Do the Creation Stories in Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ก.ค. 2021
- Are Genesis one and two contradictory accounts written by different authors? Here's how I think through the differences between the two accounts....
To order Alisa’s book, “Another Gospel”: www.alisachilders.com/another...
This video is NOT sponsored. Product links are affiliate links which means if you buy something we'll receive a small commission.
For all links to Alisa’s recommended reading, podcast studio gear and other items,
visit the Alisa Childers Amazon Store at www.amazon.com/shop/alisachil...
"When you come across an apparent contradiction in the Bible, keep digging. You're on the verge of a great discovery." Chuck Missler
When you come across an apparent contradiction in the bible, keep trying, you'll harmonize it... Well more like cacophanize it.
Amen
God made the seeds on day three in Genesis one, In Genesis two, it doesn't mention seeds but mentions sprouting and not seeds. So, after all, YHVH did make the seeds before the plants. It is really clear at scripture4all bible.
These are 2 seperate events great confusion comes by trying say these are same events time betwixt Gen1&Gen2 is Unspecified by scripture... when Cain went east of Eden he found the ppl of Nod from Gen1. Eden was not earth for earth prior to fall was watered by a mist but Eden watered by a river. My channel has a vid explaining these accounts
Great topic Alisa. I really enjoy your content. It’s a valuable addition to the Christian community!
In chapter 1 animals are made before humans, and humans are made in God's image.
In chapter 2 animals are made to be "helpers" for adam (who was made out of mud), but no suitable helper was found so eve was made instead of out his ribs.
@@LiberatedMind1 Aren't those two sub-events of creation? First the creation week. And then day six creation in the garden of Eden.
Thank you so much for sharing this. I was reading an article just last night that was presenting these arguments, and I knew I had seen you post a video about Genesis 1 and 2. This was very helpful!
You're right when you say the one which needs correction is the reader. To assume texts are incorrect because one doesn't comprehend them is the height of folly.
wow thats pure christian arrogance..i completely comprehend what it says and have read the bible thropugh 4 times now and each time i comprehendmore and more that its a silly book of bronze age mythology written by men to keep men in place
@@iampostal If you say so.
In chapter 1 animals are made before humans, and humans are made in God's image.
In chapter 2 animals are made to be "helpers" for adam (who was made out of mud), but no suitable helper was found so eve was made instead of out his ribs.
These are 2 seperate events great confusion comes by trying say these are same events time betwixt Gen1&Gen2 is Unspecified by scripture... when Cain went east of Eden he found the ppl of Nod from Gen1. Eden was not earth for earth prior to fall was watered by a mist but Eden watered by a river. My channel has a vid explaining these accounts
Sometimes I question whether we need these conversations but after seeing the video, that was a great response to the skepticism.
This was SUPERB! I subscribed.
I finished Another Gospel yesterday. Alisa has become an important apologist. Thank you Alisa! Pace e Bene.
Reading her book now & it is very helpful resource! 😎👍
It seems like objections to Christianity exist on a 10 year cycle. About once a decade it gets brought up a bunch, refuted, then slinks off to the back of the line. Rinse repeat.
Perhaps that's true as a trend but when you realize that what you thought was true is not, you keep going until you do find what is true. Ask and you receive.
@@robertdouglas8895 are you a Christian? You comment was confusing, that's why i asked.
@@nevin8604 What are you confused about? How I am labeled will not help you understand it.
@@robertdouglas8895 apologies if it bothered you. I didn't asked it to label you, but because you quoted from Bible.
@@nevin8604 No bother. People put a lot of importance on whether they classify themselves as Christian. To me, it doesn't help explain what I mean. Maybe if I weren't it would exclude me from being privy to knowledge you have. Would you want me to covert if I weren't? I just don't understand the relevance. What I wrote, and you still didn't say what it was, I think can be understood regardless whether the person classifies himself as a Christian or not.
Very helpful video. So blessed by it. Thank you.
Your videos are always so clear and helpful.. !!
