Is Gen. 2 a Recap?

Faith & Science Conversation
22

@johnZ

You’re probably correct on the discrepancy of the creation of plants. Genesis 2 is more so focusing on plants that need to be tilled with the help of man: more of the agricultural variety.

However there is a very clear difference in the creation of animals and man in both accounts. Genesis 1 has birds created, then cattle and beasts of the earth, then man and woman simultanteosuly. Genesis 2 has man, all other animals, then at last Eve.

You point to the NASB version that says “had formed”, while in the King James says “formed”. I think NASB is grammatically incorrect in this case because of what proceeds the creation of animals. Genesis 2 says “I WILL make…”. This implies that God is about to create something… Not import already existing animals in front of him.

-Tim

23

I think it is ambiguous. NIV agrees with NASB in this case, and the King James has formed (indefinite past tense). Genesis 1 gives more of a chronology, while Genesis gives more of a process, including the creation of woman, who would have been created on the sixth day “male and female he created them”. So certainly the animals were created the same day as man, and birds only the day before. Genesis 2 is built within the context of Genesis 1, and knowing that helps to understand the intent of Genesis 2.

When God says: “I will make” he is referring to making a helper, not the animals, who would not be a helper for Adam. He had already made the animals, so obviously this refers to making Eve, who is shown to be the best and only helper, since none of the animals would be found suitable.

24

@johnZ

This explanation seems kinda forced to me. I read in Genesis 2 it says “I will make a helper for him”… and then it shows God creating animals for him of all kinds, and God says in his mind, “No, none of these are quite right.” Then he puts Adam under a deep sleep and surprised him with a woman, that is suitable for him. The language of the passage doesn’t make sense to say “I will make” and then God brings animals to him that have already been created… and then creates a woman. Why not say “I will find a helper for him”… and then as Adam looks through the garden and the animals, he finally finds the right one suitable for him… a woman? The inclusion of a description of animals between the verse that say “I will make a helper for him” and “but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.” is debatable as well. If God did not “create them right then”, but actually just showed Adam animals that already existed, why not simply write “I will make a helper for him, so God put him under a deep and sleep and created Eve.”…?

The interpretation of “had formed” rather than “formed” is in a better agreement with what we read in Genesis 1 (chronology wise), but it is not in agreement with the grammar of the particular passage in question, nor the language. If one were to read the creation of Adam>animals>Eve, having no knowledge of Genesis 1, no one would come to the conclusion that it’s talking about pre-existing animals, being brought under Adam’s view.

I agree that the Man, Woman, and Animals (excluding birds) were created on the same Day. Just that the particular details of whether it was Birds>Land Animals>Man&Woman or it was Man>Land Animals and Birds>Eve, is not the same in both accounts.

-Tim

25

As I said, some versions indicate that God “had made” the animals, which he then brought to Adam before creating Eve. That seems sensible to me in the context.

27

@Eddie

Well stated. One of the reasons why I think the chronological order (if it were of primary importance to the biblical author) would be less ambiguously worded in Genesis 2, is based on what I read in other passages.

Genesis 26:1 says “And there was a famine in the land beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham” <<< this is so one doesn’t get confused and think that we are talking about the famine that occurred in Genesis 12 before Isaac was born.

And again in 1st Samuel 18:10 it says “And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand (played his harp), as at other times…” <<< this is to let you know that this wasn’t the first time David played the harp for Saul… That happened in 1st Samuel 16.

It seems to me that the biblical author could easily have wrote something like: “And God brought forth all the animals that he had previously made to Adam” or “And God created all the animals, a second time, and brought them to Adam.”… But we don’t see this happening in Genesis 2, so it makes me wonder how important the chronological-harmonization was to that author.

-Tim

29

Well, it seems to me this is self-defeating. While you might suggest this means that no real past perfect can exist, it would seem that a past perfect interpretation could not be forbidden. Thus it is impossible say that such an interpretation is strained; there is no discernible criteria for saying so.

31

You have given a long explanation of your position. But I say, when it doubt, use the context. Genesis 1 provides the context. Any other explanation is contrived, and without context, or in direct violation of the context. This is not based on some previous doctrine, but on the context. Scripture should interpret scripture.

