# 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:** 4
**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, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/61 "2003-02-03T21:31:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Realhoops \* > **I follow that Genesis 1 says men and women were made on the 6th day. What I don’t follow is why you think everything in Genesis 2 had to have happened in one day. My point is that in Genesis 1 we have specific demarcations of days. In Genesis 2 what we have is more detail about the creation of woman, the garden, etc. But there’s nothing anywhere in there to indicate to me that anything in Genesis 2 is to be considered to have been done in one day. Rather, I read Genesis 2 to be repeating that, during the creation talked about in Genesis 1, all these “things” were created; but nothing in Genesis 2 indicates that it happened in any different order, sequence, or time period than Genesis 1.** I think the reason is clear - man is made, then (according to my interpretation- see below) animals are made; and then woman is made. If all of this happened on day 6, it is just simple logic that it all happened in a single day. If it did not, then Genesis 1 must be wrong, because Genesis 1 has the creation of _both_ men _and_ women happening on day 6! The point is I think obvious - I am not sure where the problem is. Either this stuff, from the creation of man through to the creation of women, happened on day 6 - or Genesis 1 is wrong. One or the other it has to be. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Realhoops \* > \*\* > I still don’t see that anywhere in Genesis 2. In Genesis 2:18-19 we have God deciding that Adam needs a “helper”. In Genesis 2:19 it says that God “had created” the animals and he brings them before Adam to be named, etc. In Genesis 20 we see that, among those animals (which had previously been created, in my interpretation as set forth in Genesis 1), there was no suitable “helper” so God decides to create Eve. I don’t see anything in Genesis 2:18-20 that indicates animals being created after Adam._\* Here is the version you linked to: “18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.” God makes man. God says, and I quote from _your_ version, “I _will make_ a helper…”. In other words, God says he is _going_ to make a helper (the verb form is “will”, stating intentionality), and then he makes the animals - including birds. If the quote is to have the meaning you wish to assign it, it would have to have God saying “I _have_ made a helper …”. But it does not. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Realhoops \* > \*\* > No, as noted just above, Genesis 2:20 does not say anything about birds being created after Adam. It certainly doesn’t specifically say that. It says that the birds were brought before Adam to be named, but it says in Genesis 2:19 that God “had created” them before._\* Read the verse again - even according to your translation (which is not the same as many others), God expresses his _intention_ to create animals in 2.18. God _will_ make a helper. He has _not_ already done so. The meaning is quite un-ambiguous. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Realhoops \* > \*\* > > As noted, I don’t see that the sequence of events is contradictory and I don’t think you have to really fiddle with the translations. I think it is as reasonable an interpretation to read the above sections as indicating that the details of when things were created is set forth in Genesis 1, while more details about God’s reasons, etc. are set forth in Genesis 2. > > [Genesis 2 text here](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Gen+2%3A4-2%3A25&NIV_version=yes&language=english). > > As I noted above, I think either interpretation is just as reasonable and that it just depends on your own faith/belief system which interpretation and reading you will be inclined to believe. > > (Isn’t it amazing that this debate has gotten into its second page without any serious downward spiral in civility as seems to happen so often in these creation/evolution/big bang/ etc. debates, or at least the ones I have seen?) \*\* I think the “consistant” reading is a big stretch, myself. I agree about the civility … Let’s all keep it that way … 🙂 ---
**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, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/62 "2003-02-03T21:39:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cmkeller \* > \*\*Malthus: > > Verse 21 does not say “sacrifice”, it says “kill” or “slaughter”. It means to slaughter as ordinary meat, not as a sacrifice. In case the language (which does not say “sacrifice” or “offer”) is too vague, the following verse ought clinch it for you (parenthetical comments mine): “Eat them as you would gazelle or deer (both animals that are not valid as sacrifices). Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean may eat. (a sacrifice could only be eaten by those who are ceremonially clean)” > > First of all, the existence of the Dome of the Rock does pose a problem: destroying it to make a Jewish Temple would surely cause much bloodshed, and Temple building and sacrificial service are not commandments that one is supposed to risk human lives for! In addition, there is an issue of ritual purity which might be too complex to get into now. > > There are Jewish organizations that have taken initiative to prepare peripheral items for the eventual resumption of Temple-based sacrificial service at such time that G-d decides to bring it about. But the practical difficulties involved in conducting Jewish services on the Temple’s original site at this moment are enough, according to Jewish religious law, to prevent such resumption. > > Chaim Mattis Keller \*\* I am not saying you are wrong - to be honest, I don’t know very much about Biblical sacrificial rituals - but if your meaning is correct, what possible meaning does this verse have? Did Biblical Jews commonly eat their ordinary, non-sacrificial dinners in the Temple? 😕 [At last, a reason to use this emoticon: a fun Biblical debate! ;j] PS. I agree that doing anything to the Dome would be foolishness. ---
**Author:** ![Realhoops](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8dc957/32.png) [@Realhoops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Realhoops)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/63 "2003-02-03T22:05:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Malthus \* > > Here is the version you linked to: > > “18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” > 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.” > > God makes man. God says, and I quote from _your_ version, “I _will make_ a helper…”. In other words, God says he is _going_ to make a helper (the verb form is “will”, stating intentionality) Ok… to this point we have agreement. 🙂 > [@](#): > > and then he makes the animals - including birds. Ahh… disagreement. 🙂 See, I don’t think it does say that “then he makes the animals”. Here’s my interpretation, based on my reading: God creates everything in the order, sequence, time periods, etc. as set forth in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2:18 God says, as you indicate, “I have to make a helper for Adam.” I don’t read Genesis 2:19 as indicating that God then proceeded to make animals to possibly be helpers for Adam, but rather, that the account is saying (and it starts out with “Now God had formed”) God had previously, ie. as set forth in Genesis 1, created animals. They were all brought forth to Adam to be named, but none of them were suitable to be helpers. It’s like Genesis 2:19 is explaining why, in 2:18 God says he has to _make_ a helper… it’s because no helper was found in the beasts that had been previously created. Perhaps this will help: God: It’s not right you being alone, Adam; I must make you a suitable helper. Now, I already made these animals, but among them there is no suitable helper. So I will put you to sleep and make you a companion from your rib. That’s my interpretation of the reading. Right or wrong, who knows. But that’s what the text has always meant to me and, for some reason, it’s always seemed very simple and plain that that’s what it means! Obviously other people read the same text and have other interpretations seem simple and plain to them. (like you and others in this thread, for example). > [@](#): > > If the quote is to have the meaning you wish to assign it, it would have to have God saying “I _have_ made a helper …”. But it does not. > > Read the verse again - even according to your translation (which is not the same as many others), God expresses his _intention_ to create animals in 2.18. God _will_ make a helper. He has _not_ already done so. > > The meaning is quite un-ambiguous. Well, I don’t think anything around here is ever “quite un-ambiguous.” 🙂 The reason the quote doesn’t have to say I _have_ made a helper is because, as I have said above, I read it as God saying in 2:19 that the _reason_ he still has to make a suitable helper is because none was found amongst the animals he _already_ created. Thus, I don’t think there’s any part of 2:18 whatsoever that expresses any intention to create animals. I think 2:18 expresses an intention to create a “helper,” 2:19-20 expresses a reason that a _new_ creation is necessary (ie. when the animals were brought before Adam none was a suitable helper), and 2:21 expresses how God created Adam’s helper. I agree that in 2:18 God has _not_ already done so. > [@](#): > > I think the “consistant” reading is a big stretch, myself. > > I agree about the civility … Let’s all keep it that way … 🙂 \*\* And I think the “inconsistant” reading is a big stretch, at least in regards to the suggestion that 2:18-21 suggests animals being created between Adam and woman. But the civility is nice, and at least I think I can understand what it is you are trying to say. At least this doesn’t appear to be a debate where we’re both just saying “you’re wrong”, but hopefully understanding where the differing opinions are coming from. We may have to agree to disagree on this point and see where else this debate may take us. