Conflicts between Genesis 1 & 2

[posthuman]

Ivon the way you're reading this, you may as well take Genesis 2:7 and say it's the creation of a second human race, since man was already created in chapter 1, but then in that verse it says God created man.

Wouldn't that be an obviously wrong interpretation? But in the abstract you're doing the same thing here; taking the mention of a thing written in past tense to mean it is the first appearing of that thing, not a reference to an event that is already past in the timeline of the narrative, all of which is past-tense.

 

[Ivon]

Ivon the way you're reading this, you may as well take Genesis 2:7 and say it's the creation of a second human race, since man was already created in chapter 1, but then in that verse it says God created man.

Wouldn't that be an obviously wrong interpretation? But in the abstract you're doing the same thing here; taking the mention of a thing written in past tense to mean it is the first appearing of that thing, not a reference to an event that is already past in the timeline of the narrative, all of which is past-tense.

Posthuman, certainly I won't do that. Genesis 2:7 (how man is formed) is a continuation of the creation of Earth and Heaven, which aligns with the chronological events in Genesis 1; obviously is a summary/elaboration to me. So I won't see it as a 2nd creation of humans.

In regards to 2:18-20, of course I agree that it is part of the elaboration for Genesis 1 again. But, tell me why am I wrong to interpret Genesis 2:18-20 as the way I did?

"of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam" (Isn't the "and" here refers to bringing these animals to Adam as an afteraction of the creation of beast in verse 18?)

I hope you don't mean that because the word "formed" is in past tense, so it justifies you to disregard that the significance of verse 19 after verse 18.

 

[Ivon]

@Posthuman, Likewise in this example, "Of the clay the potter shaped and formed the vase, and brought it to the factory for painting." Can I say because the "shape" and "form" in this sentence are in past-tense, so I can ignore the fact that what this statement is actually telling is that only after the formation of the vase, it was brought to the factory for painting?

It couldn't be isn't it?

 

[Dan58]

It is possible that the animals formed in Gen 2:19 were a separate creation. Some Christians believe that Adam himself was an eighth day creation. God had already created men and women in Genesis 1:27, but Genesis 2:5 says; "There was not a man to till the ground". There were hunters & fishers, but no farmer to tend the ground. "God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." (Gen 2:15).

While most Christians don't ascribe to this, many believe this specific man was a separate creation for a specific purpose, by whom Messiah would come.The Hebrew "adam' means man or mankind in general (Gen 1), while "ha adam" with the article, means "the man" referring to a specific man (Adam). With the article and particle "eth ha adam", it is very emphatic and is referring to one specific man (Gen 2:7).

In such a case, the animals formed in Genesis 2:19, were specific to Adam (the farmer). Genesis 1:24 refers to the creation of the "beast of the earth", while Genesis 2:19 says; "God formed every beast of the field". A differentiation of God forming new domestic animals, these designed with an adaptation suited for farming. Adam named the animals specifically formed for him, just as he named the woman formed for him (Genesis 3:20).

 

[Tintin]

It is possible that the animals formed in Gen 2:19 were a separate creation. Some Christians believe that Adam himself was an eighth day creation. God had already created men and women in Genesis 1:27, but Genesis 2:5 says; "There was not a man to till the ground". There were hunters & fishers, but no farmer to tend the ground. "God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." (Gen 2:15).

While most Christians don't ascribe to this, many believe this specific man was a separate creation for a specific purpose, by whom Messiah would come.The Hebrew "adam' means man or mankind in general (Gen 1), while "ha adam" with the article, means "the man" referring to a specific man (Adam). With the article and particle "eth ha adam", it is very emphatic and is referring to one specific man (Gen 2:7).

In such a case, the animals formed in Genesis 2:19, were specific to Adam (the farmer). Genesis 1:24 refers to the creation of the"beast of the earth", while Genesis 2:19 says; "God formed every beast of the field". A differentiation of God forming new domestic animals, these designed with an adaptation suited for farming. Adam named the animals specifically formed for him, just as he named the woman formed for him (Genesis 3:20).

I hope you don't believe that rot, Dan. But judging by some of your posts here at CC, I wouldn't be surprised. Genesis 1 and 2 are one creation account. The first chapter is a general overview of Creation Week. The second chapter focuses on God creating Adam and Eve. There were no hunters or fishermen before Adam. There were no humans before Adam. You really have to twist God's Word to say otherwise. Besides, Adam had the first ever job as a gardener (dress and keep the garden), pre-Fall. It was only post-Fall that he became a farmer.

 

[Ivon]

It is possible that the animals formed in Gen 2:19 were a separate creation. Some Christians believe that Adam himself was an eighth day creation. God had already created men and women in Genesis 1:27, but Genesis 2:5 says; "There was not a man to till the ground". There were hunters & fishers, but no farmer to tend the ground. "God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." (Gen 2:15).

While most Christians don't ascribe to this, many believe this specific man was a separate creation for a specific purpose, by whom Messiah would come.The Hebrew "adam' means man or mankind in general (Gen 1), while "ha adam" with the article, means "the man" referring to a specific man (Adam). With the article and particle "eth ha adam", it is very emphatic and is referring to one specific man (Gen 2:7).

In such a case, the animals formed in Genesis 2:19, were specific to Adam (the farmer). Genesis 1:24 refers to the creation of the "beast of the earth", while Genesis 2:19 says; "God formed every beast of the field". A differentiation of God forming new domestic animals, these designed with an adaptation suited for farming. Adam named the animals specifically formed for him, just as he named the woman formed for him (Genesis 3:20).

Hi @Dan58, I note that you subscribe to that school of thought which you mentioned, since you state Adam (the farmer). It certainly wont be the case for me as it looks pretty obvious to me that Gensis 2:4-7 fits perfectly to the chronological events of Genesis 1, except for my pointed out concern.

