Do the Creation Accounts in Genesis One and Genesis Two Contradict Each Other?
Recently, a reader emailed me and suggested a book called Living the Question: The Wisdom of Progressive Christianity. With Progressive Christianity (PC) being my main topic of research, I was excited to learn that it's the first and only comprehensive survey on PC—and it was written by Progressive Christians. I downloaded it to my kindle immediately and dove right in.
I was not the least bit surprised that the book began with the idea that spiritual maturity requires one to embrace one of the iron-clad PC dogmas: questions are way more important than answers. Then, ironically, an entire chapter was devoted to giving the definitive answer (in the affirmative) to the question of whether or not the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. This is an old skeptical claim that Progressive Christians have latched on to, but it's worth discussing because it could be a stumbling block to some Christians who haven't thought about it before.
The book puts it like this:
Genesis begins with two distinctive creation stories that are impossible to synthesize or string together into consecutive events with any integrity.
It goes on to claim that the two accounts were written by different authors, and that the order of events don't line up. I'll discuss each of these ideas in turn.
1. Different stories with different authors?
Early Jewish and Christian traditions held that the majority of the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) were associated with Moses. But in the early 1800's, European Old Testament scholars began to seriously challenge this accepted paradigm.
Near the end of the 1800's, a theory called the Documentary Hypothesis was introduced. This basically taught that the Pentateuch was written by four or more authors/editors who lived long after Moses, and that the supernatural events it records are not historical. Other than an obvious anti-supernatural bias, there were two main reasons for these conclusions. First, there are some stylistic differences in the text, and second, God is called by different names in various portions.
For example, in Genesis chapter 1, God is referred to as Elohim, and in chapter 2, He is called YHWH. Skeptical scholars saw this as evidence that the two chapters were written by two different people, leading them to conclude these must be two separate creation accounts.
However, conservative scholars believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are two sections of the same cohesive whole, and that Moses used these two different names to make a point. Genesis 1 provides a more broad and chronological description of the creation days, using the more general term for the powerful creator God, Elohim. Genesis 2 is a more focused look at the sixth day of creation, and expounds more upon what happened as humans were created, placed in the garden, and began relationship with God. This may be why Moses used God's personal name here, Yahweh.
Regarding stylistic differences, it's not unusual for an author to vary their style depending on the content of what they're writing. As a writer, I know from personal experience how true this is. In my blog writing, I try and stay as condensed and succinct as I possibly can. I don't tend to tell a lot of detailed personal stories, or get too deep in the weeds of different objections and counter-objections. For example, entire books have been written on the differences between the creation accounts, and I'm trying to cover the basics in under 1,500 words.
However, currently I'm writing a couple of chapters for an upcoming apologetics book, and I've had to totally re-think the way I write. For the book, my writing style is not aimed at a general audience like my blog, but is written directly to Christian moms. Thus, it is much more personal and I write in the casual voice I use when I talk to my mom friends in real life. Because the chapters are about 3 times as long as a blog post, I can include a lot more humor, stories, and details. I can see how someone might even wonder if my blogs and book chapters were written by two different people.
In the same way, the first five books of the Old Testament cover all kinds of different material. It would be natural for an author to use one style for writing history, one for writing about different laws and penalties, and another when describing the intricate details of the sacrificial system.
But the post powerful evidence for Mosaic authorship, in my opinion, is the evidence within the Bible itself. The Pentateuch claims this in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, along with other Old Testament authors such as Joshua, Ezra, and Daniel. (1) In the New Testament, Peter and Paul refer to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, as well as Jesus Himself—in all four gospels. (2)
2. Contradicting stories?
The only way these two accounts can be seen as contradictory is to assume they're both meant to be understood as a chronological treatment of the creation narrative. But as I stated above, a cursory reading will show that Genesis 1 is a broad, chronological, helicopter-style fly-over of the creation account (even listing the actual creation days in numerical order), and Genesis 2 zooms in for a closer look at day six. (Please don't take my word for it. Take a moment and read it for yourself!)
Even with this in mind, people still get tripped up on some details. (The book I mentioned at the beginning even lists these "contradictions" in a handy chart.) Here is one of the most common and most difficult ones:
Genesis 1:11: Then God said, "Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds." And it was so.
Genesis 2:5: No shrub of the field had yet grown on the land, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not made it rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground.
Upon first glance, Genesis 1 seems to be saying that vegetation was created on day 3 (before man) and Genesis 2 seems to be saying that vegetation didn't exist before man. Which is it?