33

@Eddie
@johnZ

Like Eddie has stated, it seems like Moses, if he wanted to make the historical-chronological order of primary importance, he could have expressed it in an abundantly less ambiguous way. My prime examples are Genesis 26:1 and 1st Samuel 18:10, where the biblical author goes out of his way to clarify a chronological discrepancy between two events.

JohnZ you wrote, “Scripture should interpret Scripture.”

I think some prime examples of “scripture interpreting scripture” are in the animals listed in Noah’s Ark. The text says seven pairs of clean animals, and one pair of clean animals, are to be on the ark. The only reason we know what “clean” and “unclean” animals mean, is because of other books such as Exodus and Leviticus.

This helps us clarify the meaning, where previously we’d be in the dark.

Another example is in Genesis 6 where it talks about the “sons of God” procreating with the “daughters of men”. Were lucky that in other books the “sons of God” are much more clearly defined… Such as the book of Job.

This also helps bring clarity to an ambiguous passage.

With Genesis 2 it’s not the same situation. Genesis 2 would make perfect sense without Genesis 1 (and vica-versa). You spoke earlier about it being obvious that the translation should be “had formed” because we know they were already created in Genesis 1. However, who says that the book of Genesis has to be read in this fashion? One could just as easily read Genesis 2-3 before Genesis 1 and it would not be incoherent. Just like one can read about the calling of Abraham in Genesis 12 without reading the previous 11 chapters to make coherent sense.

It arguably makes more sense to have things written the way they already are (Genesis 1 appearing before Genesis 2-3), but it’s not as so one will be scratching their heads in confusion, if these sections aren’t read “in order”… Like reading a Sherlock Holmes mystery — you don’t need to read them in chronological order to understand the individual mystery in each tale.

Let me put it like this. Suppose an author were to write a biography of my dad’s life. How it was like for him growing up, and where he went to school, how he eventually moved out, got married, had kids (the fourth kid being me), etc. Suppose that same author were to write another biography, but instead it was based off of me instead. How it was like for me growing up, how I dealt with problems etc… And after the author completes both biographies he wants to take it a step further and compile both biographies in a book. Which biography would he put it in first: mine or my father’s? It depends on what the author wants to express and his overall message. Maybe he wants a more “linear” feel, and show how things were radically different in my dad’s day, without cellphones, internet, youtube etc. Or maybe he wants to put my biography first, so towards the end of a book you get a sense of nostalgia: how it was in the old days, when things were simpler, and people didn’t get as distracted as easily.

In any case, you can read either document, in either order without conflict … I suggest one can do the same with Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Some early Jewish people made a different connection and thought the people in Genesis 1 are not the same people (Adam and Eve) in Genesis 2 — if animals were obviously made prior to man in Genesis 1, one can also make the conclusion that since “male and female” are already created in Genesis 1, then Adam & Eve in Genesis 2 are not the same people. This started the Jewish folklore of “Lilith” — the unnamed woman in the first chapter of Genesis.

Not saying that Lilith is real or anything… Just that stories emerged from this conflict.

-Tim

34

It’s okay… I was not criticizing your long (but not so long) explanation, merely contrasting it with my point about context. I think my motive, rather don’t call it motive but just reasoning, is that context provides the understanding. I agree that translation ought not necessarily to interpolate if the the word is ambiguous, but whether the understanding is directed to the translation or to the commentary on the translation (compare various translations…) the point is the same. The context helps to understand which meaning of the word is most likely. It’s not because of “my need”, but because of the context itself.

Often people try to maintain that scripture has inconsistencies, merely because they seem to have a need to prove that scripture is not reliable. For example, the stories of the resurrection in the various gospels is often cited as being contradictory, and therefore the resurrection likely made up. However, when scholars look at these gospels more closely, they realize that all of the events in the various gospels are possible, that the sequence makes sense, and the locations are intelligible. This is not “straining”, but is good logistical thinking. Even if there were contradictions, it would not prove that the resurrection did not happen, but since these seeming contradictions can be reconciled, there is no reason to continue to harp on contradictions that do not really exist. I feel this also applies in the case of Genesis 1 and 2. The supposed contradictions are contrived, and are not required by the text. So there are not many things in Genesis 2 which do not harmonize. Of course these are two distinct accounts, but not contradictory accounts.

