in the [What do creation scientists believe](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160011) thread, good luck getting a creationist to give you a definition of “kinds”. Did Adam give separate names to horses and zebras? How many “kinds” of birds are there? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/22 "2003-02-02T06:53:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\*As **Polycarp** says, he only gave names to the _kinds_ of animals. It does not say that he named every single animal, or even every single species. Indeed, the concept of “species” – in the modern, taxonomical sense – was doubtlessly unknown at the time. > > No discrepancy here. You’re omitted the immediate context of that statement. Here’s what the New King James translation says, > > The context of your quote shows that it was referring to _the creation of the hevens and the earth_. In other words, it was the heavens and the earth which were created before the plants, not Adam. Note, in fact, that verses 4 and 5 constitute a _single sentence_, as evidenced by the comma separating them. \*\* Surely a much better explaination for the discrepancy than this tourtured reasoning is that the terms “plant of the field” and “herb of the field” refer only to cultivated plants, not to the whole of plants (excluding cultigens) which had been previously created … See, I can argue _both_ sides in the debate! 😃 IMHO, the creation of beasts after man is the most impossible discrepancy to explain. It just cannot be done, without doing violence to the text. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/23 "2003-02-02T06:55:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Malthus \* > **Please do quote the passage from the NIV version, for comparison. In every single version I have seen, it is obvious what the sequence is - first man, then God’s statement of intent, and finally, creation of animals.** Check out the [article](http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr09.html) to which I linked earlier. It contains the NIV rendering of that verse. For your benefit though, the verse reads “Now the Lord God **had formed** out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emphasis mine). > [@](#): > > \*\* > As for “burden of proof”, surely that must be on the person arguing for a strained or implausable meaning of the text, when an objective reading without preconceptions or a particular axe to grind indicates a clear interpretation. > \*\* First of all, if you’re going to claim that there IS a contradiction, then you’re responsible for showing that there are absolutely no possible explanations. Otherwise, all you have is a _possible_ contradiction. As I said, the burden of proof rests on the accuser. Second, this is hardly an implausible explanation, since numerous Hebrew scholars do render the verse that way. As I already emphasized, that is how the NIV reads, and this is corroborated by the four Hebrew scholars cited [in the article to which I linked](http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr09.html). ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/24 "2003-02-02T06:58:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Malthus \* > **Surely a much better explaination for the discrepancy than this tourtured reasoning is that the terms “plant of the field” and “herb of the field” refer only to cultivated plants, not to the whole of plants (excluding cultigens) which had been previously created …** It’s hardly tortured reasoning. Remember, I cited the immediate and exact context of the phrase. According to the rules of English grammar, “before any plant of the field was in the earth” is a modifier to the antecedent phrase “the heavens and the earth when they were created.” Nowhere in that sentence is Adam even mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/25 "2003-02-02T07:00:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Malthus \* > **Surely a much better explaination for the discrepancy than this tourtured reasoning is that the terms “plant of the field” and “herb of the field” refer only to cultivated plants, not to the whole of plants (excluding cultigens) which had been previously created …** It’s hardly tortured reasoning. Remember, I cited the immediate and exact context of the phrase. According to the rules of English grammar, “before any plant of the field was in the earth” is a modifier to the antecedent phrase “the heavens and the earth when they were created.” Nowhere in that sentence is Adam even mentioned. Now, **MEBuckner** cited other translations which punctuate the verses differently. As I said though, the burden of proof rests on the accuser. If alternate translations are possible, then a contradiction is merely _possible_, rather than _proven_. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/26 "2003-02-02T07:14:46Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\* > The mental gymnastics of Biblical inerrantists never cease to amaze me._\* Have I, at any point in this debate, presented myself as a Biblical inerrantist? Certainly not. Remember, at this point, I am merely contesting the claim that the alleged contradictions presented are indeed mutually exclusive. So far, that has yet to be proven. Moreover, note the precise wording of Genesis 2:5. It doesn’t say that there were no plants whatsoever; rather, it says that the plants _of the field_ and the herbs _of the field_ had not yet emerged. In fact, the repetition of this phrase shows that the author is _calling attention_ to this distinction. Again, we see that there is not _necessarily_ a contradiction between the two accounts. In other words, they are not mutually exclusive. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/27 "2003-02-02T07:30:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\*It’s hardly tortured reasoning. Remember, I cited the immediate and exact context of the phrase. According to the rules of English grammar, “before any plant of the field was in the earth” is a modifier to the antecedent phrase “the heavens and the earth when they were created.” Nowhere in that sentence is Adam even mentioned. \*\* The paragraph begins: “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth …” and goes on to say, in Genesis 2.7: “… then the Lord God formed man from the dust …”. The clear and obvious meaning, is that _during_ that time, when God made the earth, and more specifically _before_ there were “plants of the field” (whatever they might be), God made man. I have no idea what other meaning you are trying to assign to the paragraph … as I said, if you must find a weasly way out of this apparent contradiction, surely the uncultivated/cultivated distinction is more “fruitful”, so to speak. [Bad pun alert 😃 😃] ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/28 "2003-02-02T07:46:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\*Check out the [article](http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr09.html) to which I linked earlier. It contains the NIV rendering of that verse. For your benefit though, the verse reads “Now the Lord God **had formed** out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emphasis mine). > > First of all, if you’re going to claim that there IS a contradiction, then you’re responsible for showing that there are absolutely no possible explanations. Otherwise, all you have is a _possible_ contradiction. As I said, the burden of proof rests on the accuser. > > Second, this is hardly an implausible explanation, since numerous Hebrew scholars do render the verse that way. As I already emphasized, that is how the NIV reads, and this is corroborated by the four Hebrew scholars cited [in the article to which I linked](http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr09.html). \*\* I saw a little extract. It would be necessary to see the _whole_ of Genesis 2.18 _and_ 2.19, to make the point - _not_ just 2.19 in isolation. When read together, these two paragraphs currently admit of no possible ambiguity. See, if I run the standard 2.18 against your 2.19, it _still_ reads as if God made man first, then said he would make animals, and then made animals: **Then** the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I **will** make him a helper as his partner.” [my emphasis] Now the Lord God **had formed** out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air… [your emphasis] All those Hebrew scholars could be totally right - still doesn’t make a lick of difference; the important words are the “then” and “will” I highlighted. Unless these are _also_ changed, the meaning stays more or less the same. And without the other version of 2.18, you simply cannot tell. As for the “no contradiction unless there are absolutely no other possible explainations”, I venture to say that such a standard means that it is effectively impossible to prove a contradiction at all - do you apply this standard to any document? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/29 "2003-02-02T07:53:49Z")
FWIW, the Jerusalem Bible, a completely separate translation that intentionally did not make use of previous English translations, renders the passages this way: > [@](#): > > God said, “Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees bearing fruit with their seed inside, on the earth.” And so it was. The earth produced vegetation: plants bearing seed in their several kinds, and trees bearing fruit with their seed inside in their several kinds. God saw that it was good. Evening came and morning came: the third day (1:11-13) > > God said, “Let us (collective plural to match _Elohim_, the grammatically feminine plural noun translated “God”) make man (collective plural, “mankind”) in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth.” God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth.” God said, “See, I give you all the seed-bearing plants that are set upon the whole earth, and all the trees with seed-bearing fruit; this shall be your food. To all wild beasts, all birds of heaven and all living reptiles on the earth I give all the foliage of plant for food.” And so it was. God saw all he had made, and indeed it was very good. Evening came and morning came: the sixth day. (1:26-31) > > At the time when Yahweh God made earth and heaven, there was as yet no wild bush on the earth had any wild plant yet sprung up, for Yahweh God had not sent rain on the earth, nor was there any man to till the soil. However, a flood was rising from the earth and watering all the surface of the soil. Yahweh God fashioned man (_adam_) of dust from the soil (_adamah_). Then he breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus man became a living being. > > Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned. Yahweh God caused to spring up from the soil every kind of tree, enticing to look at and good to eat, with the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden. (2:5-9) It’s relatively clear that in the second story, plant life, both wild and cultivated, is created **after** the creation of (a single) man, not three days before. BTW, according to 2:19, the wild beasts and birds of heaven are created **after** God sets the man in the garden in Eden. Even the most ingenious re-sorting will not make the two stories fit together without contradiction. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/30 "2003-02-02T07:55:48Z")
Malthus is just a trouble maker. Isn’t he the one who put Darwin on Satan’s side with that damnable essay on the limits to population growth? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Drastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Drastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drastic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/31 "2003-02-02T08:11:12Z")
Out of curiosity, what’s the Hebrew term(s) that translate into “flood” “mist” and “streams” (that watered the earth before the rains) variously? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/32 "2003-02-02T08:18:04Z")