 

[Zmouth]

As written in John 5:26, "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;" it seems that the Son of God who was made in the image of the invisible Light would be a being of light, or Phasma.

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
John 5:19



So if the Son does what he saw his Father do then in Genesis 1:1 the Gods which created the heaven and earth would have been the the Spirit of God and the Word of God since it was not good for the man to be alone. If not mistaken a single body of light wouldn't do anything but remain in a state of rest. But let the Word start moving that curvy wave over the Rod of the Son and I'll bet the expanse would be not only be huge, but on the huge on the scale of universal proportion. And what do you think the Word would call it? Heaven? And the Spirit without the Word would be like a man without love.


But I digress so I just leave it at that I view Genesis 1:1 as Jesus said in John 5:19, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God that formed the first heaven and earth, being the Universe since for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

 

[birdie]

In regards to the order of creation for humans & animals, Genesis 1 says that animals are created on day 6 followed by humans, while Genesis 2 says that animals are created to be companion for Adam after he is created.

I did alot of research in the internet but none has given yet a satisfactory response. The findings are below:

1) The animals mentioned in Genesis 2 may be another special group of animals for naming purpose (this doesn sounds valid to me, then what about the initial group of animals, doesn this mean they're unnamed?)

2) The hebrew word may possibly be translated wrongly, which should be 'had formed' instead of 'formed' in Genesis 2:19 (it doesn make any difference to me as it has been clearly stated that this 'batch' of animals are created in an attempt to become comparable helpers for Adam, which is the realization of God after Adam's creation)

3) Genesis 1 is in chronological order while 2 is solely for elaboration. (I think this doesn sound convincing which appears to be the last resort of force explaining the way out of the conflict)

Im not bias nor trying to prove the invalidity of the bible, rather hoping to see validity in this situation to help boosting my faith so to speak.

Anyone care care to share your view on this matter pls, thanks alot.

Thanks for your question, Ivon. The Bible is written in parable form (Psalm 78:1-2, Mark 4:34). We read, "Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable". And again, we read, "But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples." This means that the Bible is not written as a text to be taken at surface value, but at interpreted value, where words represent other things than their surface meaning. 'Sheep' mean true believers and 'horses' represent Jerusalem which represents the people of God and so forth. 'Rivers' mean the words of God (the gospel), and so forth. There are lots of clues in Genesis 1 and 2 concerning animals that should make us think a bit about the interpretation, as meaning something other than a surface interpretation. Look at Genesis 1 for example. We read: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.". When God saves someone the Bible uses the terminology of 'open'. Nathaniel saw heaven 'open' in John 1, and God sends his own to an 'open' field in Leviticus 14 and John 4. The animals in Genesis 1 have to do with the open firmament of heaven. It almost sounds like they are saved! Further, the creatures have 'life'. The Bible tells us that whoever has the Son has life! It almost sounds again like the creatures are saved. Further, it is the waters that bring forth life. Waters in the Bible can represent the words of God. The gospel has been known to bring forth life in the sense that born again people are created when God enables them to hear it. Further, while God made everything in the universe, he nevertheless uses the term 'creation' and 'creature' to talk about those persons who are his own. In my opinion, the animals in Genesis 1 and 2 are probably a picture of people that God creates and saves. This should help you to understand Genesis chapter 2 a bit, since God talks about Adam (who is a picture of Christ) as needing a helper (true believers) but then seems to go right into talking about animals. Perhaps the creatures being discussed are parable language for God's own persons. Perhaps that is why Christ (Adam) gives names to each one so well. He knows his own by name ("To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name"). Incidentally, if you look back at Genesis 1, you will find that God blessed the creatures. The term blessed is a term which means 'saved' in the Bible. Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven.

 

[trofimus]

And I suspect that these animals that are formed again may be some specimens or sort of representative group of the animals that He had created. I may be wrong on this but I thought its highly possible.

It is "possible", but I prefer more simple solutions corresponding with science and known data.

 

[Dan58]

I hope you don't believe that rot, Dan. But judging by some of your posts here at CC, I wouldn't be surprised. Genesis 1 and 2 are one creation account. The first chapter is a general overview of Creation Week. The second chapter focuses on God creating Adam and Eve. There were no hunters or fishermen before Adam. There were no humans before Adam. You really have to twist God's Word to say otherwise. Besides, Adam had the first ever job as a gardener (dress and keep the garden), pre-Fall. It was only post-Fall that he became a farmer.

Hi @Dan58, I note that you subscribe to that school of thought which you mentioned, since you state Adam (the farmer). It certainly wont be the case for me as it looks pretty obvious to me that Gensis 2:4-7 fits perfectly to the chronological events of Genesis 1, except for my pointed out concern.

I wasn't there, so I don't know when things happened, but I keep an open mind and believe its a feasible possibility. It answers a lot of questions such as; Where did the races come from? Who did Cain marry? Although, it also raises a lot of other questions. I'd like to go back in a time capsule and see what the heck was actually going on.

 

[BeyondET]

birds and fish are animals right? on the fifth day? Genesis 1 20-23

 

[Tintin]

I wasn't there, so I don't know when things happened, but I keep an open mind and believe its a feasible possibility. It answers a lot of questions such as; Where did the races come from? Who did Cain marry? Although, it also raises a lot of other questions. I'd like to go back in a time capsule and see what the heck was actually going on.

1) There is only one human family. We all come from Adam and Eve (who was the mother of all living). Post-Flood ethnicities come from Noah and his family and his son's wives. They probably diversified after family groups went their separate ways at the tower of Babel and city dispersion

2) Cain married a sister or niece (after all, only Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel existed and they would've had sisters)