Genesis Creation Stories: Sequence Contradictions?

More liberal scholars cite the inconsistencies in the Genesis creation stories, as evidence that they are meant to be considered allegory. In doing so, they abandon a literal creation view, which allows for an easier acceptance of the evolutionary view of origins and development. More conservatives individuals, have in many ways dismissed the scientific community, except for those who identify themselves as scientific creationists by maintaining that real science in no way contradicts with the Biblical view of origins. Traditionally the Jewish and Christian churches have interpreted the Genesis creation stories quite literally. Those who reject the literal interpretation have identified inconsistencies in the Creation stories, as evidence that such stories are not to be interpreted literally.I shall identify the most common inconsistency that they provide. Genesis 1: 25 states And God made the beasts of the earth and verse 26 states Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image’. The author of this first creation story is clearly showing that the animals were created and then man. This leads to some difficulty because the second Creation story, states in Genesis 2:18-19, that It is not good that man should be aloneOut of the ground the YHWH formed every beast of the field and birds of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.To some, it seems as if one of the stories is in error, for they stories do appear to be contradicting each other. In the Genesis 1 creation story, birds are created on the fifth day, and animals come before humans, but here in the second creation story, both appear after man.Some translators have changed Genesis 2: 19 to read, Out of the ground YHWH had formed every In adding the word ‘had’ they make it clear that YHWH created such things before humankind. I believe they are correct in their assessment that the creation stories favor the animals being created before the humans, however I disagree with the way they go about it. I feel that they have no right to change the message of what they feel are Sacred Texts, just because of their own presuppositions. Such a tactic is underhanded and does not promote honest dialogue.Objectivity is my goal. One does not need to change the message of the text, just to strengthen their own position. The Jews never bothered to change such a verse, because they never saw the contradiction that many see today. The statement that the second creation story uses is ‘beasts of the fields,’ and this is very different from ‘beasts’ or another common phrase ‘beasts of the earth.’ Beasts of the fields,’ is a phrase which is the direct opposite of cattle. If God created all beasts and birds after humankind, then why neglect to mention of cattle? According to Genesis they certainly existed for they are interestingly mentioned one verse later, when we are told that all the cattle was named by Adam. The simple truth is that creation story number two is not a chronological account, but just a topical account of certain events. The focus of the verse that is seemingly contradictory, is not that certain beasts and birds are created after Adam, but that because such creatures that were not geographically located nearby they had to be brought to him. If the focus of the verse was that creatures were created after Adam, then certainly this would have included all, including the cattle that were very specifically neglected. What other purpose could there be in using the direct antonym for cattle in describing certain animals?Also, the Jewish people always believed that the two accounts were complimentary and that no contradictions existed. In fact the Sanhedrin used to state, When asked why man was created on the sixth day, after the creation of all the other animals, we would respond: 'So that just in case you become overbearing we may remind you that the gnats were created before you.' "Kelly J. Wilson

Jar,
I said traditionally they had interpretted the stories literally. That said, upon the emergence of the TOE combined with the gradual acceptance of Higher Critical interpretational methods, certainly most abandoned the literal view. What I said previously was quite true, if you read it in context. Please do so next time.
Kelly J. Wilson

The last couple messages are off topic. The issue that I introdcued is whether there are sequential contradictions between the stories found in Genesis 1 and 2. I would make the case that there is not. It is an off-topic issue whether the creation stories find themselves in contradiction with modern science, or even whether they should be interpreted literally. Those are fascinating debates, but not ones that deal directly with the issue I introduced.
Kelly J. Wilson

Crashfrog,
You write in message 10,
But isn’t the only reason you assume its not chronological account is because if it were, it would contradict the first story?No, the point is that the two stories do not contradict each other. I simply desire that the Book be read as it was intended to be read. It was a common technique as I stated before, to deal rapidly with an event, and then come back and develop a certain event more fully, for different reasons. This literary structure is shown later when the dispersion of the peoples takes place in Genesis 10 and Genesis 11 returns to detail why they were dispersed in telling of Babel. A similar occurrence takes place with regards to Esau and Jacob, in Genesis 25.My presuppositions which you question are not at this point being brought forward through a discussion of the historicity of the events which I have described. Rather the goal is to inform readers of the way certain stories were intended to be read. To do this, I must recognize the literary structure, and inform the unfamiliar of it also.Finally concerning your second point, allow me to repeat that in Hebrew, the phrase ‘beasts of the field,’ is a direct antonym of cattle. If it were merely ‘beasts’ or even ‘beasts of the earth,’ cattle would be included in such a term. That a particular phrase used should seem an odd anonym by our linguistic standards is a fact irrelevant to the language the book was written in, and to a correct interpretation.Kelly J. Wilson

My apologies, for this is a repeat message. What follows is the intended message. If this administrator could delete this, that would be appreciated.
KellyThis message has been edited by Kelly. J. Wilson, 11-01-2004 10:21 AM

This is in reference to message 17, the last relevant message. The individual who referred me to this group listed your name Crash among a few others, as excellent debaters. After reading message 17 and seeing how quickly your argument degenerated into an expression of your personal feelings like 'I don't believe you,' rather than real evidence, I must maintain that the individual clearly overestimated you.That you are unfamiliar with Hebrew speech is something that is not my concern. We all have our fields of expertise, and you have made it clear that Biblical scholarship is not one of yours. Having said that, despite certain demonstrations of ignorance on your part, a debate is still possible. One must remember that when you identify contradictions between the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 you are merely parroting that which countless number of scholars have already stated. Yet you and they show a general misunderstanding which I will try to identify clearly.In supposing that after our reading of the English translation of Genesis, errors exist, we ignore the fact that for centuries redactors would have noticed such a contradictions, and made the necessary adjustments. They did not change this, because they were familiar with Hebrew phraseology, even though you are not, and though you may choose not to believe, certain individuals facts remain, and few will be swayed by your poorly articulated feelings. What I identified earlier is not of my own making. Among others the Hebrew scholar, Umberto Cassuto, writes, "If the term beasts had only been used here, or beasts of the earth, one might have assumed that it included cattle as well; but the expression beast of the field is actually an antonym of cattle." (Commentary on Genesis I, 129). Do you question his knowledge in this particular field?I would suggest you become more familiar with that which you are debating, or at the very least, consider what another more qualified individual have to say on the subject. Finally, I care little, whether you will believe what I have to say or not. This means nothing to me, and only speaks of the predetermined biases that you bring to the debate. Your future comments, I trust, will display more caution.Kelly J. Wilson

I have lost interest in debating this topic here, as pretty much the entire fourth and fifth page have stopped, or at least greatly interrupted the issue. Is there anyway that the messages from these pages can be deleted, or the individuals presenting off-topic material be screened to a greater degree? The debate would certainly be easier to follow and contribute to ,without such nonsense.Kelly J. WilsonAlso I think it would help if someone would introduce a point-by-point list of the various contradiction in the first two Chapter of Genesis. From this, perhaps debate can be restored.