['ed](http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1044173624-542.html) The only other place it appears is in Job 36:27, which the [NIV renders as](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Job+36%3A27&NIV_version=yes&language=english) “He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams” (with a footnoted alternate reading _or “distill from the mist as rain”_); the [KJV gives the passage as](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JOB%2B36%3A27&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=KJV&x=14&y=13) “For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof” (with _'ed_ here being rendered as “vapour”). ---
**Author:** ![Drastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Drastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drastic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/33 "2003-02-02T08:27:16Z")
Thank you! Very handy site in that cite, too. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/34 "2003-02-02T16:08:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David Simmons \* > \*\*Malthus is just a trouble maker. Isn’t he the one who put Darwin on Satan’s side with that damnable essay on the limits to population growth? 😉 \*\* Am I causing a chrisis here? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Dickerson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f04885/32.png) [@Scott\_Dickerson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Dickerson)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/35 "2003-02-02T21:35:24Z")
It doesn’t seem very likely that a blatant contradiction in the Torah, within a few verses yet, would be passed down the centuries with no clarification or explanation. Which suggests to me that the problem is our attempt to render key Hebrew phrases in English form, especially with reference to tense. If we say “then God did it,” we attach to “then” a very definite sense of time sequence–ie, that’s the point of the word. But I can imagine that the original Hebrew term was more ambiguous. Perhaps the “then” in “Then he breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus man became a living being” has in Hebrew (or had in ancient times) more of a ceremonial or commendatory sense, as if one had said “And Lo! He did breathe (yes he did!) into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus man became a living being”, basically an inserted emendation describing how man became a living being, not implying sequence. (In general, oughtn’t one read these as ceremonial orations of praise to the preserving God of a people, not as courses in natural science?) ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/36 "2003-02-02T21:51:25Z")
> [@](#): > > In general, oughtn’t one read these as ceremonial orations of praise to the preserving God of a people, not as courses in natural science? Well, **Scott** , that was entirely my point – that the two Origin Stories in Genesis 1-4 are stories, each told to **make a point** , not verbatim narratives of a historical sequence of events. But atheist and fundamentalist alike have condemned the stance that one can read the Bible seriously for the underlying meaning without subscribing to its alleged inerrant omniveracity. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/37 "2003-02-03T00:26:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*FWIW, the Jerusalem Bible, a completely separate translation that intentionally did not make use of previous English translations, renders the passages this way: > . \*\* Which demonstrates nothing. All that shows is that the Jerusalem Bible used the preterite tense. As I said, _yatsar_ can be rendered in either the preterite or the pluperfect tenses, which shows that a contradiction does not _necessarily_ exist. Your example, and that of the KJV, merely show that the creation of animals can be rendered in a self-contradictory way. This is not the same as showing that a contradiction does occur. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/38 "2003-02-03T00:45:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Malthus \* > \*\* > See, if I run the standard 2.18 against your 2.19, it _still_ reads as if God made man first, then said he would make animals, and then made animals: > \*\* Okay, that’s your first mistake. There is no “standard” Genesis 2:18, apart from the original Hebrew rendition. You are quoting from a translation that DOES betray an inconsistency, but as I have **repeatedly** emphasized, it is not the only possible translation. > [@](#): > > \*\* > All those Hebrew scholars could be totally right - still doesn’t make a lick of difference; the important words are the “then” and “will” I highlighted. \*\* That doesn’t prove your case; quite the contrary. Genesis 2:19 says that God **had formed** the animals (i.e. created them at some unspecified time in the past). **Then** he proclaimed that Adam should not be alone. The pluperfect tense (“had formed”) means that the formation of animals occured at _some time_ previously, and does not specify that it happened after the creation of Adam. > [@](#): > > \*\* > As for the “no contradiction unless there are absolutely no other possible explainations”, I venture to say that such a standard means that it is effectively impossible to prove a contradiction at all - do you apply this standard to any document? \*\* With all due respect, I think you’re erroneous in assuming that this makes it _impossible_ to prove any contradiction. That’s clearly a huge and unsubstantiated leap of logic. Moreover, it is easily disproven. If a text says, for example, that Mr. Smith owns _exactly_ one car, and if another text says that the same person owns three, then the precise wording shows the two accounts are mutually exclusive. In interpeting a literary work – whether religious or secular – careful attention should be given to tenses, figures of speech, precise wordings and other nuances of language. So far, the criticisms leveled against Genesis 1 and 2 have rested on (a) a lack of attention to the verb tense of _yatsar_, (b) a careless reading of the timeline in Genesis 2:18-19 (which, as I said, does NOT imply that the animals were created after God spoke of Adam’s need for a companion), and © a reckless assumption that the phrase “plants of the field” refers to the plant kingdom in its entirety, when the phrasing clearly suggests otherwise. So the claim that a contradiction _does_ exist is not warranted by the evidence at hand. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/39 "2003-02-03T01:50:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\*Okay, that’s your first mistake. There is no “standard” Genesis 2:18, apart from the original Hebrew rendition. You are quoting from a translation that DOES betray an inconsistency, but as I have **repeatedly** emphasized, it is not the only possible translation. \*\* Maybe not. But since your whole argument seems to be pinned on a particular verb-form that you have produced exactly _one_ on-line reference to support, whereas your opponents have produced several independant translations to contradict your account, I think that I can respectably say that the “standard”, or majority, of translations do not support your thesis. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > That doesn’t prove your case; quite the contrary. Genesis 2:19 says that God **had formed** the animals (i.e. created them at some unspecified time in the past). **Then** he proclaimed that Adam should not be alone. The pluperfect tense (“had formed”) means that the formation of animals occured at _some time_ previously, and does not specify that it happened after the creation of Adam… \*\* Since I have asked before repeatedly, I will ask again: produce the whole passage, and we will see in context what it says. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > With all due respect, I think you’re erroneous in assuming that this makes it _impossible_ to prove any contradiction. That’s clearly a huge and unsubstantiated leap of logic. Moreover, it is easily disproven. If a text says, for example, that Mr. Smith owns _exactly_ one car, and if another text says that the same person owns three, then the precise wording shows the two accounts are mutually exclusive. > > In interpeting a literary work – whether religious or secular – careful attention should be given to tenses, figures of speech, precise wordings and other nuances of language. So far, the criticisms leveled against Genesis 1 and 2 have rested on (a) a lack of attention to the verb tense of _yatsar_, (b) a careless reading of the timeline in Genesis 2:18-19 (which, as I said, does NOT imply that the animals were created after God spoke of Adam’s need for a companion), and (c) a reckless assumption that the phrase “plants of the field” refers to the plant kingdom in its entirety, when the phrasing clearly suggests otherwise. So the claim that a contradiction _does_ exist is not warranted by the evidence at hand. \*\* And I say that, absent twisted logic and reliance on some obscure and insupportable verb-tense picked up by _none_ of the usual translators, there exists a contradiction here as obvious as the example you give. The plain reading of the text states quite explicitly that man was created first; and that animals were created afterwards, As for (c), the “plants of the field” point, nice job absorbing the argument _I_ made originally and quoting it back to me as if it was your own. 😛 Do you forget already that you had some other bizzare timing argument, which you have I see dropped, and that _I_ made the cultigen/wild plant distinction?😃 😃 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/40 "2003-02-03T01:58:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scott Dickerson \* > \*\*It doesn’t seem very likely that a blatant contradiction in the Torah, within a few verses yet, would be passed down the centuries with no clarification or explanation. > > Which suggests to me that the problem is our attempt to render key Hebrew phrases in English form, especially with reference to tense. > > If we say “then God did it,” we attach to “then” a very definite sense of time sequence–ie, that’s the point of the word. But I can imagine that the original Hebrew term was more ambiguous. Perhaps the “then” in “Then he breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus man became a living being” has in Hebrew (or had in ancient times) more of a ceremonial or commendatory sense, as if one had said “And Lo! He did breathe (yes he did!) into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus man became a living being”, basically an inserted emendation describing how man became a living being, not implying sequence. > > (In general, oughtn’t one read these as ceremonial orations of praise to the preserving God of a people, not as courses in natural science?) \*\* You evidently have not read the Bible receintly - it is _filled_ with stuff that is blatantly contradictory or obsolete. Just go to Leviticus. Seen anyone making sacrifices like those required there, lately? [I always wanted to ask fundies whether they sacrifice small animals as required by Leviticus] This is not a problem for non-fundie Rabbinical Jews, because they have centuries of commentaries and interpretations embodied in the Talmud - they don’t in general take the OT literally. It is a problem for fundie Christians, because they don’t have a Talmud - so they are obliged by their faith to take this stuff literally. And in the US, they oppose certain core teachings of biology on the basis of literal interpretations of the OT. Which is why it makes sense to ask - if evolution cannot be true because the creation story in Genesis is literally true - which story is it? I challenge you - read Genesis 1 and 2. They are not long, only a couple of pages. Are these the same account? _Could_ they be the same account? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177.md?page=3)