In Genesis 1, God creates grass, trees, and shrubs. Next, He creates sea and land animals. Lastly, He creates both man and woman.
However, in Genesis 2, the order is completely mixed up. God created a man, Adam, from dust. Next, He creates trees, and after that, He creates animals. Finally, God makes a woman by putting Adam to sleep and using his rib.
This is a major contradiction that has me greatly questioning the Bible, for if the first two chapters are contradictory, the following chapters and books are invalid. The word of God falls apart. It’s also not, “Chapter 2 is just chapter 1 but a little more detailed.” The two chapters have a distinct sequence and distinct events going on regarding creation. They don’t add up.
I can’t find any proper explanation for this.
Videos
The almost universal consensus of critical scholars is that the two creation accounts are from two different sources. The account in Genesis 1:1-2:4a is generally attributed to an anonymous source now known as the Priestly Source. The second account, in Genesis 2:4b-25 is generally attributed to an anonymous source now known as the Yahwist.
Leon R. Kass says, in The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, page 54, the second creation story departs from the first not only in content but also in tone, mood and orientation. He says (page 56) once we recognise the independence of the two creation stories, we are compelled to adopt a critical principle of reading if we mean to understand each story on its own terms.
Kass tells us that the first story ends with man, whereas the second begins with him. In the first, the animals come first and man is to be their ruler, but in the second, the beasts come after the creation of man, as his possible companions. In the first, man is to be the master of life on earth (1:28); in the second, he is to be the servant of the earth (2:5, 15). Finally, in the first story, man is made directly in the image of God (1:27); in the second he is made of earthly dust and divine breath (2:7) and only becomes god-like at the end – “now the man is become like one of us” (3:22) and only in transgression.
The specific case for the Priestly Source ('P') as the author of the first creation story is based on literary style and theology. This source's God is majestic, and transcendent, and all things happen because of his power and will.
In the second, more primitive story, God's power is more limited, and he can not make living things out of nothing. He makes Adam and the animals out of dirt (Genesis 2:7,19), and Eve out of Adam's rib (Genesis 2:22).
A belief in two independent sources leads to a modern study of Genesis along the lines described by Leon R Kass: “once we recognize the independence of the two creation stories, we are compelled to adopt a critical principle of reading if we mean to understand each story on its own terms.” (see Dick Harfield’s answer) The danger in this approach to Scripture is eisegesis, the reading of one’s own ideas into a passage of the Bible and failing to interpret or explain a passage correctly (exegesis).
First, there is no reason to require or impose a condition where a single human author must use the same style or language. Contemporary writers may purposely vary style and language to best communicate their message. Second, the Source for all Scripture is God:
All Scripture is breathed out by God… (2 Timothy 3:16 ESV)
“God breathed” is first found in the second account:
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7 NKJV)
The fact there is no mention of the woman receiving this same breath of life does not lead to the conclusion it did not happen. Rather, what is written in the first account leads to a more accurate exegesis of both accounts:
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27 NKJV)
Man (and woman) created in the image of God includes the LORD God breathing His Spirit into man (and woman).
“God breathed” gave physical life to male and female. There was a single source of origin yet God’s work produced physical differences. There is no Biblical reason to demand that Scripture which is also “God breathed” must have the same tone, mood, and orientation to be from a single Source.
The correct exegesis is that the two accounts are connected and complementary. From the perspective of Source, there is a single message which has been purposely divided into two parts. The two parts are different yet each contains something relevant to the other.
Failure to see the inter-relationship of the two accounts leads to eisegesis such as Kass’s conclusion about man and animals. According to Kass, “In the first, the animals come first and man is to be their ruler, but in the second, the beasts come after the creation of man, as his possible companions.” Proper exegesis of the second account will include the Biblical concept of giving a name, which requires authority. Arguably the authority of giving a name is higher than that found in the first account.
Since the naming of animals occurs before the creation of the woman, it occurs before the authority described in the first account was given. Again the correct exegesis is that the man receiving the spirit from the LORD God (second account) not only endued him with knowledge to name the animals; it included the knowledge of his authority. So before being told directly of the authority, the man exercised it by naming the animals.