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/64 "2003-02-03T22:17:59Z")
**Realhoops** , here’s what I’m bringing to the argument (aside from an awareness that modern Biblical criticism sees Gen 1:1-2:4 and Gen 2:5-4:24 as two distinct stories from two sources): Genesis 1 gives the account of God’s creation, in six days according to the narrative. Gen 2:1-4 puts a coda on that, by stating that on the seventh day God brought a finish to his work of creation and rested – and set aside the seventh day as a day of rest. (This ties in with the Sabbath as an integral part of creation, which I believe to have been a key point of the basic story.) Genesis 2:5 picks up on the story, focusing in on the creation of man, very briefly described in 1:26-29. What I _assume_ is that this account is an ongoing narrative, not “filler” on the previous story – God and/or Adam do X, Y, and Z in the order given in the narrative. Okay, given that, 2:4 seems to be saying, "Okay, fresh start on this story. Here’s what God did in **the day when** He made the earth and heavens. I’m very well aware that “day” can be used metaphorically, such as “In Solomon’s day the Temple was built” does not mean that Solomon only reigned or “had” one day. But the point there would seem to me, why insist that the six days of Genesis 1 are literal and the one day of 2:4 is not? 6 != 1, by anybody’s definition, unless either the 6 or the 1 is being used figuratively (and why one and not the other, in that case?). Now in one translation of 2:4-5, the phrase “in the day when God made the earth and heavens” modifies the “This is the story of the origins of the heavens and earth” beforehand, in another, it’s a time-setter for the material that follows about there not yet being plants on the earth. Which is right? How can we tell? And in either case God’s next step is to create man, in 2:6-7, and **then** to create a garden in Eden and cause trees to spring up in it. In this second story, the focus-on-man one, that’s the first mention of plant life other than the statement that they weren’t around “in the day” of creation. After describing Eden a bit, the next point the author makes is to have God plunk Adam down there, in 2:15. After telling him which trees to eat from and which one not to eat from, God then decides that Man’s going to be lonely, so He creates animals from the soil, in 2:19. And Adam names them in 2:19-20. **Then** he creates Eve. Now on the assumption that this is a historical narrative, telling what God did and in what order (which is what a **literal** reading requires), the net result is that the order of creation is Man, plants, wild animals, Woman. This contradicts the story in Genesis 1, where plants are created on the third day (1:11-12), then water creatures and birds on the fifth day (1:20-22, and animals on the sixth day (1:23-24) **before** the creation of man and woman, together, later on the sixth day (1:26-27). While I can accept that Genesis 2 could be expanded detailing work on the rough-cut broad-brush story of man’s creation in 1:26-27, the conclusions are inescapable: either one or both stories are not to be read as literal narrative, or the two stories have contradictions between them as regards timing. Since I do not feel that faith in God requires a naive acceptance of the Bible as a narrative, verbally inspired to be read literally as the ultimate truth about what He did and does, I have no problems in accepting these as two _myths_ in the strict anthropological sense of the word – sacred stories embodying religious truths in symbolic language, not “made-up falsehoods” as the word has come to carry the pejorative meaning of. I can, however, respect those who feel that it should be read as literally inspired truth, so long as they do not derive from this view a right to violate those commandments which Jesus said to hold uppermost in an effort to insist on other, more “background” stuff from it. That’s a whole 'nother debate, however. But trying to read Genesis 2 as though it were an illumination, a “more details on the sixth day” expansion, of Genesis 1 leads one inevitably into trying to reshape the literal statements to make them fit together. If Gen. 2, standing by itself, is not the literal sequential narrative that it appears to be, then why in the Name of All That’s Holy is it fitting that one demand that we read Gen. 1 as just that? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/65 "2003-02-03T22:21:46Z")
Oh, and just in passing, it may be of interest that there is first-person anecdotal proof right on this board that **Eve** was made of male body parts! 😃 ---