This alone demonstrates that the study of the literature does not conclusively prove contradictory accounts, since there is not agreement apparently on which of the two chapters is which, and this reduces the validity of concluding the contradiction. Your own explanation of the past perfect tense of the word provides a good example, showing that a particular tense is not conclusively demonstrated, but that both are possible, which demonstrates that there is no contradiction on this point.

35

Perhaps the order could have been less ambiguous… but I do not find it particularly ambiguous in the context. I could argue the same, that if the chronology was different than stated, why would it have been so difficult to make it clear. ie., if man was created from animals rather than from dust, how easy it would have been to say so, with no less incredulity.

But scripture is written the way it is. In some cases and places more clear and obvious than others.

Of course, we can often begin to read the bible at any point. However, Genesis 1 and 2 make best sense in the order they exist, because they go from the more general to the specific. First God dealing with the larger creation; then God dealing with his special relationship with man and woman within that creation. But, even if reversed, as we sometimes find in a novel where a dramatic situation is described before the context is provided, we would still understand what part provides the context for which other part.

37

@johnZ

Hey John.

It’s obvious that we are not going to see eye to eye on this topic, and it has much less to do with a supposed biblical discrepancy concerning chronology, than it has to do with how one reads the Bible in it’s entirety.

For those that believe in general evolutionary theory and/or common descent (whether in the unpredictable completely random sense, or the god-guided sense) do not see Genesis 2-3 as talking about a “how” of creation, but a “why” of creation. So saying it would have been easy to say God created man from animals instead of made from dust, is to miss the point of what the message was… Concerning, of course, your particular viewpoint. This has to do with other ideas, such as the doctrine of accommodation and in some cases progressive revelation. It also has to do with more recent ideas of Genesis 1 written as polemic against the Babylonian creation story of Enuma Elish.

Let’s give an example. Did Adam name every single type of animal, in a 24-hour period, because it was prevalent for him to do so, in that allotted time, given his almost thousand-year lifespan? Or what is it because it’s an exercise (or an example if you will), of man’s dominion over the lower creatures. In the similar sense that God exercises his dominion over all of creation by giving names to light, darkness, earth and seas in Genesis 1 (and even the names of stars in other Biblical books), Man names the lower creatures in Genesis 2?

Did God create Eve out of Adam’s rib (or side?), have him go into a deep sleep, and recover from the wound, because it was the only way to do get it done? Or is it to reflect Adam’s comment of “this is now bones of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”…?

I agree that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 are complimentary. The same God that created the universe, humbles himself, and zooms in on a more intimate view of God that communicates with people personally. I don’t think that it follows that complimentary means that the chronology has to 100% agree with each other. In 1st Samuel 16 and 17, it says that David is the youngest of 8 sons. But in 1st Chronicles chapter 2, it says David is the seventh, and the eighth son isn’t even mentioned. We can look at this as contrary information (one account is wrong and the other is right). Or we could say that maybe something else is going on. Maybe the account in 1st Samuel is expressing more down-to-earth history and the account in 1st Chronicles is attaching David to the number 7 to glorify him — after all the number 7 is God’s number and David is uniquely called “a man after God’s own heart”. I believe it’s more fruitful to try and understand the authors intent instead of “pitting the two accounts against each other” and make them fulfill a role that (maybe) they weren’t meant to fulfill.

This might be a tired example, but I still think it’s relevant. God could have done a lot of things to make things clearer. He could have corrected the bible author’s view on cosmology, and said that the earth is not set on pillars, nor is it stationary. It would have been easy to do (if we are to believe in the heliocentric model and not count it as heresy). God could have told the children of Israel that those other “gods” were simply imaginary and he was the only one (see Exodus 20), but it apparently takes the Hebrews a long time to understand this idea, and in later books such as Isaiah, he starts calling God the only one, with no one beside him. God could have told the people how bones grow inside the womb (Ecclesiastes 11:5) instead of leaving them in darkness. God could have given us an entire library, telling us point-by-point, of the precise details of creation, instead of just roughly 200 Hebrew words… But doing so would have quickly lost it’s spiritual significance, and probably wouldn’t be understood anyway, to the general audience.

