Discrepancy 1: Genesis 1 vs 2

[Matthew78]

This is the very first example of a discrepancy that I wish to discuss. The discrepancy is believed to exist between Genesis chapters 1 and 2. They seem to contradict each over whether the animals, birds, and insects were created before man, as in Genesis 1, or after man in Genesis 2.

Genesis one, according to the New American Standard Bible, is narrated like this:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

20 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.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

In the second chapter of Genesis, we encounter another creation story. The New American Standard Version narrates it like this:

2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. 5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones,

And flesh of my flesh;

She shall be called Woman,

Because she was taken out of Man.”

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

There seems to be a discrepancy between these two stories. In the first story, God created birds of the air and animals of the sea on the fifth day and then created the cattle, beasts of the earth, the rest of the land animals, and insects on the sixth day. All of these were created before human beings. The man and woman, presumably Adam and Eve, were created on the sixth day of creation. However, in the second creation story of Genesis, Adam is created first, then the beasts of the earth and every bird of the sky. After Adam gives a name to all of the cattle, the birds, and the beasts, God then created Eve, using a rib from Adam.

So, was Adam formed after the beasts of the earth, the birds of the sky, and the cattle as in Genesis one, or was Adam formed before the beasts of the earth, the birds of the sky, and the cattle as in Genesis two?

 

[gnostic]

So, was Adam formed after the beasts of the earth, the birds of the sky, and the cattle as in Genesis one, or was Adam formed before the beasts of the earth, the birds of the sky, and the cattle as in Genesis two?

First off. Genesis 1 never mentioned or say that the first humans were Adam & Eve. Everyone just presume they were them.

Second, the Documentary Hypothesis attempted to distinguish such discrepancies in the books attributed to Moses and to show everything, like the Genesis, were not writing at the same time, which leads to my 3rd point.

For example, you wrote this about the 6-day creation:

In the first story, God created birds of the air and animals of the sea on the fifth day and then created the cattle, beasts of the earth, the rest of the land animals, and insects on the sixth day. All of these were created before human beings.

I'd like to emphasise the "In the first story...". According to the Documentary Hypothesis and other modern scholars, the story of Adam & Eve were composed first, by the J-source before the 6-day creation of P-source (eg. god created man in his image).

In Genesis 2, about Adam & Eve in Eden, it never say that God created them in his image.

There is a similar discrepancies in the Noah's story.

Did it rain 40 days and 40 nights or did it rain for 150 days? Or were there only a pair of each animals - male and female - or were there more than a pair?

 

[fallingblood]

Building off of what Gnostic said, the discrepancy can be explained by the fact that there are two separate stories.

I would argue that trying to find a way to rationalize the discrepancies in these stories is futile, and completely misses the point. Each story must be taken on it's own, and by doing such, the "truth" of each account can shine through.

 

[Matthew78]

First off. Genesis 1 never mentioned or say that the first humans were Adam & Eve. Everyone just presume they were them.

I acknowledge this. I am discussing this from the would-be inerrantist viewpoint. People who believe that the Bible is divinely inspired are very much likely to assume that the man and woman spoken of in Geneis one, are, indeed, Adam and Eve. I am granting this for the sake of discussion. Perhaps I should have stated this.

Second, the Documentary Hypothesis attempted to distinguish such discrepancies in the books attributed to Moses and to show everything, like the Genesis, were not writing at the same time, which leads to my 3rd point.

I subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis so I know that different parts of the Pentateuch were written by different sources, namely the J,E,P, and D sources.

I'd like to emphasise the "In the first story...". According to the Documentary Hypothesis and other modern scholars, the story of Adam & Eve were composed first, by the J-source before the 6-day creation of P-source (eg. god created man in his image).

I acknowledge this. Again, I subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis so this is not new to me. When I mentioned "the first story", I meant the story that is listed first in the Bible which I don't believe to be the first story penned down by the ancient authors. Would it have helped if I said, "the first chapter"?

In Genesis 2, about Adam & Eve in Eden, it never say that God created them in his image.

There is a similar discrepancies in the Noah's story.

Did it rain 40 days and 40 nights or did it rain for 150 days? Or were there only a pair of each animals - male and female - or were there more than a pair?

I already know this. Again, I want to dialogue with believers who hold to the doctrine of divine inpsiration and plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible. That is the reason I started this thread. If they disagree with any of the examples of discrepancies, flaws, or failed prophecies in the BIble, I would like to understand why.

