What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?

I've just read through most of the posts here, and I think I am understanding the arguments on all sides (there do seem to be more than two).1. That Genesis 1 is the original account, and Genesis 2 is more detailed:This seems to fit only if we are to look at the creation of Man and Woman. It says in Gen 1:27

quote:

---

Gen 1:27 -- So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

---

Later in Gen 2:7 and 2:21-23 we see it a different way (which could very well simply be a more detailed account as far as the creation of man and woman is concerned)

quote:

---

Gen 2:7 -- 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 soul.

---

quote:

---

Gen 2:21 -- And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; (22) And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (23) And Adam 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.

---

This is correct; there is no way that an argument could be made saying these two are contradictory. So, the creation of Man and that of Woman does not contradict.2. Genesis 1 is a vague account stating more so "how" than "why" were created Man, Woman, and the animals. Genesis 2 is more detailed in the "why" than in the "how".

quote:

---

Gen 1:22 -- And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. (23) And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (24) God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (29) And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (30) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. (31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

---

It's rather clear that Gen 1 cannot be a more vague recollection of the events, because it states days (which give a clear chronology). We see that the fowl were created on the fifth day. It also says very little about the "how", other than that it happened because God said for it to happen. Of course, it does also offer up some hint as to "why", somewhat because "it was good."3.

quote:

---

Gen 2:8 -- And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

---

This tells us that the garden of Eden was made after Man, from the statement "had formed."We can also conclude that when, in Gen 2:5, it says: "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew..." that another contradiction is made. Because at this point (before the planting of Eden) all the plants had been "in the earth." Yet, this cannot be so, because when God decides to plant the garden of Eden, it becomes apparent that all the plants weren't actually in the earth. This is actually a contradiction within Gen 2, and doesn't cross the two chapters.But now it does get exciting, for more problems arise in trying to settle this difference. It can go (as far as I could see):1 - Eden was created along with the rest of the plants.
This works, except it would mean that Man would have had to have been created before the plants, though Gen 1 clearly states it differently.
2 - Gen 2:8 is wrong, and all the plants had not yet been created.
This seems to be the one which leads to the least problems.You can all think of that one, but I will be getting back to the main point here.So after the creation of Eden, there is a description of it. Then, Gen 2:18, God realizes man is alone.

quote:

---

Gen 2:18 -- And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

---

The key here is the word "alone." It tells us that Man was the only of the living creatures. This is further supported when, in Gen 2:19, it states:

quote:

---

Gen 2:19 -- And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

---

It would not be needed for God to create the creatures from the ground if they already existed, He would simply need to bring them to Man. On the other hand, if He had previously made the creatures, but they were running everywhere and He wanted those animals to be in Eden so Man could name them; then He could have created them there, but would not have had to bring them to Man. Simply, it cannot be both, UNLESS, God created the animals wherever they would pop up, and then brought them to Man. But if God already had animals all over the place and needed to bring them to Man, why make a bunch more just so He would have to bring those to Man?And do not forget what I pointed out about the fowl. In Gen 1, they were created in the fifth day, while the rest of the animals were created in the sixth day. However, in Gen 2, it says that both were created together. Once again, we have another contradiction.From this, comes following conclusion: It is not possible to read the first two chapters of Genesis in a literal and logical manner! This seems to be the third argument I've seen, and the one with which I agree.TrékEdit: Corrected gramatical errors and added "3." to clarify the beginning of the third argument.This message has been edited by Trékuhrid, 01/02/2006 04:56 AM

But Gen 1 simply cannot be the overview, nor can Gen 2. Both add details to different parts of the story, except the creation of Man and animals. Here, they give details to the same part of the story, however their details differ SIGNIFICANTLY!I have more detail in my post above.Trék

Is this all your opinion, or is it supported with evidence?Please elaborate, as what you've said so far is rather interesting.Trék

Well, what do you mean by cultural meaning?

That book sounds interesting. My library system has a few copies, and so I am thinking of requesting them (which means paying my $6.40 fine).So, what are we talking about now? Are we trying to figure out where Gen 1 really ends and Gen 2 really begins?Trék

You must read it as though you wish to prove it wrong. Sometimes you will read something that way, and it turns out that you prove it right, other times you will prove it wrong.Also, break down each section and think of what it ACTUALLY is saying, and not what the author wanted us to think, etc.This seems to be the way I break things down. It's not often that I am actually able to disprove the authors, however the Bible is full of mistakes, so it's quite easy.Trék

So are we to understand that your way of reconciling the two stories is to invent an entirely new one that is equally as baseless?Trék

Message 85I posted that a while ago. Hopefully it will clear up where I stand.

quote:

---

In closing please let me remind you that the original topical question was something like: "What is the best explanation of Genesis you have heard....".
Given the question, my answer is quite within acceptable limits.