A second type of eisegesis that comes from the demand to see the accounts as originating from two different sources is the failure to consider what is missing. For example, the first account makes two statements about light and darkness:
…and God divided the light from the darkness. (Genesis 1:4 NKJV)
…and to divide the light from the darkness... (Genesis 1:18 NKJV)
First, in the secular world darkness dominates the created world. According to modern science 95% of the universe is made up of dark energy and dark matter and “darkness” is the force that caused the universe to expand. Creation began in darkness; yet there is no mention about how darkness was created. The Documentary hypothesis with its demand to have multiple independent sources presents the writers of the Bible as deficient in knowledge of the most significant and powerful aspect of the created world. Yet the Scripture does have the answer:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness… (Isaiah 45:6-7 NKJV)
It is the LORD who both formed the light and created the darkness.
Second, if repetition is significant then separating light from darkness is the most important point of the first account. This is the only action that was repeated. In the first account God began His work in darkness and despite two attempts was not able to overcome the darkness; He “settled” for a separation of darkness and light and created objects that gave light to the earth. The natural world serves as evidence of God’s inability to overcome the darkness and provide continual light for anything He created.
The idea of multiple sources not only expunges Moses from the Bible, it expunges God’s power from the created world. Every day all life on the surface of the earth experiences a reminder of the power darkness holds over light. According to modern science it is only a matter of time until God’s created sources of light burn out leaving His creation in eternal darkness.
However, all the earth can hold on to the hope that light will overcome darkness. This hope is based on the second account which has no mention of the darkness. The second account foreshadows the true ending of the created world:
“The sun shall no longer be your light by day, Nor for brightness shall the moon give light to you; But the LORD will be to you an everlasting light, And your God your glory.” (Isaiah 60:19 NKJV)
The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. (Revelation 21:23 NKJV)
The proper exegesis of the parallel accounts of creation sees a single Source with a single message. If there are points of differences, these are to be examined as two descriptions of one thing. To illustrate this point consider two descriptions of a coin. A description of the front of a coin does not contradict the description of the back. Rather both can be seen as describing a single item and the two should be combined into one.
The Bible has more to say about redemption, restoration, and recreation than about creation and there is no reason to demand that the Bible’s opening chapters somehow contradict or conflict with everything which follows. The better approach is to study each account with the primary purpose of the Bible in view:
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13 NKJV)
For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things… (Hebrews 10:1 NKJV)
The first has a shadow of the good things to come. So which account is the basis for a hope that God’s plan from the foundation of the world was to dwell with His creation? Which account is the basis for a hope that God will take man from the place of creation to a place He has prepared for them? Which account is the basis for a hope that God will seek after man and woman who have rejected Him?
Each of these questions are found and answered in the second account. It is the LORD who will redeem, restore, and recreate.
Short Answer: The two accounts can be matched up with little difficulty. The focus of Genesis 2 merely expands on "Day 6" of creation. (This just leaves the question of Genesis 2:5, which is clearly just a commentary on the state of the earth at some point prior to the creation of man. So if the shrubs of 2:5 are included in the food of 1:11 then 2:5 is describing the state prior to 1:11. If they are different, then this is just a strategic point of reference for Moses' post-Fall audience.)
Let's start by examining the two sections carefully.
Genesis 1
Here is the chronology from Genesis 1:
Day 1: God creates light, and separates it from darkness
Day 2: God creates heaven to separate the lower waters from the upper waters
Day 3: God gathers the lower waters together, exposing dry land, and creates seed-bearing and fruit-bearing vegetation (for food for all the creatures of the earth)
Day 4: God creates the luminaries in the heavens to serve as lights, clocks, and calendars
Day 5: God creates the fish and birds
Day 6: God creates the land animals and man
Day 7: God rested
Genesis 1 definitely reads like a chronological account of the creation of the heavens and the earth. That is reason enough to consider the possibility that this is what it was intended to be. The reason it is not typically taken as such is that many interpreters know that it is "true" in some way, and yet also "know" that it could not possibly be literal, historical, or chronological. (Or so they were taught.)