 

[outhouse]

I subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis so I know that different parts of the Pentateuch were written by different sources, namely the J,E,P, and D sources.





I want to dialogue with believers who hold to the doctrine of divine inpsiration and plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible. That is the reason I started this thread. If they disagree with any of the examples of discrepancies, flaws, or failed prophecies in the BIble, I would like to understand why.

Why is easy, faith and faith alone.



As far as the DH, you may know but I thought I would add.

These early sources were nothing more then collections of collections that evolved over a long period of time.

The fragmentation of these books are often underplayed. [Not that your doing this] Buts Its better to look at these as compiled and redacted collections over a very long period of time, as apposed to 5 individual sources, its far beyond that.

I follow a compilation and redaction process that really doesn't do it justice using the DH.

 

[fallingblood]

I already know this. Again, I want to dialogue with believers who hold to the doctrine of divine inpsiration and plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible. That is the reason I started this thread. If they disagree with any of the examples of discrepancies, flaws, or failed prophecies in the BIble, I would like to understand why.

Why swing at the low hanging fruit? Those who have a literalistic view of the creation stories will not be persuaded by what seemingly looks like an attack, or at least a hidden motive. It just doesn't work.

As for why they believe it? One, that is how they were taught the story. It was engrained in them from a young age, and they just never questioned it, because there is no reason to. Others will simply reject that there are discrepancies, and will argue them away, because that is how they were taught. But in the end, it really boils down to faith.

 

[Matthew78]

Why swing at the low hanging fruit? Those who have a literalistic view of the creation stories will not be persuaded by what seemingly looks like an attack, or at least a hidden motive. It just doesn't work.

As for why they believe it? One, that is how they were taught the story. It was engrained in them from a young age, and they just never questioned it, because there is no reason to. Others will simply reject that there are discrepancies, and will argue them away, because that is how they were taught. But in the end, it really boils down to faith.

I want to know what their attempts are harmonization are so I can educate myself on them and sharpen my critical thinking skills in an attempt to refute such harmonization attempts. Actually, not everyone who holds to a literalistic view of the creation stories will not be persuaded. I used to believe that these stories were literally true. Until I saw the evidence that they couldn't not be literally true. I would like to reach people who were in my shoes many years ago but didn't have the resources until much later in life. If I knew back in my teen years what I know now I would've rejected fundamentalism amd fundamentalist doctrines like plenary inspiration and inerrancy.

 

[KidatHeart]

As for why they believe it? One, that is how they were taught the story. It was engrained in them from a young age, and they just never questioned it, because there is no reason to. Others will simply reject that there are discrepancies, and will argue them away, because that is how they were taught. But in the end, it really boils down to faith.

Well said.

Why swing at the low hanging fruit? Those who have a literalistic view of the creation stories will not be persuaded by what seemingly looks like an attack, or at least a hidden motive. It just doesn't work.

You're right that some people will simply not have any discussion on the matter. But there are people, like me, who wonder about things like that discrepancy. I think it's important to have dialogues about them. It's one of the ways religion progresses. Even if some people are shut off to anything that challenges their world view, there are some who might be more inclined to seek the actual truth.

 

[KidatHeart]

If I knew back in my teen years what I know now I would've rejected fundamentalism amd fundamentalist doctrines like plenary inspiration and inerrancy.

Exactly.

 

[Pegg]

There seems to be a discrepancy between these two stories. In the first story, God created birds of the air and animals of the sea on the fifth day and then created the cattle, beasts of the earth, the rest of the land animals, and insects on the sixth day. All of these were created before human beings. The man and woman, presumably Adam and Eve, were created on the sixth day of creation. However, in the second creation story of Genesis, Adam is created first, then the beasts of the earth and every bird of the sky. After Adam gives a name to all of the cattle, the birds, and the beasts, God then created Eve, using a rib from Adam.

So, was Adam formed after the beasts of the earth, the birds of the sky, and the cattle as in Genesis one, or was Adam formed before the beasts of the earth, the birds of the sky, and the cattle as in Genesis two?

the first account is a chronological account of the creation, or the order of creation, but the 2nd account is only focusing on the human family. So the 2nd account should not be looked at like an alternative creation story because its not.

Moses is focusing on the story of 'mankind' specifically and that why skims over the order of creation.

