Genesis 1 & 2

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The chronologies given in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 for the order the events of creation contradict each other if taken literally.

Genesis 1:
Plants are growing before either animals or man are around (third day).
Animals come next and multiply before the coming of man, which implies that gender existed before man did (fifth and sixth days).
Man is the last creature created but with no precedence given to male or female (sixth day).

Genesis 2:
Man is created before any plant has started growing.
The plants begin to grow once man is placed in Eden.
Animals are created next in an effort to forge a suitable helper for him, but are found wanting, so woman is created from man.

(The text in Genesis 2 is ambiguous as to whether the plants were created before or after man was created, but is clear that they did not grow before the creation of man.)

[The Mikado]

This is one of the arguments usually advanced by supporters of Documentary Hypothesis: that chapter 1 was written by the more theologically complex P, while chapter 2 is an earlier story by J and features a much more anthropomorphic God: rather than the God that is so in-command that he can set the universe into motion just by speaking, you get a God that literally chases Adam and Eve around the Garden looking for them.

That's not to say that the two stories can't be made to agree: simply saying that 1 is a more zoomed out account that elides a lot of details provided in 2 goes a long way to making the accounts agree.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The chronologies given in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 for the order the events of creation contradict each other if taken literally.

Genesis 1:
Plants are growing before either animals or man are around (third day).
Animals come next and multiply before the coming of man, which implies that gender existed before man did (fifth and sixth days).
Man is the last creature created but with no precedence given to male or female (sixth day).

k...

---

Genesis 2:
Man is created before any plant has started growing.

Actually, that is not what is stated.  Rather it simply states that no plant life started before God watered the ground with the mist.  After that point, it goes into the creation of man.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

---

The plants begin to grow once man is placed in Eden.

Yeah, but the context of verse 9 is the plants WITHIN the GARDEN of Eden:

9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

---

Animals are created next in an effort to forge a suitable helper for him, but are found wanting, so woman is created from man.

No, the animals God created were brought to Adam, but no suitable helper was found – teaching Adam that hi s place is not among the animals – then Eve was created from Adam.

---

(The text in Genesis 2 is ambiguous as to whether the plants were created before or after man was created, but is clear that they did not grow before the creation of man.)

The problem with your interpretation is that it attempts an interpretation of chapter 2 without acknowledging what has already been stated in chapter 1.  But chapter 2 was never meant to be read in a vacuum.  That is why “God” is used in Chapter 1, and “LORD” is used in Chapter 2.  Chapter 1 is God creating, Chapter 2 is God being a LORD by interaction with his creation.
Ch 2 is also to be read from the perspective of a post-flood audience, so not only can you not ignore Ch 1 when reading Ch 2, you can’t ignore the Ch6-9 when reading Ch2.

In other words, Ch 2 (along with the rest of scripture) was written with the understanding it would be read and reread along with the other scriptures, which is why it says things like “for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth.” (Gen 2:4)

Even in Ch 9 after the flood, God still references Ch 1:

“3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants (a reference to Gen 1:29), I now give you everything.” Gen 9:5

Therefore, just as you can’t interpret ch 9 without knowledge of ch 1, neither can you interpret ch 2 without using the context of ch 1.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This is one of the arguments usually advanced by supporters of Documentary Hypothesis: that chapter 1 was written by the more theologically complex P, while chapter 2 is an earlier story by J and features a much more anthropomorphic God: rather than the God that is so in-command that he can set the universe into motion just by speaking, you get a God that literally chases Adam and Eve around the Garden looking for them.

That's not to say that the two stories can't be made to agree: simply saying that 1 is a more zoomed out account that elides a lot of details provided in 2 goes a long way to making the accounts agree.

as I stated, Ch 1 is a story of God creating...Ch 2 shows God's provision and intervention(displaying God as a Lord)...and Ch 3 shows God reactions to sin: his plan for redemption, and his judgment.