**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 3, 2003, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/66 "2003-02-03T22:22:51Z")
> [@](#): > > I follow that Genesis 1 says men and women were made on the 6th day. What I don’t follow is why you think everything in Genesis 2 had to have happened in one day. My point is that in Genesis 1 we have specific demarcations of days. In Genesis 2 what we have is more detail about the creation of woman, the garden, etc. But there’s nothing anywhere in there to indicate to me that anything in Genesis 2 is to be considered to have been done in one day. Rather, I read Genesis 2 to be repeating that, during the creation talked about in Genesis 1, all these “things” were created; but nothing in Genesis 2 indicates that it happened in any different order, sequence, or time period than Genesis 1. How is it _ **not** _ a contradiction for Genesis 1:26-31 to have God creating man and woman on the _same_ day (day #6), but for Genesis 2 to have man and woman created on _different_ days? [ol] [li]Early in Day 6, from Genesis 1: God creates land animals[/li][li]Later in Day 6, from Genesis 1: God creates humans, both male and female.[/li][li]At some point, day unspecificed, from Genesis 2: Man names the animals and seeks unsuccessfully among them for a helpmate.[/li][li]At some point, day unspecified, from Genesis 2: Man not having found a helpmate from among the animals, God creates woman.[/li][/ol] I agree that there is nothing in the internal logic of Genesis 2 to suggest that the creation of the man, the man’s naming of the animals, and God’s creation of the woman from the man’s rib all happened in one day. In fact, just going by Genesis 2 alone, this seems unlikely. It’s just that, for points #2 and #4 to not contradict, those two events must have happened on the same day, Genesis 1’s Day #6, on which day Genesis 1 says both male and female humans were created. ---
**Author:** ![Realhoops](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8dc957/32.png) [@Realhoops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Realhoops)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/67 "2003-02-03T22:31:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > > But trying to read Genesis 2 as though it were an illumination, a “more details on the sixth day” expansion, of Genesis 1 leads one inevitably into trying to reshape the literal statements to make them fit together. If Gen. 2, standing by itself, is not the literal sequential narrative that it appears to be, then why in the Name of All That’s Holy is it fitting that one demand that we read Gen. 1 as just that? \*\* Thanks for the response **Polycarp**. As always, I enjoyed reading your thoughts, and I do think I have a better understanding of where you’re coming from. I guess my personal opinion and personal belief concerning Genesis 1 and 2 is that Genesis 1 is a sequential narrative because it actually says _this_ happened on _this_ day. I just don’t see that same indication in Genesis 2, so I’ve never considered it a “sequential” narrative. And I think you can “literally” read the account in Genesis 2, as a matter of grammar, etc., without attaching a sequential narrative interpretation to it without being intellectually dishonest or anything. For example, if Genesis 2 started out with “On the Sixth day, when God created man, here is what happened in sequence…” then I think it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that Genesis 2 is not a sequential narrative. Even if it actually said “God created man. THEN, God created animals. THEN, God created birds. THEN, God created woman,” I’d agree that the only honest approach would be sequential. But I think the basic language used in Genesis 2 (with the understandable difficulties in translation over time, etc.) can be read, in an intellecutally honest manner and in a literal sense, as merely being a further explanation of certain parts of Genesis 1. I think the specific time demarcations in Genesis 1 are what makes it _have_ to be read as sequential, and the noticable lack of that in Genesis 2 is a big part of why I don’t read Genesis 2 in the same way. Does this mean I think you are wrong? OH on the contrary! It just means I think you have a well-reasoned opinion that I think is intellectually honest. I simply have a different opinion that I think (and I hope you would agree) is also possible and intellectually honest. ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/68 "2003-02-03T22:34:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Realhoops \* > \*\*Ok… to this point we have agreement. 🙂 > > Ahh… disagreement. 🙂 See, I don’t think it does say that “then he makes the animals”. > > Here’s my interpretation, based on my reading: > > God creates everything in the order, sequence, time periods, etc. as set forth in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2:18 God says, as you indicate, “I have to make a helper for Adam.” I don’t read Genesis 2:19 as indicating that God then proceeded to make animals to possibly be helpers for Adam, but rather, that the account is saying (and it starts out with “Now God had formed”) God had previously, ie. as set forth in Genesis 1, created animals. They were all brought forth to Adam to be named, but none of them were suitable to be helpers. It’s like Genesis 2:19 is explaining why, in 2:18 God says he has to _make_ a helper… it’s because no helper was found in the beasts that had been previously created. > > Perhaps this will help: > > God: It’s not right you being alone, Adam; I must make you a suitable helper. Now, I already made these animals, but among them there is no suitable helper. So I will put you to sleep and make you a companion from your rib. > > That’s my interpretation of the reading. Right or wrong, who knows. But that’s what the text has always meant to me and, for some reason, it’s always seemed very simple and plain that that’s what it means! Obviously other people read the same text and have other interpretations seem simple and plain to them. (like you and others in this thread, for example). > > Well, I don’t think anything around here is ever “quite un-ambiguous.” 