 

[Matthew78]

the first account is a chronological account of the creation, or the order of creation, but the 2nd account is only focusing on the human family. So the 2nd account should not be looked at like an alternative creation story because its not.

Moses is focusing on the story of 'mankind' specifically and that why skims over the order of creation.

Okay, so in the second chapter of Genesis, when it speaks of the beasts, birds, and cattle being brought to before Adam to be named, do you believe that God is bringing samples of already created animals for Adam to name?

I'm arguing that the creation of animals and birds takes place before man in Genesis one and after man in Genesis two. How specifically do you reconcile the two?

 

[ron4711]

Okay, so in the second chapter of Genesis, when it speaks of the beasts, birds, and cattle being brought to before Adam to be named, do you believe that God is bringing samples of already created animals for Adam to name?

I'm arguing that the creation of animals and birds takes place before man in Genesis one and after man in Genesis two. How specifically do you reconcile the two?

In your arguing you need to understand 2 basic principles.

1. You will NEVER convince a devout believer they are wrong. That realization must come for them from within over a long period of time.

2. You will NEVER win an argument on a single topic. In discussing theology the topics bounce all over the place, so if you want to WIN don't expect it to happen based on the first few pages you bring up.

 

[Pegg]

Okay, so in the second chapter of Genesis, when it speaks of the beasts, birds, and cattle being brought to before Adam to be named, do you believe that God is bringing samples of already created animals for Adam to name?

I'm arguing that the creation of animals and birds takes place before man in Genesis one and after man in Genesis two. How specifically do you reconcile the two?

yes of course they are already created animals.
Animal existed on earth long before man arrived, that is in harmony with scientific fact and the first chapter describes that general process.

In Genesis 2, Moses is not focusing on the creation of all things as he is in chpt 1....Chpt 2 is specifically about his readers, the human family and what their story is.

Imagine you have an assignment on a certain subject such as Computers... you might start with a backround to the history of how computing began and who was instrumental in creating various components of computers, but then you might want to focus on a particular aspect of modern computing. Lets say you choose to focus on Microsoft as a starting point, this does not mean that you believe Microsoft is the first computer company....you've already explained that some other people were involved in early computing, so we wouldnt assume you now believe it is only microsoft who invented computers.

Its the same with Gen 1 and 2. Moses isnt giving two alternative creation stories...one were animals came first and the other where man came first. He is simply changing his focus to man in chapter 2.

 

[Matthew78]

In your arguing you need to understand 2 basic principles.

1. You will NEVER convince a devout believer they are wrong. That realization must come for them from within over a long period of time.

2. You will NEVER win an argument on a single topic. In discussing theology the topics bounce all over the place, so if you want to WIN don't expect it to happen based on the first few pages you bring up.

Thank you. Anything else you would like to lecture me on?

 

[Matthew78]

yes of course they are already created animals.
Animal existed on earth long before man arrived, that is in harmony with scientific fact and the first chapter describes that general process.

In Genesis 2, Moses is not focusing on the creation of all things as he is in chpt 1....Chpt 2 is specifically about his readers, the human family and what their story is.

Imagine you have an assignment on a certain subject such as Computers... you might start with a backround to the history of how computing began and who was instrumental in creating various components of computers, but then you might want to focus on a particular aspect of modern computing. Lets say you choose to focus on Microsoft as a starting point, this does not mean that you believe Microsoft is the first computer company....you've already explained that some other people were involved in early computing, so we wouldnt assume you now believe it is only microsoft who invented computers.

Its the same with Gen 1 and 2. Moses isnt giving two alternative creation stories...one were animals came first and the other where man came first. He is simply changing his focus to man in chapter 2.

Pegg,

Thanks for responding. I have to disagree with you. Here is my reason for doing so: I am convinced that the Hebrew underlying Genesis two will not allow for this. I realize that the NIV tries to get around the problem that I am arguing for by translating Genesis 2: 19 in the pluperfect:

"Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. 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."

The problem I have with this is that the Hebrew word for "formed" is yatsar in verse 19. According to the Blue Letter Bible webpage, this verb is in the imperfect form. A verb in imperfect form like this denotes an action that has either already began but hasn't finished yet or an action that has yet to begin. If the verb yatsar is in the perfect form, then it would denote an action that has already finished. In other words, it would denote a completed action.