Due to the word order and structure of the sentence in Genesis 2, it's evident that the reason no "shrub of the field and plant of the field" had grown was because there had been no rain or man to till the ground. So these particular types of plants required both. I say "these particular types" because Genesis 2 mentions two types of plants that aren't mentioned in Genesis 1, suggesting that whatever these were, they were different types of plants that were designed specifically for man to tend. Biblical scholar Michael J. Kruger wrote:
Be assured that there is no contradiction between Genesis 2:5 and Genesis 1, because Genesis 2:5 is speaking of entirely different types of plants. It is only these particular plants — plants designed for mankind — that will spring up after man.
Another common misunderstanding occurs because Genesis 1 says that animals were created on day six, before man. However, Genesis 2:19 states:
So the LORD God formed out of the ground every wild animal and every bird of the sky, and brought each to the man to see what he would call it.
So did man already exist when God made the animals? The short answer: no.
In Hebrew, there is no separate pluperfect verb tense. This means that distinguishing chronology isn't quite as simple in Hebrew as it is in English. Here is an example John Lennox gives in his book, Seven Days That Divide the World:
Jim bought a car. He drove it home. You ask where he keeps it. Well, he built a garage to put it in. He built the garage when he brought it home? No, the garage was actually already there. That fact could have been made clearer in English by using the pluperfect tense “he had built,” rather than using the simple past tense, “he built.”
There is good reason to translate these verses in the pluperfect tense, as the NIV and ESV have: “God had formed the animals and brought them to man,” instead of “God formed.” There is no chronological disagreement here.
When we hear a skeptical claim about the Bible, sometimes it's easy to simply "go with the flow," throw up our hands, and say it just doesn't matter. Investigation takes hard work. But in my years of study I've learned that if we will put in the effort and energy, we will find that the one who needs correcting is always us—not the Bible.
References:
(1
) Exodus 24:4; Exodus 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9; Joshua 1:7-8; 8:30-35; 1 Kings 2:3; Ezra 7:6; Daniel 9:13
(2) Peter: Acts 3:22, Paul: Romans 10:5, Jesus: Matthew 8:4; 19:8, Mark 1:44; 7:10; 10:5; 12:26, Luke 5:14; 16:31; 20:37; 24:27, 44, John 5:46-47; 7:19, 23
Thank you for your answer to this very interesting question concerning Genesis 1 and 2.
I would like your opinion on the post I made some time ago concerning Genesis 1 – 3 and the islands of New Zealand. You will find it at: http://bibledifferences.net/2012/09/25/62-new-zealand-and-genesis-1-3/
If the link does not bring you there, you can look it up on my blog under the heading "Scriptures" at www.bibledifferences.net
God bless,
Herman,
Pretoria,
South Africa.
anthony
9/8/2018 05:17:28 pm
Lovely! We are discussing Genesis in Sunday school! May I copy this page?
Cindy White
7/16/2018 01:32:43 pm
Thank you, I always find something else to think about when I read your work. This is especially interesting of course for the very reason stated.
People claiming God's word contradicts itself has been around since well, ( satan himself ) yeah ,hath God said ! Thou shalt not surely die!!! Remember this old lie, from the father of lies !!! I will admit, the Bible does sound contradictory even at the beginning, God tells them they will die if they eat of the tree of good and evil, and Adam goes on to live 930 years ( say what ) this in , and of itself seems extremely conflicting and contradictory, but, Adam did indeed die that day, as God said !! Adam's spirit died that day, leaving him and us, in desperate need of a spiritual resurrection, a rebirth !! God immediately puts a salvation plan in place (GEN. 3:15 ) to save the spiritually dead !!!! But, this can and does look contradictory to the untrained and unfamiliar eyes of the world !! May God bless and strengthen you Alisa as you seek to honor our Lord and Saviour !!!!!
Anthony Barber
7/22/2018 05:21:19 pm
Way to go sister!
Kipp Davis
6/4/2020 12:18:47 pm
I only just encountered this blog recently, but this old post prompted a need for me to respond.
This is a frustrating oversimplification of the Documentary hypothesis (DH), and of the numerous reasons why virtually all of the biblical scholarly community teaches the dual-creation stories at the beginning of Genesis. It is much more sophisticated than merely identifying different names of God and literary styles. With regards to Genesis 1 and 2–3, the differences between them are pronounced not only in language, but also in their conceptualizations of God—conceptualizations which we can carefully track when distinguishing between the writer of J, E and P. In Genesis 1 (which belongs to P), God is cosmic, distant, and creates by fiat through verbal proclamation. In Gen 2 (belonging to J), God is depicted more like a man; he builds the Adam and the creatures of the earth from the ground; he plants; he builds the woman from the rib of the Adam; he problem-solves, relaxes in his garden, and experiences feelings.