🙂 The reason the quote doesn’t have to say I _have_ made a helper is because, as I have said above, I read it as God saying in 2:19 that the _reason_ he still has to make a suitable helper is because none was found amongst the animals he _already_ created. Thus, I don’t think there’s any part of 2:18 whatsoever that expresses any intention to create animals. I think 2:18 expresses an intention to create a “helper,” 2:19-20 expresses a reason that a _new_ creation is necessary (ie. when the animals were brought before Adam none was a suitable helper), and 2:21 expresses how God created Adam’s helper. I agree that in 2:18 God has _not_ already done so. > > And I think the “inconsistant” reading is a big stretch, at least in regards to the suggestion that 2:18-21 suggests animals being created between Adam and woman. But the civility is nice, and at least I think I can understand what it is you are trying to say. At least this doesn’t appear to be a debate where we’re both just saying “you’re wrong”, but hopefully understanding where the differing opinions are coming from. > > We may have to agree to disagree on this point and see where else this debate may take us. \*\* The problem with your version is that it seems all out of its proper order. 1. God expresses a desire to make a helper; 2. God parades various animals before Adam; 3. None are suitable (Whew! 😛 ); so 4. God makes a woman. If the statement in 2.18 was intended to mean, “I’m gonna make a helper, something I have not made yet”, surely it ought to come _after_ the parade of animals, not _before_! Otherwise, what is the point of the identity parade? The passage clearly implies that both God and Adam _thought_ one of the animals might be suitable - see 2.20. When he said “I’m gonna make Adam a helper”, he didn’t yet know an animal would not do - so why not say, “I’m gonna _find_ Adam a helper” instead? If animals had actually already been created, it should read like this: 1. God says “I will _find_ Adam a helper” 2. God parades already-created animals. None are suitable. 3. God says, “Oh-oh! Looks like some _new_ creation is necessary!” 4. God creates woman. The most logical reading of the text as it exists _without_ the above re-write is that God creates first the animals, and then, when that doesn’t work, he makes woman. For which we all ought to be grateful, I am sure … but which messes with the sequence in Genesis 1. Of course, being God, he may know the experiment with the animals will not work - but then, why did he bother? 😕 I myself don’t have any problem with this being inconsistant, because I think the stories were intended to convey moral points, not be an explanation for how stuff was actually created. ---
**Author:** ![Realhoops](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8dc957/32.png) [@Realhoops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Realhoops)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/69 "2003-02-03T22:39:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > It’s just that, for points #2 and #4 to not contradict, those two events must have happened on the same day, Genesis 1’s Day #6, on which day Genesis 1 says both male and female humans were created. \*\* Why is it a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to say that sometime on Day 6 Adam named the animals and there was no helper among them, so God created woman? Why is it “unlikely” from Genesis 2 that all this happened on one day? I guess I just haven’t seen anything from the text of Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 that indicates this is unlikely or could not have happened on the same day, or is contradictory. My point above was simply the question of whether the animals were created after Adam, and why I don’t think Genesis 2 has to be read to say that. (Unfortunately, I have to head out into the snowy wilderness of the streets and make my way home for the day. I likely won’t be back here 'til tomorrow, so know I’m not ignoring whatever response you might make in the interim.) ---
**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 3, 2003, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/70 "2003-02-03T22:42:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Why is it a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to say that sometime on Day 6 Adam named the animals and there was no helper among them, so God created woman? Why is it “unlikely” from Genesis 2 that all this happened on one day? Huh? _ **You** _ were the one who said: > [@](#): > > But there’s nothing anywhere in there to indicate to me that anything in Genesis 2 is to be considered to have been done in one day. ---
**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, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/71 "2003-02-03T22:45:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by photopat \* > \*\*Try this one. > > It really answers my question above. The two different texts appear to be reconciled by the introduction of Lilith, the first wife of Adam \*\* Very interesting! And pertinent to this debate - the “Lilith” story clearly shows that many have noticed the discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2 in the past. The answer: Lilith was the woman created in Genesis 1. Eve, the woman created in Genesis 2. There is still the little problem of having animals created after man though … Hmmmm. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Realhoops](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8dc957/32.png) [@Realhoops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Realhoops)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/72 "2003-02-04T03:23:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\*Huh? _ **You** _ were the one who said: \*\* My bad. I did not mean to say that at all. I meant to try to keep my discussion focused on the order in which the events of Genesis 2 were to have happened and whether anything in there necessarily contradicts with the account in Genesis 1. My apologies for that slip. ---
**Author:** ![Realhoops](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8dc957/32.png) [@Realhoops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Realhoops)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/73 "2003-02-04T03:33:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Malthus \* > > If the statement in 2.18 was intended to mean, “I’m gonna make a helper, something I have not made yet”, surely it ought to come _after_ the parade of animals, not _before_! Otherwise, what is the point of the identity parade? The passage clearly implies that both God and Adam _thought_ one of the animals might be suitable - see 2.20. When he said “I’m gonna make Adam a helper”, he didn’t yet know an animal would not do - so why not say, “I’m gonna _find_ Adam a helper” instead? If animals had actually already been created, it should read like this: > > 1. God says “I will _find_ Adam a helper” > > 2. God parades already-created animals. None are suitable. > > 3. God says, “Oh-oh! Looks like some _new_ creation is necessary!” > > 4. God creates woman. I certainly can’t argue with the fact that Genesis 2 could have been written as you have suggested. All am I trying to do is make the argument that as it is written it is not _necessarily_ inconsistent. The argument I am making is that there does not have to be just _one_ way to write the events in Genesis 2 to have them mean that the animals were created before Adam, not after. Although I am in a hurry right now, I’m sure you’d agree that there is all sorts of “great” literature that uses the methodology of stating a “conclusion” (I must make a helper), then indicating “why” (I paraded these animals and none were suitable), then going into more detail of how the conclusion was carried out. I teach a legal writing course at a local law school, for example, and that is substantially similar to how we teach young lawyers to write: State your position/conclusion first; then demonstrate how or why you reached that conclusion. I in no way am trying to suggest your reading is necessarily wrong or that the text could not have been written as you suggested to also convey the meaning I have attached to the text. My only goal is to demonstrate that, as written, it is not _necessarily_ inconsistent. > [@](#): > > The most logical reading of the text as it exists _without_ the above re-write is that God creates first the animals, and then, when that doesn’t work, he makes woman. For which we all ought to be grateful, I am sure … but which messes with the sequence in Genesis 1. Again, we can agree that we (or men, anyway) are grateful that he made women! 🙂 Anyway, I’m not sure I have much more to add to this discussion. I think I’ve said about all I can along the lines of trying to demonstrate why Genesis 2 _could_ be read as consistent with Genesis 1, based on a plain reading and ordinary grammar/writing techniques. Not the only way it can be read, to be sure, but merely in an attempt to suggest that while you can make the case that the two stories are inconsistent, they are not _necessarily_ so. I’ve enjoyed the civility in this thread and I’ve enjoyed kicking these ideas around with you. If I have anything else meaningful to add, I’ll be back! ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/74 "2003-02-04T03:57:08Z")
**Realhoops** , What do you make of the fact that the seeming contradictions between the two stories also coincide with a corresponding change in narrative style and dialect? What if you were reading a text which contained a story in say, Chaucerian English which was immediately followed by a very similar story in Shakespearian English? Would you assume that the author simply changed styles and eras on a whim, or would you guess that it might be two different versions of the same story from different eras? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/75 "2003-02-04T03:57:43Z")
**Realhoops** , to respond to your previous comment to me, I certainly can and do respect your position. But a _literal_ reading of Genesis 2 makes it _appear_ to be a chronological narrative, and my contention is that one cannot on the one hand insist on chronological specificity for Genesis 1 and the _toledot’_ linkages between that and the Noah and Abraham accounts and on the other reject it in a portion of the continuing story of God’s relationship with Adam and Eve that seems to be written in chronological sequence in order to make it jibe with the previous chapter. Certainly what you propose is a valid possible reading – but it’s not a _literal_ reading, which I was given to understand was what conservative evangelicals generally insist on, in the absence of definite indication of poetic license being taken in a given passage. (Personally, I think that “definite indication” saturates the _style_ of the first chapter, but that’s me.) In other words, while the two stories can be made consistent by a reading of Gen. 2 as non-chronological but amplifying Gen. 1, that’s a violation of the rules by which Gen. 1 is insisted on as accurate reportage. And it’s my contention that one cannot have it both ways. Either the early chapters of Genesis are a literal chronological account with internal contradictions, or they’re not. Don’t change the rules for interpretation on us at chapter breaks. I hope that doesn’t sound too belligerent – but I trust you see my point in it! (And you are most enjoyable to exchange views with, sir!) ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/76 "2003-02-04T05:52:43Z")
As big of a waste of time as it is reading let alone contributing to this thread, I honestly can’t help myself. Anyway, how do the christians reconcile the god’s creation of the fowl in the two creation stories. Out of the waters? Gen 1: 20-21 “And God said, Let the _waters_ bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 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.” or out of the earth? Gen 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 sure they will worm their way out of it somehow. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/77 "2003-02-04T06:41:44Z")
In case it wasn’t clear from your reading of the thread, **chad** , some of “the Christians” don’t try to “reconcile” the two varying accounts of God’s creation of fowl, but take it as a given that the stories are non-literal mythical accounts of how a very real God operated in Creation. That said, because I love a challenge, consider Genesis 1:20 in several translations: > [@](#): > > God said, “et the waters teem with living creatures, and let firds fly above the earth within the vault of heaven.” And so it was." (Jerusalem Bible) > > "And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.” (New Revised Standard Version) > > Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” (New American Standard Version) > > And God said, “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” (Third Millennium Bible) > > Then God commanded, “Let the water be filled with many kinds of living beings, and let the air be filled with birds.” (Good News Translation) > > And God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” (New Living Translation) > > And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. (King James Version) > > Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” (New King James Version) > > Then God said, “Let the water be filled with living things, and let birds fly in the air above the earth.” (New Century Version) > > God also said: let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven. (Douay-Rheims Version) > > And God saith, `Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ (Young’s Literal Translation) It would seem that only the seventeenth century translations and the (to me rather bizarre) Third Millennium Bible hold with the idea that the waters are supposed to be bringing forth the birds in the Genesis 1 account. ---
**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 4, 2003, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/78 "2003-02-04T08:41:08Z")
Realhoops’ interpretation hasn’t found a lot of acceptance in this thread, but for what it’s worth it strikes me as entirely natural and plausible. I’m inclined to believe that what we have here is not two myths badly mated, but rather (what is intended to be) one account of creation presented from two angles, and by two “speakers.” First, the 6-day structure is set forth; then, without regard to specific days, we have an amplification of the drama surrounding G-d’s providing Adam with a mate. Looks to me like we have this sequence: 1. Day Three: vegetation created on Earth. 2. Day Five: animals created. 