Creator, Lord, Redeemer & Judge.  The whole ball of wax is displayed within the first three chapters of Genesis, which is why Genesis is the blueprint of the bible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Animals are created next in an effort to forge a suitable helper for him, but are found wanting, so woman is created from man.

No, the animals God created were brought to Adam, but no suitable helper was found – teaching Adam that his place is not among the animals – then Eve was created from Adam.

I realize that a number of the translations of Genesis 2:18-20 try to make it seem like that interpretation is potentially valid, but it simply is not if you consult other translations that don't try to translate the Bible in a manner consistent with a particular theology.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note that God says he will be making man a helper before he brings the animals to him, i.e., the animals that will be brought to the man have not yet been made.

The New American Bible has the same message, rendered a bit more elegantly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also of note is footnote 1 for Genesis 2 from the NAB (emphasis mine): "1 [4b-25] This section is chiefly concerned with the creation of man. It is much older than the narrative of Genesis 1:1-2:4a. Here God is depicted as creating man before the rest of his creatures, which are made for man's sake."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Animals are created next in an effort to forge a suitable helper for him, but are found wanting, so woman is created from man.

No, the animals God created were brought to Adam, but no suitable helper was found – teaching Adam that his place is not among the animals – then Eve was created from Adam.

I realize that a number of the translations of Genesis 2:18-20 try to make it seem like that interpretation is potentially valid, but it simply is not if you consult other translations that don't try to translate the Bible in a manner consistent with a particular theology.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note that God says he will be making man a helper before he brings the animals to him, i.e., the animals that will be brought to the man have not yet been made.

The New American Bible has the same message, rendered a bit more elegantly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also of note is footnote 1 for Genesis 2 from the NAB (emphasis mine): "1 [4b-25] This section is chiefly concerned with the creation of man. It is much older than the narrative of Genesis 1:1-2:4a. Here God is depicted as creating man before the rest of his creatures, which are made for man's sake."

dude, the Catholic Church itself doesn't even tout the NAB to be a literal translation.  If you want a Catholic literal translation, you have to use the Douay-Rheims Bible:
 
Gen 2:18-19: "And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself. [19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name."

And Catholics don't even quote the footnotes of the NAB, a lot of which contradict their own beliefs.  As you can see, the Catholic DR Bible reads exactly as I interpret the passage – God simply brought the animals he had previously formed to Adam.

But, this is a useless argument because you’re attempting to interpret Ch2 without the context of Ch1.  Heck, if a took single chapters and ignored the context of the rest of the bible, I could turn the bible into a recipe book for lamb chops.

I have always held the Catholic DR bible in very high regard (though I am quickly warming up to the ESV):

Any way "them new Liberal Bibles" as you so inaccurately put it are better translations than what you are using.  I'm not entirely certain, but I think Jmfcst would back me on this one.

Here is my take on the different translations:

My favorite is the Catholic DR Bible translated by Jerome.

The KJV compares well with the DR bible, except that the KJV has some passages (like 1John 5:7 and changing Passover to "Easter" in Acts 12:4) that were clearly added MUCH later.  I don’t like how each verse is broken into a separate paragraph.

The NKJV corrects these KJV additions by removing them and is actually a pretty decent bible.

I have seen several different versions of the Catholic NAB bible with inconsistent translations.  The NAB bible I have at home is different than the NAB translations I find on the Catholic websites.  So, I don't know what to make of it.

The NIV is garbage but is an easy read to get the basic idea and I love it’s paragraph and sub-title form, so I still recommend it.  But, IMO, it is not useful for serious study.

I hate the Amplified Bible because it interprets the passage instead of translating the passage.  It also waters down the word of God by adding many words to it.  My copy of it is stuck away in some box in the attic.  The only thing that kept me from burning it was that it is a bible.

I can’t stand the NASB, but I can’t remember why since it has been 10 years since I picked one up.

I have no experience with the NLT or any of the other translations.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

the Douay-Rheims Bible:
 
Gen 2:18-19: "And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself. [19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name."