---

The problem is that this thread is for reconcilling the differences. If you invent a new story that doesn't take into account any of those differences, then you've accomplished little in the way of "reconcilliation." However, I'll set the bickering to the side for now and deal with the rest of your message.

quote:

---

This is nice because the Earth is full of fossils of these heavy browed guys even though the Bible doesn't talk about them but God must have put them there right?

---

This is nice if you are trying to look for some Biblical explanation for the evidence of evolution. The problem is that the Bible says nothing about God creating such creatures, nor does it contain anything similar to your story. And as for "God must have put them there,": prove it.

quote:

---

...it is scripture which confuses us in the first place so best we wing it and think for ourselves!

---

I think this statement further confirms what I've already said: you are simply inventing a new story that doesn't conflict with itself, pulling parts from Genesis, and trying to pass it off as though it were some combination of the two which leads us to have no conflicting interpretations.

quote:

---

Well last week I was definately somewhere in outer space.. For sure dudes.

---

And it would seem as though you've brought your experiences back with you.Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

First. A little something I learned when I first got here. You should use the reply button at the bottom of the post you are replying to, and not the general reply. If you want to reply to the topic as a whole, responding to the opening post is probably the best way. This way, people will know when they need to send replies to you .And now, second, to what you say.You are simply wrong in saying:

quote:

---

...however there's nothing to suggest this. I think the passage is saying that long ago before animals and plants had been created there was no man to water the ground. Now God is creating man to help water the ground and look after the plants and animals. The passage just misses the part where animals were created, rightly so as this was covered in Genesis 1.

---

I address some things in detail in Message 85, but I will focus on what you have said here.

quote:

---

Gen 2:18 -- And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (19) And out the the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...

---

If there are animals before man, then when God puts man in Eden, he would not be alone. Further more, God would not have created all the animals if they already existed.

quote:

---

The passage just misses the part where animals were created

---

You're right, it does miss this part... but it's obvious why. Gen 2 wouldn't mention the creation of the animals before mentioning the creation of man, because the people who wrote Gen 2 were under the impression that man was created first. They are simply using a chronological ordering of the events (which is logical), and so mentioning something that happened after event 'A' before mentioning event 'A' would simply be confusing and illogical.Trék

I believe Gen 1 technically ends at Gen 2:3, which is pretty obvious if you look at what the verses say.

quote:

---

Look at this, the first words of chapter 2, and comprehend the setting.

​

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. "

---

This only further proves the point that these two chapters--like the rest of the Bible--are contradictory.Trék

quote:

---

This chapter is not a creation order at all.

---

Then just what is it?

Please give some examples from the text where that happens.Trék

Don't do this again, please. I said in Message 85 that there was no contradiction between the two chapters as far as the creation of man and woman was concerned. You are arguing me on a point I agree with you on, and it's not solving anything.Perhaps you would like to address the real contradiction: the time of animal vs human creation. Again, Message 85 contains my entire argument. Take a specific part of Message 85 to argue me on (not a part we already agree on), and tell why it isn't a contradiction.Posting one-line bits of scripture without explaining what they mean doesn't help prove your point. Read point 3 in Message 85 and tell me what you think of it.Trék

If it truly is the case that Gen 2 is a more detailled version of Gen 1, then why would it go in such a different order?Trék

Where in either chapter does it say: "Okay, now let's look at some of this stuff in detail"?You say that Gen 2 is a more detailed version and that order doesn't matter, but you have nothing to base that opinion on. In fact, I'm going to stretch my arm out and say that one can also not assume that Gen 2 is in order. However, we do have the fact that this topic is about a literalist viewpoint in reading. And in reading Gen 2 in a literal sense, it's rather obvious--through words like "then," "and," etc.--that there is an order to the events, and that the order of events in Gen 2 is idependant of the order of events in Gen 1.As I've previously said: a literal and sensible reading of Gen 1&2 is impossible.Trék