I watched a "contradiction" video last night. I have been answering the questions for myself throughout today. I'm so happy to see this post on the same day! :)
Answer Jesus’ two genealogies …… And Numbers clearly states the lineage is through the father before you use the “It was Mary’s line” argument
@@vivahernando1 Where in Numbers are you referring to?
@@vivahernando1 “4. Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.”
Excerpt From
The History of the Church 1.7.4
Eusebius of Caesarea
@@vivahernando1
It doesn’t matter if the lineage is through the father. Technically yes that’s how Israel as a nation track lineage is. But the two authors want to track both the mother and the fathers Lineage back to David. Now I guess technically Joseph lineage is irrelevant, because he isn’t technically the father. But still you’d have to ask the authors why one went through Joseph’s bloodline and the other one to Mary’s.
@@zacharysiple629
He is just talking about how the lineage of the father is the only one that’s traced back through a family’s genealogy. And he’s asking why does the author of the other book do the lineage to marry when it shouldn’t be. There is no answer to that because we would have to ask the author why he went through Marysville energy. But it’s clear they wanted to prove that Jesus lineage went all the way back to David. Now most likely it’s because Joseph isn’t his technical father through bloodline. So the author traces of the mothers blood line back to David. That would be my best guess would probably be correct
Rejecting Gen 1.1 is rejecting The whole Book .
We reject the whole book
@@GodlessGubment who we?
@@GodlessGubment christ save you
@@heftymagic4814 mary poppins save you
@@GodlessGubment 😂
The book The Epic of Eden is an incredible resource for understanding Genesis. It's a must-read!
Best way is to trust God n fast n pray
The last two sentences of this video are the most important. If you missed them go back and watch it again!
Thank you so much for clarifying this! A rampant religious cult called "Shincheonji Church of Jesus/SCJ/New Heaven, New Earth" originating from South Korea but proselytizing globally now under "free online bible classes" has been using this analogy to twist the meanings to suit their own doctrine.
Well presented and clear, great job!
It should be apparent to anyone even slightly educated in grammar that this is a literary device designed for giving more information to the reader...
wild that people don't see that. The first Verse was the overall outline, the Verse 2 was the indepth information of Verse 1. Very easy, to understand, also Genesis is not the only book that does this.
@@bananaman5554 Yes. I first recognized this when reading Revelation: Not every verse or passage is sequential; oftentimes they are concurrent.
If you can read Hebrew, Adam's name is actually a really funny pun
Very well explained. Thank you
God's glory always!!! I was looking for a creation sermon I hadn't yet seen, and kept coming back to this.
This lesson is educational and illuminating. Further, study it will add beautifully to my growing apologetics arsenal.
Blessings in Christ to your ministry!!!
🙏 ✝️ 🙌
If anyone wants more information, Dr. C John Collins published his research on this functional Pluperfect in Cambridge University's Tyndale Bulletin. The paper is called "THE WAYYIQTOL AS 'PLUPERFECT': WHEN AND WHY"
It's a bit technical, but if you can sort through it, he gives both sides, examples of this pluperfect usage (such as in 2 Kings 7:18-19), and ultimately concludes the pluperfect is a valid conclusion for Genesis 2:19.
This is the best explanation I’ve heard for what on the surface seems like contradictions.
I always thought it was obvious that Genesis 1 was a large scale view and and Genesis 2 was zoomed in more detail view of day 6.
If anyone hasn't read it I strongly recommend the book "The Battle for the Beginning" by Dr. Macarthur as it clearly articulates and expands on this topic in a great way. God bless!
Why are you so stuck on Genesis 1 being about the creation of the material world…??
I don’t get it.. what she is saying holds no weight.. different plants..!?!? Come on..
When you READY to know what Genesis 1 and 2 are REALLY about. Let me know.. don’t settle for the reason/excuse different plants.
Christophobe
@Richard Fox homophobic implies that he’s scared of gays. Lol.. wrong word..
he doesn’t agree with the choice.