Genesis 2
Here is the chronology from Genesis 2:
No shrub of the field was in the earth, and no plant of the field had sprouted because there was no rain, nor were there people to cultivate the ground
God formed Adam
God planted the Garden of Eden for Adam and stocked it with every tree that was good and pleasant
God placed Adam in the Garden
God decided to make Adam a helper, and started by bringing every kind of bird and beast out of the ground and to Adam so he could name them
God made Eve
The focus of this chapter is clearly on the creation of Adam and Eve and the Garden paradise that God made for them to dwell in. The previous chapter covered the creation of the entire universe. The next chapter covers Adam and Eve falling into sin, the cursing of the ground, and their exile from the Garden. If we follow the flow of the narrative through the first 3 chapters of Genesis it is easy to see that Genesis 2 expands on Genesis 1 and prepares the reader for Genesis 3.
Can They Be Merged?
As mentioned, Genesis 1 is presented to the reader as a chronological account of the creation of the universe (with a heavy focus on man and man's perspective.) Genesis 2 is presented to the reader as an account of the creation of Adam and Eve and the original Garden paradise. Genesis 3 is presented to the reader as a grand "mucking up" of everything good that God made.
With that in mind, we can start by recognizing a few things:
The main focus of Genesis 2 is the creation of Adam and Eve. This took place during "Day 6" of the Genesis 1 account.
The purpose of Genesis 2 is to prepare the reader to understand Genesis 3, not to provide stale historical records for future generations to fill their heads with. Everything mentioned in Genesis 2 is strategic, with an eye toward Genesis 3 and beyond.
The audience of Genesis 1-3 lived after the Fall and did not experience life during the Creation Week, or life in the Garden paradise.
So we can attempt an initial chronology based on these two accounts:
God made light, heaven, and dry land
God made seed-bearing and fruit-bearing vegetation for food
God made fish, birds, and land animals
God made Adam
God made the Garden of Eden and placed Adam there
God had Adam name the animals and then He made Eve
So the two chronologies mesh perfectly. At this point the only real question is what Genesis 2:5 means:
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.
The question is how does this affect our chronology? Actually, the answer is pretty simple: It doesn't! We already know that the author is going back and elaborating on stuff that had already been described in the previous chapter, so all that this verse is saying is that at some point prior to the creation of man the "shrubs of the field" and "plants of the field" had not yet sprouted. And actually, we already knew that from Genesis 1.
Supplementary Discussion
Of course, this leaves us with an obvious question: Why did Moses include Genesis 2:5 at the beginning of his account of the creation of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden.
The easy answer is that he is presenting the earth as a place void of man, and then proceeds to describe the creation of man. But there may in fact be an additional reason. Genesis 3 touches on trees, Adam, Eve, cursed ground, and exile from Eden. Genesis 2 touches on trees, Adam, Eve, and Eden. Verse 5 may in fact touch on the "cursed ground."
After the Fall, the ground was cursed, and it was by thorns and hard work that the earth would yield its fruit. Before sin, God placed man in a garden where every pleasant and good tree was provided to them by God for food. Moses wants us to see the contrast there. Verse 5 may simply be a reference for his post-Fall audience to recall that the land at that time was not yet full of the thorns and "shrubs of the field" and "plants of the field" which required rain and cultivation before they could sprout.
So then, the point of Genesis 2:5 is not to claim that in Day 6 of the creation week there was not yet any vegetation on the earth (Moses is not an idiot!)... but rather, he is explaining to his readers that originally, before sin (and before man was on the earth,) the effects of the curse were not yet in the earth, and God provided for His creation perfectly.
Complete order of events:
- I built my house
- I had a truck load of plants delivered
- I built the driveway
- I planted plants along the driveway and around the house
Account of contractor #1:
- House was built
- Plants were truckloaded in
- Driveway was built
Account of contractor #2:
- House was built
- Driveway was built
- Plants were planted around the house
Complaint by town inspection officer:
The stories of both contractors are not consistent. One says plants came first. The other says plants came after the driveway. Which is which?
My take:
I don't understand why people are making a big stink about the creation order just as the allegorical town inspector is making a big stink about the order of vegetation.
Does planting vegetation actually mean truckloading them in too?
People are concocting iotas where none should exist. I remember some religious scriptures warning against creating non-existing iotas.