3. Day Six: Adam created. He is set down in the Garden, which is created on that day for him to till. Verse 19: “So Yaveh formed…” I take as “And Lo! Yahveh having formed…” (reminding us where the animals came from). Adam names the animals, and is SHOWN (it’s a lesson) that nothing in existence truly corresponds to him (beginning of prohibition against bestiality?). So, it getting close to suppertime, God makes a quasi-clone from Adam, varying some chromosomes to create–Woman! Makes sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![Realhoops](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8dc957/32.png) [@Realhoops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Realhoops)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/79 "2003-02-04T16:30:22Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Diogenes_ > Realhoops, > What do you make of the fact that the seeming contradictions between the two stories also coincide with a corresponding change in narrative style and dialect? –and– > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > In other words, while the two stories can be made consistent by a reading of Gen. 2 as non-chronological but amplifying Gen. 1, that’s a violation of the rules by which Gen. 1 is insisted on as accurate reportage. And it’s my contention that one cannot have it both ways. Either the early chapters of Genesis are a literal chronological account with internal contradictions, or they’re not. Don’t change the rules for interpretation on us at chapter breaks. I can certainly understand the notion that there are stylistic differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (and much of the rest of Genesis, for that matter). I don’t necessarily attribute that to different authors, however, but rather just to the different purposes of different parts of Genesis. I am not a bible scholar (IANABS?), and never attended parochial grade school or high school or anything like that. I actually didn’t really become a Christian until the last 10 years or so. I did not grow up going to church or studying any of this. So my understanding of the Bible comes from my own reading of the Bible and my own studies of what the Bible might mean. I have always considered Genesis to be written by Moses, not by a number of authors. Although I can see what both of you mean by the “stylistic” differences between Genesis 1 and most of Genesis 2, I have never attributed that to different authors. Rather, my belief has always been that Genesis 1 is basically like an introduction to the various stories that are told throughout the rest of Genesis. I have always believed that Genesis could be broken into many sections, each of which begins with a phrase similar to “This is the account of…” So the first “section” begins with Genesis 2:4 and provides the story of what happened to God’s creation, including the introduction of sin. I don’t know exactly what “rules by which Gen. 1 is insisted on as accurate reportage” you mean. All I have been trying to make a case for in this thread is the idea that you can read Genesis 1 and it provides a chronology of the creation; it provides you with an order in which things happened, as evidenced by the references to specific days. Beginning in Genesis 2 and for the rest of the Genesis we are given stories (or “accounts”) about various histories. The only “rule” by which I would argue that Genesis 1 provides a chronological ordering is the fact that it specifically refers to events occurring on specific days. That is not true at all in Genesis 2:4 et seq., so I don’t see any changing of the rules, so to speak. The only “rule” I am trying to follow is to consider how the words can be read, giving them their plain literal meaning. I simply believe that you can read the events of Genesis 2, giving the terms their plain literal meaning, without considering it a chronological accounting; you cannot read the events of Genesis 1, giving the terms their plain literal meaning, without considering it a chronological accounting. I think I am following the same “rule” for both books, not changing the rules at chapter breaks (and incidentally, I think the relevant breaking point is more Genesis 2:4, where the “account” language comes up). > [@](#): > > I hope that doesn’t sound too belligerent – but I trust you see my point in it! (And you are most enjoyable to exchange views with, sir!) Thanks! I feel the same way. It’s a pleasure to make both of your acquaintances here. Also, thanks for the support **Scott**! I don’t imagine that many of us are going to have our minds changed by this debate. My intent on posting to this thread was really just to respond to the OP’s contention that the two accounts are “by no means compatible.” Heck, I don’t even really count myself as a “biblical literalist” in all instances; I just think that a literal reading of these two “stories” can be done in a “compatible” fashion. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177/80 "2003-02-04T16:37:25Z")
This debate has been altogether too scholarly and gentlemanly! I demand this politeness cease at one! 😛 “Everyone who disagrees with me is a do-do head”. MUCH better. 😃 THAT will surely convince everyone … [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-creation-two-creation-stories-in-the-bible/152177.md?page=5)