Many people seem to make the black-and-white distinction that Adam was formed from the dust of the ground, like a potter molding clay, and everyone else (Adam’s descendants) were formed in their mother’s womb. I have a hard time understanding this clear cut distinction. In the book of Isaiah, chapter 45, verses 9-10 it says this:

“Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioned it say, What makest thou? Or thy work, He hath no hands? Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What beggest thou? Or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?”

When I read this passage I can’t help but be reminded of how Adam was formed of the dust of the ground, like clay, and I think Isaiah had this passage in mind when he was writing it. Yet he’s applying this analogy to all of mankind (Shall clay say to him that fashioned it (the potter), You made me not?). It brings to mind other philosophical questions. Did God make each person directly? Or did our parents create us? Or perhaps all three parties are involved (God, mother and father)…? Maybe God gives everyone of us a “creative aspect” when He said, Be fruitful and multiply.

I don’t mind continuing this conversation simply because I enjoy dialogue… But like Eddie has alluded too, it seems halfway fruitless, as neither one of us will easily budge from our general understanding of Scripture (I suppose I did as I used to hold to a very literal-historical understanding of the Bible) … I don’t think it’s particularly “fruitful” in the sense that we all conform to a specific particular view, for the mere sake of unity (what if that particular viewpoint, of which we all adhere too, was the wrong one?). I think one can make some headway by finding out that which we agree on, instead of highlighting our differences, that does little to enlighten the rest of the world (in this sense, the non-believing world). Sometimes I wonder what this internal bickering might look like to those that don’t believe in Christianity at all.

Just some thoughts…

Peace my friend…

-Tim

38

I agree Isaiah had this in mind. And the validity of it is increased because of its assumed reliability. The analogy transfers to us, because we are the same as Adam, descendants of Adam, and thus the original creation of Adam applies to us as well. And yes, God told us to be fruitful and multiply. How do we know this? because scripture is reliable.

Peace to you also! :slight_smile:

39

@johnZ

So are you saying that we are all made of clay (like Isaiah implies) or that only Adam was made out of clay, and the rest of us are formed in our mother’s womb? I don’t see that it follows that simply being a descendant of Adam (who was made of clay) means that we are all made of clay (in the literal sense of a potter at a potter’s wheel).

Clay pots don’t procreate with other clay pots.

Are we all like Adam because we are formed out of clay? Are we all like Adam because we at point in our lives, fall away from God, and chose our own path?

I don’t feel that my question was really answered … Isaiah doesn’t seem to put a sharp distinction between Adam and the rest of us, and how we were formed. He does make the connection, however, that we are all created for a purpose in mind. Whether or not common descent is true you are simply not going to find it in the Bible. That was my point. Nor are you going to find a single verse that says that the earth orbits the sun.

But you are going to find that we are all made in the image of God (this image isn’t conclusive to Adam, but it applies to everyone… see Genesis 9). I think you’re making the distinction that because common descent is not in the Bible, then it therefore means, common descent cannot be true. But you don’t seem to apply that same train of thought to a heliocentric model of the universe? Why aren’t orange trees, penguins, or dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? Why aren’t any of the other planets: Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Venus etc., not mentioned in the Bible?

I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression, but I don’t think anything I’ve said implied that I thought that Scripture was unreliable. Like John Lennox says, the Bible is true but it can be misinterpreted. We are fallible people interpreting an infallible book, and a fallible people interpreting an infallible creation.

Everything Isaiah says, concerning being made of clay from our creator (the potter) can just as easily apply to an Adam that’s formed directly out of clay versus an Adam that’s formed out of a metaphorical clay. The spirit of the law says that we were created and designed for a purpose. Like Eddie says, I don’t think that “common descent” is the enemy here… but a random, unpredictable, purpose-less view of creation is what’s the enemy.

