Problem of Genesis 1&2

[rjs310]

I have had a number of debates with folks claiming that the creation account between Genesis 1&2 are different z this showing that Genesis can't be judge's as an historical account of creation.  I have answers for them, but before I share I was wondering about your thoughts on the subject.  

[Guest]

Genesis Chapter One is GOD's point of view; Genesis Chapter 2 is from Adam's point of view. I doubt if you will be able to convince them of this as people who don't want to believe that the Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is GOD's Word will never be convinced until they are driven to Repentance by the Holy Spirit.

[missmuffet]

5 hours ago, rjs310 said:

I have had a number of debates with folks claiming that the creation account between Genesis 1&2 are different z this showing that Genesis can't be judge's as an historical account of creation.  I have answers for them, but before I share I was wondering about your thoughts on the subject.  

This is not my opinion but my view.

Question: "Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2?"

Answer: Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.

In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.

There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “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.” So, which is it? Did God create vegetation on the third day before He created man (Genesis 1), or after He created man (Genesis 2)? The Hebrew words for “vegetation” are different in the two passages. Genesis 1:11 uses a term that refers to vegetation in general. Genesis 2:5 uses a more specific term that refers to vegetation that requires agriculture, i.e., a person to tend it, a gardener. The passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation, and Genesis 2:5 speaks of God not causing “farmable” vegetation to grow until after He created man.

The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.

By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.

https://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html

[Enoch2021]

7 hours ago, rjs310 said:

I have had a number of debates with folks claiming that the creation account between Genesis 1&2 are different z this showing that Genesis can't be judge's as an historical account of creation.    

They're not,

Genesis Chapter 2 is the 6th day drill down; Headline then Details motif.

There are no contradictions, 1 account is what happened specifically "IN" The Garden, the others... "Outside" The Garden.

Hope it helps

[rjs310]

7 hours ago, missmuffet said:

This is not my opinion but my view.

Question: "Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2?"

Answer: Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.

In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.

There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “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.” So, which is it? Did God create vegetation on the third day before He created man (Genesis 1), or after He created man (Genesis 2)? The Hebrew words for “vegetation” are different in the two passages. Genesis 1:11 uses a term that refers to vegetation in general. Genesis 2:5 uses a more specific term that refers to vegetation that requires agriculture, i.e., a person to tend it, a gardener. The passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation, and Genesis 2:5 speaks of God not causing “farmable” vegetation to grow until after He created man.

The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.

By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.

https://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html

Well it appears that you stole my thunder! :-)

That's ok.  I am glad you are spending time with this.  The reason this is important and you don't see it here as much but people, including Christians do not believe in the history of Genesis and follow all the teachings of those who question Genesis as historical.  They love to toss out the "contradictions" as evidence and use ANE and even early church fathers as evidence that Genesis should not be taken literally.  I've held huge and lengthy debates with these people.  So it's good to see you on your toes with this.  

They love to use ANE as evidence because they want to show how Genesis fits within the literature of the times and how the language used fits with the language of other ANE.  

But don't let them sway you.  

[missmuffet]

2 minutes ago, rjs310 said:

Well it appears that you stole my thunder! :-)

That's ok.  I am glad you are spending time with this.  The reason this is important and you don't see it here as much but people, including Christians do not believe in the history of Genesis and follow all the teachings of those who question Genesis as historical.  They love to toss out the "contradictions" as evidence and use ANE and even early church fathers as evidence that Genesis should not be taken literally.  I've held huge and lengthy debates with these people.  So it's good to see you on your toes with this.  

They love to use ANE as evidence because they want to show how Genesis fits within the literature of the times and how the language used fits with the language of other ANE.  

But don't let them sway you.  

It is a good study site

[enoob57]

I believe the reiteration of the creation account also is because Lucifer has fallen and now exists evil in God's creation... we know in creation week on 7th day of rest all that God had made and angles fit into that  was sanctioned by God as good...very good! Thus now God place a tree of the knowledge of good and evil along with the tree of life in the midst of the Garden...

[Leonardo Von]

On 5/2/2017 at 11:04 AM, rjs310 said:

I have had a number of debates with folks claiming that the creation account between Genesis 1&2 are different z this showing that Genesis can't be judge's as an historical account of creation.  I have answers for them, but before I share I was wondering about your thoughts on the subject.  

Genesis 1 relates the creation (Gen 1:1) and recreation of the Earth (Gen 1:2-2:1).

Genesis 2 describes with more details the creation of the man and woman.

[Guest]

Genesis 1:1   "In the beginning God . . . ." These first four words of the Bible form the foundation for faith. Believe these words, and you can believe all that follows in the Bible. Genesis provides the only authoritative account of creation, meaningful for people of all ages but exhaustible by no one. The divine record assumes the existence of God rather than seeking to prove it. The Bible has a special name for those who choose to deny the fact of God. That name is fool (Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1). Just as the Bible begins with God, so He should be first in our lives.

Genesis 1:2   One of several conservative interpretations of the Genesis account of creation, the creation-reconstruction view, says that between verses 1 and 2 a great catastrophe occurred, perhaps the fall of Satan (see Ezekiel 28:11-19). This caused God's original, perfect creation to become without form and void (t–hû wãv–hû). Since God didn't create the earth waste and empty (see Isa_45:18), only a mighty cataclysm could explain the chaotic condition of verse 2. Proponents of this view point out that the word translated was (hãyethã) could also be translated "had become." Thus the earth "had become waste and empty."
The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters, preparatory to the great creative and reconstructive acts to follow. The remaining verses describe the six days of creation and reconstruction which prepared the earth for human habitat.  [Believers' Bible Commentary]

By seeing the time gap as clearly written in the Bible, a person like myself can believe in science and the inerrancy of Holy Scriptures.  I am an Old Earth Creationist (OEC), while still seeing six days of creation as started in Genesis 1:3.

[enoob57]

5 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Genesis 1:1   "In the beginning God . . . ." These first four words of the Bible form the foundation for faith. Believe these words, and you can believe all that follows in the Bible. Genesis provides the only authoritative account of creation, meaningful for people of all ages but exhaustible by no one. The divine record assumes the existence of God rather than seeking to prove it. The Bible has a special name for those who choose to deny the fact of God. That name is fool (Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1). Just as the Bible begins with God, so He should be first in our lives.

Genesis 1:2   One of several conservative interpretations of the Genesis account of creation, the creation-reconstruction view, says that between verses 1 and 2 a great catastrophe occurred, perhaps the fall of Satan (see Ezekiel 28:11-19). This caused God's original, perfect creation to become without form and void (t–hû wãv–hû). Since God didn't create the earth waste and empty (see Isa_45:18), only a mighty cataclysm could explain the chaotic condition of verse 2. Proponents of this view point out that the word translated was (hãyethã) could also be translated "had become." Thus the earth "had become waste and empty."
The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters, preparatory to the great creative and reconstructive acts to follow. The remaining verses describe the six days of creation and reconstruction which prepared the earth for human habitat.  [Believers' Bible Commentary]

By seeing the time gap as clearly written in the Bible, a person like myself can believe in science and the inerrancy of Holy Scriptures.  I am an Old Earth Creationist (OEC), while still seeing six days of creation as started in Genesis 1:3.

Yes and you have added the complication of God sanctifying sin and death....