Scholars have very successfully been able to carefully connect and map theologically consistent themes, ideals and worldview-distinctions from the various parts of the Torah onto their authors, and Genesis 1 and 2–3 are no exception. The cosmic super-being in Genesis 1 is perfectly attuned to the God of P, whereas the anthropomorphized super-man in Genesis 2 more closely aligns to the God of J, who with frequency walks and talks to people, and even wrestles with them in the night. Genesis 1 reflects typical concerns of P with numbering and order, and sets a strong emphasis on the significance of the Sabbath, whereas all of these things are completely absent in J.
Second, your reading of the order of creation in Genesis 2 is quite disingenuous. God's creative act of making the animals in v. 19 is preceded by his observation that the man is alone, and his resolution to make for him "a helper." Verse 19 is then followed by the unfortunate realization that "for the man he (YHWH) did not find a suitable helper." It is upon this realization that God then chooses to create the woman—not from the dust of the ground, but drawn from the man himself, and this corrects the problem identified back in v. 18. The nonsense parroted from Lennox about the absence of the pluperfect in Hebrew absolutely does not solve these issues, since it utterly fails to connect with the natural flow of the story, and it ignores the problem/resolution construct in this part of the narrative.
Third, the reason why the DH gained such traction in the 18th and 19th centuries is because of the discovery at the time of the vast troves of literature from Sumer, Assyria and Ugarit which provide extensive and helpful contextualization to the entire Old Testament. Both Genesis 1 and 2–3 contain obvious parallels with different ancient near Eastern creation myths, and these fairly amply demonstrate the distinction between the two accounts: Genesis 1 is in part a de-mythologised version of the Enamu Elish, but which also reflects aspects of other Hebrew creation myths echoed in the Psalms and Job. Genesis 2–3 is a cleverly crafted etiological tale about sex, knowledge and the origins of agriculture which shares much in common with the extremely ancient story of Gilgamesh and Enkidu.
Evangelical Christianity will be much better served once it is able to grapple honestly with ancient history and scholarship. The solution is not to hand-wave at these problems in the Bible and construct feeble apologetics to reconcile them to modern sensibilities. The solutions are rather to take them seriously in their own right, in an effort to glean from them significant teachings about who we are and what we are doing here from a clear understanding of their original purpose and intent. It's hard work because the Bible is filled with ancient literature from ancient worldviews and written in ancient, dead languages. Simple translation doesn't cut it. More exhaustive study of the culture and history is how we can arrive at a better, more meaningful and consistent hermeneutic.
Ed Chapman
1/27/2021 12:04:44 am
Here is a simple way that I have interpreted this:
Chapter 1 is about the creation of spirits [of man and animals], and seed (plants, trees, vegitation, etc), whereas chapter 2 is about the formation of the dirt.
Plant spirit in dirt and Adam became a breathing thinker (soul).
Plant seed in dirt, and mist water the earth and plants grow.
In addition, I reject the idea that chapter 2 is a review of chapter 1, since I believe that creation and formation is two different topics, therefore, I believe that formation of dirt, and the planting of seed was AFTER the 7th Day, and according to Hebrews 4, we are still in the 7th Day of God's Rest (therefore, I don't believe in literal 24 hour days of creation).
And since I believe that chapter 1 is about creation of spirits/seed, then the order of events of chapter 2 is not an issue at all. Animals were still created before man, but formed after Adam was formed. To me, create, and formed is two different things.
And for those who think that there were two different creation's that took place, telling us that Cain got his wife from another creation story:
Genesis 3:20
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
If that verse is true, and there was a separate creation, then Eve has some splaining to do with Adam!
I'm always amused with the educated theologians, always talking grammar, being Hebrew experts. I'm just a simple uneducated guy who loves to study the Bible, and I can expound on this topic even more. Do you know what it's like debating a Dr. prophessor who claims two different creations, discussing grammar? Ughhhh.
Ed Chapman
Doreen
1/22/2022 09:24:35 am
Thank you Alisa. I am researching this subject and have sincere questions. My NIV text notes explain the rare verses in the Pentateuch that were not written by Moses, but by a later scribe/editor. Now I am studying what Moses would have written ON….clay or stone tablets using cuneiform symbols or (possibly) leather scrolls. And. I'm studying when the Hebrew or Phoenician (?) Alphabet was invented, which seems to be after Moses lived? What is your understanding? Thanks very much
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