I’m not going to argue for common descent simply because it doesn’t affect me whether or not it’s true — Scripture says we are made in the image of God, and that we have a purpose, whether or not we know the exact “ins and outs” of God’s plan for us…

-Tim

40

timothy, you are wandering a bit in your comments, so I am wondering what to respond to… can’t take on everything. Just this then, Isaiah was using an allusion to Genesis to explain that compared to God, we are all clay. We are the created, not the creator. Isaiah does not make a sharp distinction, but he is also not telling a story of how anything happened. Nor would I use Isaiah’s comment in this discussion, either one way or the other.

We are like Adam because we are human. Humans were originally formed out of clay apparently, and we still “return to dust”. Metaphorical clay? Metaphorical common descent?

I do not claim that common descent cannot be true because it is not in the bible. I maintain that scripture specifically teaches something contrary to it, in a detailed way. The bible does not contradict a heliocentric view of the universe, nor does it state that the world cannot be round instead of flat… it uses language we still use today, because from our perspective, even though we know better, we see a sunrise and a sunset. This does not correspond to the story of Genesis, where our perspective is formed soley by what is written, since we cannot see what happened.

1 Like
41

@johnZ

Perhaps metaphorical was the wrong terminology. In Psalms 103:14-16 it says “For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust. As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more.” … we do use terminology today that we “return to dust”, in the literal sense. We decay, and we decompose. I don’t think anyone really denies that we are made of an earthy substance.

So you’re correct. I should not have said “metaphorical clay”, but what I should have said was “metaphorical process of forming man from a lump of clay in a matter of mere moments”. When I read Jonathan Sarfati’s book Refuting Evolution Part 2, he often used the phrase “goo-to-you” in a derogatory manner. But this seems to ignore the “mud-to-you” situation that we find in the Bible. We are all made of dust. And we were are all, at one point in our lives, no more than a couple cells. The passage in Isaiah and in Genesis 2 is talking about purpose and design as opposed to no purpose and no design (and perhaps as opposed to Enuma Elish that claims humans were created from the blood of demon gods). It’s talking about frailty of life and how we, as humans, consciencely make a decision to follow god or to follow our own path. To say that we are literally made out of clay, in the sense that God formed us in a few seconds, doesn’t seem to be the focus of the passage, in my opinion, but are just elements used to express a truth.

Perhaps I’ll get some flack for saying this, but even when I read the Bible in a literal-historical fashion, I had trouble understanding the doctrine of original sin. That our sinful nature was all biologically inherited because of what Adam and Eve did. But this seemed to put the blame on somebody else, far and away, instead of on ourselves. When I read Genesis 2-3 I feel as though I’m reading about me. I feel as though we are “fallen” because we consciously make ourselves fallen, by the actions we take… Not because someone flipped over the dominoes long ago.

You read it as if it explains how humans came to be. While I read it as if it explains what it means to be human, and the consequence of our actions, and god’s grace when we mess up. For examples, God’s coat of skins for Adam and Eve, and the Mark he puts on Cain.

It has both “fable-allegorical like elements” such as the two trees, the talking snake, the garden of delight, etc., while it also has “historical like elements” … Mainly in Genesis 5 where it talks about ages when they begat children, how long they lived, etc… For anyone that reads the Old Testament or Matthew and Luke’s genealogy, you’ll see that the Hebrew people are quite infatuated with genealogies — whole chapters dedicated to nothing but begetting.

I don’t find it unreasonable to make the conclusion that it’s a way in which Hebrew people connected with the past, and a way in which they could express their place (and our place) in the world. It seems strange to me that Adam lived to be 930 and yet all we know about him is one event that happens in 2 chapters (which either took up one 24-hour day or a few years, depending on your outlook). In either case 99.99% of his life is completely unknown to us… Why aren’t their more stories about other things he did? Don’t you find it odd that 2,000+ years of history is rather condensed into only 11 chapters?

I didn’t write the Bible, but I can’t help but feel that the information is lacking, in some shape or form.

-Tim