This strongly implies that the creatures of verse 19 are in the process of being formed, not that they have been already formed. No, they're being formed right then and there! If the verb yatsar in its imperfect form denotes an incomplete action, one that began and has not yet concluded, then why didn't the author of this chapter put the information in verse 19 before the information in verse seven?

Verse seven should state that God created the animals of the ground and the birds of they sky, while verse 19 should state that God created Adam. To further illustrate this, in verse seven, the Hebrew word for "formed" is, again, yatsar and is in the imperfect form. The next verse says that God formed a garden and put there the man that "he had formed" and the verb here is, again, yatsar and is in the perfect form this time. This denotes a completed action for the action had finished in the prior verse, which is verse seven.

I conclude, then, that the animals of the earth and the birds of the sky were created before man in Genesis one and after man in Genesis two. To deny this conclusion creates a dilemma for believers in inerrancy. If the verb for "formed" in Genesis 2:19 is in imperfect form, why not have this verse earlier than the creation of man? That would make it perfectly consistent with Genesis one. If not, then why isn't the verb for "formed" in Genesis 2:19 in the perfect form which would make it perfectly consistent with Genesis one? Either way would make the two chapters perfectly consistent. But the verb for "formed" is in the imperfect form and it is after the creation of man, who is said to have been formed already.

This is the reason I don't agree with your reply. I do appreciate it, however.

 

[ron4711]

Thank you. Anything else you would like to lecture me on?

Sorry did not mean for that to come off as a lecture. It was supposed to be more of an observation. Peace.

 

[Pegg]

"Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. 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."

The problem I have with this is that the Hebrew word for "formed" is yatsar in verse 19. According to the Blue Letter Bible webpage, this verb is in the imperfect form. A verb in imperfect form like this denotes an action that has either already began but hasn't finished yet or an action that has yet to begin. If the verb yatsar is in the perfect form, then it would denote an action that has already finished. In other words, it would denote a completed action.

animals are still coming to life before our very eyes... their creation was never a 'completed action' as if that was it, no more animals were going to ever come into existence. In point of time it was still the sixth creative day. The verb “form” in the imperfect here denotes continued, progressive action which really donotes that the creative day was not completely finished, God was still going to keep working at bringing more animals to life.

This strongly implies that the creatures of verse 19 are in the process of being formed, not that they have been already formed. No, they're being formed right then and there! If the verb yatsar in its imperfect form denotes an incomplete action, one that began and has not yet concluded, then why didn't the author of this chapter put the information in verse 19 before the information in verse seven?

perhaps you are missing the possiblity that it is refering to the animals which were 'already formed' ... not animals which had not yet come to life as if God was still moulding them in some way.

Verse seven should state that God created the animals of the ground and the birds of they sky, while verse 19 should state that God created Adam. To further illustrate this, in verse seven, the Hebrew word for "formed" is, again, yatsar and is in the imperfect form. The next verse says that God formed a garden and put there the man that "he had formed" and the verb here is, again, yatsar and is in the perfect form this time. This denotes a completed action for the action had finished in the prior verse, which is verse seven.

there is the difference....the Garden had been created and God was not going to keep working on it because, as verse 15 says "And Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of E′den to cultivate it and to take care of it." So we could say that Gods work in the garden was complete and now the man was assigned the role of working on the garden.

I conclude, then, that the animals of the earth and the birds of the sky were created before man in Genesis one and after man in Genesis two. To deny this conclusion creates a dilemma for believers in inerrancy. If the verb for "formed" in Genesis 2:19 is in imperfect form, why not have this verse earlier than the creation of man? That would make it perfectly consistent with Genesis one. If not, then why isn't the verb for "formed" in Genesis 2:19 in the perfect form which would make it perfectly consistent with Genesis one? Either way would make the two chapters perfectly consistent. But the verb for "formed" is in the imperfect form and it is after the creation of man, who is said to have been formed already.

This is the reason I don't agree with your reply. I do appreciate it, however.

this imperfect 'formed' simply means that more animals were to come. And if no more animals were ever to come into existence, there would be no animals here today. The animals were created to live and die and therefore they will never cease from being 'formed' ... we will never come to a time when God will say , enough of animals, i've finished making them.

they will always need to be recreated for the simple reason that they will always go through a life cycle of birth and death.

 

[Matthew78]

animals are still coming to life before our very eyes... their creation was never a 'completed action' as if that was it, no more animals were going to ever come into existence.