@Richard Fox You are free to your opinion but Christians follow the Bible and the view you have put forward is not biblical. I will agree with you that gay people don't choose to be gay anymore than a psychopath chooses to be a psychopath. But in the same way that God requires that a psychopath not indulge a murderous desire he requires the gay person to not indulge unnatural desires of the flesh that are contrary to his design. We all have our crosses to bear; some are heavier than others.
@Richard Fox No, that's not what I did and I'm pretty sure you know it's not what I did. If I must spell the point out for you I will do so: We all have desires that are contrary to God's will. When we have these desires, we shouldn't say we are good and God's will is bad, or our way is good and the commandment is wrong. There are plenty of things we all want to do that would be violations of God's teachings. When we run up against these things, the right thing to do isn't to try to justify them, but to recognize them for what they are: the unfortunate consequence of sin entering the world.
Thanks for clarifying!
Helpful video. Thank you!
I heard about this controversy many years ago. Admittedly, I'd never actually read the two chapters.
So, i broke out the bible with my name on it and read.
Gen1 clearly read as a bullet point of what happened.
Gen2 clearly read with more discriptive language.
The way i see it.
Gen1 says what happened.
Gen2 says how it happened.
youtube has been giving me a lot of religious videos lately, and one thing ive learned is that I can know *about* the original translation and how it was translated, without having to learn the language myself. Which is very comforting, this type of stuff solidifys my faith further and gives me a way to make arguments against false teachings.
My arguments exactly, well done. I find that most who have these problems do so without the Holy Spirit in them, in other words, they aren't saved. They want to find fault. So good to see this on here. God Bless
You accept that ridiculous argument? I know you do not. You just do not have any other choice because you have to stick by the traditional view of Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2. Those aren’t legitimate water holding reasons. Genesis one and genesis two if taking literally about creation counts then yes there is a major contribution that cannot be fixed. But if you understood ancient language and you understand the style of language that genesis one is in and can recognize what it says. And you can also recognize the language of Genesis to and recognize what that says then you would know that there is no contradiction. If you want to know what Genesis chapter 1 and two is about let me know.
@@STW-News-Headlines Pray tell
Wow. I just taught on this the last Sunday in June. 😄
The contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 were already pointed out by Jewish scholars like Philo (first century) and Ibn Ezra (11th cen.), and by Christian theologians like Augustine (4th cen.)-this wasn't all dreamed up in some German University.
The Documentary Hypothesis deals with the question of authorship, not the historicity of the events described.
Alisa, thank you for this video! There is an excellent video called Patterns of Evidence, The Moses Controversy which does a good job defending Moses' authorship of the first 5 books of the Bible.
Well done. I concur with your analysis. I have used a similar approach for many years. If the Bible is to be treated as a congruent document, composed of many manuscripts by many different authors, then the Day 6 expansion of Chapter 2 makes sense. The mention of Michael Heiser by Lopez-Flores below is interesting. Perhaps Lopez-Flores can provide specific quotes by Heiser, because I hold Heiser in high regard and I've read several of his books. Heiser comes across as very orthodox and faithful to the Hebrew text.
praise the Lord and God bless you
I was just speaking with a dear Catholic friend of mine who believes that this account is purely mythological/allegorical (he still affirms the inerrancy of Scripture) and he brought up these “contradictions” of the Creation account. Thank you for the video and the insight!
In farming, most crops are summer season plants. They don't germinate (come up) without spring rains unless you irrigate. I think this text is saying, "It was around march 1st" but in an ancient way.
great work as always..i was actually going over another cultist group that looks at Gen.1 and Gen.2 in a chronological perspective that they claim that before Adam and Eve was a "first couple"..it was pure heresy..they call themselves OHC/Ophirian Heritage Conservatory..
Would you respond to Dr John Walton's argumentation in his book "the lost world of Genesis one"?
There is really good evidence to suggest that gen 1 is not trying to answer our scientific, material based on questions of material creation.