And Catholics don't even quote the footnotes of the NAB, a lot of which contradict their own beliefs.  As you can see, the Catholic DR Bible reads exactly as I interpret the passage – God simply brought the animals he had previously formed to Adam.

But, this is a useless argument because you’re attempting to interpret Ch2 without the context of Ch1.  Heck, if a took single chapters and ignored the context of the rest of the bible, I could turn the bible into a recipe book for lamb chops.

You're trying to make a round peg fit into a square hole to fit your preconceived opinion of the Bible as being a literal infallible whole.  As you quoted. the DR translation also indicates that in the Genesis 2 account, the animals were made after man, in an effort to provide him with a suitable helper.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Between Adam being created and Eve's arrival it could have taken 3-5 years. Before she was created Adam had the job of naming the animals.

[Robert California]

Between Adam being created and Eve's arrival it could have taken 3-5 years. Before she was created Adam had the job of naming the animals.

But there are two creations stories. Which one is true? They have different orders. In the Seven Days version, the earth is covered in water, while in the second version, water springs up from the earth.

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

There aren't two, one is just a more in depth version of the other.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the Douay-Rheims Bible:
 
Gen 2:18-19: "And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself. [19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name."

And Catholics don't even quote the footnotes of the NAB, a lot of which contradict their own beliefs.  As you can see, the Catholic DR Bible reads exactly as I interpret the passage – God simply brought the animals he had previously formed to Adam.

But, this is a useless argument because you’re attempting to interpret Ch2 without the context of Ch1.  Heck, if a took single chapters and ignored the context of the rest of the bible, I could turn the bible into a recipe book for lamb chops.

You're trying to make a round peg fit into a square hole to fit your preconceived opinion of the Bible as being a literal infallible whole.  As you quoted. the DR translation also indicates that in the Genesis 2 account, the animals were made after man, in an effort to provide him with a suitable helper.

dude, the rest of the bible interprets Gen 1 and Gen 2 the exact same way I do (that the two chapters are complimentary), so you have no argument.

[Neocon Dem]

So... Do we consider this a contradiction?

[anvi]

Doesn't Genesis 1 pretty closely follow, in details regarding the order of created things on different days, the Enuma Elish myth of creation?

[Fritz]

Was there a reason for bumping this ancient thread?

[Neocon Dem]

I didn't want to start a new thread.

[DemPGH]

Each one tells a very different creation story. It's more than "Chapter 2 fills in the blanks" - it's an altogether different story, culturally and thematically. The really main thing is that chapter 1 omits the Adam and Eve story to say simply that God created a bunch of humans and sent them on their merry way. In chapter 2 we get various other details, we get one man created, and then a woman created to keep him company. I guess they didn't have to worry about inbreeding back then, heh. But chapter 5 or 6 says there were giants on the Earth then too, so the whole beginning is a mishmash of myths and stories that are anything but depicting a coherent picture.

The writers of Genesis 1 and 2 had no idea how old the human species was, and it's possible that giants and all that stuff could be cultural memories of Neanderthals or some hominid. Possible.

[Deus Naturae]

I remember hearing that Gn. 1 was a deliberate rejection of the Babylonian creation-myth, composed at the time of the Babylonian Exile. The calm, gentle God of Gn. 1 creates merely by speaking, as opposed to the messy creation war of the Babylonian religion. Of course, that image of the Creator also stands opposed to "maker" of the much older Gn. 2 story, who uses his hands to mold and shape humans out of clay.

[anvi]

Yes, I think the Genesis 1 creation story does fundamentally oppose the relationship of divinity to the world and the role of human beings in the world that are found in the Enuma Elish in a number of ways. But the things of the natural order that are made during each of the six days of creation are pretty much identical in the two stories.  So the Genesis 1 story does contain theological and moral disagreements with the Babylonian myth of creation, but at the same time draws very heavily on the latter's cosmology.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So... Do we consider this a contradiction?

Only if you try to interpret the two creation accounts as literal history.