I don't understand what you mean. What do you mean that animals are still coming to life before our very eyes? Are you talking about reproduction? Are you talking about new species and new varities that are descended from some hypothetical "created kind?"

In point of time it was still the sixth creative day. The verb “form” in the imperfect here denotes continued, progressive action which really donotes that the creative day was not completely finished, God was still going to keep working at bringing more animals to life.

But when God decided to make the animals on the sixth day, did God not finish making all of the animals before making Adam and Eve? I believe that this is what Genesis is saying because after all of the creatures were made (i.e. beasts of the earth, the birds, the creeping things) God sees that it is good. In Genesis, whenever God sees "that it was good" it implies a creative act that is completed before beginning a new act of creation or a creative process.

perhaps you are missing the possiblity that it is refering to the animals which were 'already formed' ... not animals which had not yet come to life as if God was still moulding them in some way.

I don't see how I am missing this. I pointed out that in Genesis 2: 19 that the verb for formed is in the imperfect form. The NIV mistakenly translates it as a pluperfect but I suspect that this was motivated by a desire to remove a discrepancy between the two chapters. The imperfect form in this case (chapter 2, verse 19) denotes an action that is beginning; it states that God formed every beast and every bird of the sky, indicating that no beasts or birds whatesoever existed prior to the creation of man . Further, according to Genesis one, the animals of the sixth day have already been made; creative acts often conclude when the author of Genesis says that God saw it that was good.

there is the difference....the Garden had been created and God was not going to keep working on it because, as verse 15 says "And Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of E′den to cultivate it and to take care of it." So we could say that Gods work in the garden was complete and now the man was assigned the role of working on the garden.

I'm not sure how this helps resolve anything.

this imperfect 'formed' simply means that more animals were to come. And if no more animals were ever to come into existence, there would be no animals here today. The animals were created to live and die and therefore they will never cease from being 'formed' ... we will never come to a time when God will say , enough of animals, i've finished making them.

So you're saying the imperfect formed means that animals would continue to be created from the time that God made them originally on the pre-Flood earth to the present time? I fail to see how that this can be reconciled with Exodus 20: 11. I quote it from the New American Standard Version. It states:

"11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."

According to this part of the Ten Commandments, God created the heavens, the earth, and the sea, and all that is in them. After the sixth day, it was all finished. No more creative acts!

they will always need to be recreated for the simple reason that they will always go through a life cycle of birth and death.

Are you stating that the Hebrew word for formed applies to animals coming into existence to this very day? In other words, you're saying that formed implies God bringing life into existence through the natural reproduction of animals? If so, I think this flatly goes against Exodus 20: 11. I also think that Exodus 20: 11 soundly refutes all "progressive creation", "day-age", "gap", and all other Old-Earth creationist ideas on how to reconcile an old earth with Genesis 1.

 

[Thief]

Okay, so in the second chapter of Genesis, when it speaks of the beasts, birds, and cattle being brought to before Adam to be named, do you believe that God is bringing samples of already created animals for Adam to name?

I'm arguing that the creation of animals and birds takes place before man in Genesis one and after man in Genesis two. How specifically do you reconcile the two?

Chapter Two is NOT a retelling Chapter One.

Man as a species male and female....
Go forth be fruitful and multiply.
Dominate all things.
No names... no garden.... no law....

Chapter Two...a story of choice and manipulation.
A chosen specimen....ideal living conditions....cloning....genetic alteration....

And choice....
Had Man been made into the creature intended?
Would he risk his life for the acquisition of knowledge?

Yes.

 

[gnostic]

Chapter Two is NOT a retelling Chapter One.

No, it's not.

Nor were they written at the same time. When you consider that chapter 2 (after verse 4) to chapter 4 were written before Genesis 1 & 2:1-4, then Genesis 1 creation story didn't exist at the time of Genesis 2 creation story were composed.

Man as a species male and female....
Go forth be fruitful and multiply.
Dominate all things.
No names... no garden.... no law....

All true. No garden, no names, and the directive to multiply and rule all the animals.

But it is not just that, thief.

All Genesis 1 say about creating male and female, is that they were created in God's image, but nothing to say HOW they were created. Genesis 1 says nothing about creating man being from the earth (soil, dust or clay), nor creating female out of Adam's rib.

Likewise, Genesis 2 never say that God will create man (Adam) in his image.