In fact, Walton's argument is that ancient near Eastern people, the hebrews included, thought that something didn't really exist properly until its purpose and function had been assigned.
This reading has much broader explanatory scope, depth, and simplicity.
Dr Michael Heiser, and Dr Tim Mackie also see the material creation view of Gen 1 as missing the point entirely.
Your thoughts, Mrs Childers?
What does Michael Heiser say? I mean, we see the vastness of the Universe created. Material created by the spoken word out of that which is not seen. Dirt, water, air, stars, material boundaries, sea critters, air critters, ground critters. Let's not overthink this. Read Genesis 1-3 in the plain sense of the word.
It's very disappointing that we are thought this hypothesis at University in German Theology seminars. People who disagree, are labled as " evangelical extremists". Thank you for this Alisa!
Absolutely wonderful
When I went through United Methodist confirmation in 1975, the pastor explained that Creationism comes out of Chapter 2. But, Chapter 1 lines up somewhat with the order in which creatures appear according to Evolution and other scientific theories.
The pastor told us that we should ignore Chapter 2, because the UMC accepts science.
I grew up attending the UMC but I never heard that before. I am glad I started attended another church then. If evolution explains our origin, what need for God is there?
@@johnsmit5999 According to the minister, God orchestrated evolution. Unknowingly, he came up with intelligent design in 1975.
I attended a lecture given by Victor Weisskopf, who had been the chair of the physics department at MIT. The lecture was on the big bang theory. At the start of Q&A, he said he would answer the cause of the bang.
He wrote on the chalkboard, "GOD." He explained that as a believer, he had to bring God into the equation at some point. Every theory about the cause of the bang had at least one flaw that could not be resolved to his satisfaction.
While Prof. Weisskopf could not prove his belief, he said no one could disprove it.
@@kentfrederick8929 I am glad there are some scientists who stand for God. They seem to be in the minority in collegiate settings. I've been listening to physicist Brian Miller with the Discovery Institute. He distinguishes micro-evolution and macro-evolution. He specializes in studying the origin of life. I don't know how he would explain Genesis in light of his studies.
Excellent video! The one that needs corrected is me not the Bible is so true! I have come to that conclusion time and time again!
Thank you!
Interested to discover what role oral tradition played in your identification of a single author.
What does your logo symbolize
Thank you.
Love Alisa, but Gen 2:5 says "NO plant of the filed had yet sprouted", yet she is arguing at 4:51 and following that there WERE certain plants of the field that had yet sprouted. Doesn't that seem like contradicting the plain reading of Gen 2:5?
The thing that seems to be overlooked here is that the Genesis chapters and verses only came into existence in the fourteenth century within the Wycliffe Bible in 1382. Without the chapters, it does easily combine as one detailed story. Reading the narrative of Genesis without the idea that the subject was being changed because it was a new chapter makes it flow as it should. Chapter 1 and chapter 2, etc, are not separate accounts. Instead of reading a story with an overview followed by a recap where details start to emerge, people try to make each chapter and verse stand on its own. It's not unusual for a writer to do this type of added detail as a follow up to the initial introduction account. Since the Bible is the most analyzed book in history, it is not surprising that people want to jump to conclusions about what it says. Alisa approached it with grace and sensibility in her explanation that God's book stands when opinions fail.
It’s you , you have to have the spirit of the lord so you can understand, be humble and summit to the lord
So what are those specific for man plants that can’t grown without man?
Heard this from atheist Methodist church Sunday school teacher. My aunt.
These people have no literary knowledge.
Your aunt is an atheist but attends a church and teaches Sunday school? She must be extremely messed up.
It's amazing how there are answers to these tired old canards of atheists, yet they will raise this, over, and over again as if it has never been answered.
Canards of atheists? I worship the God of Abraham, and I can clearly see that these are completely unrelated texts. Forcing God into the box you've created for him isn't the only way to worship Him. Nor, I would argue, is it the correct way.
@@biblicalanarchy13 Who do you believe is the G-d of Abraham?
What do you mean by that I've put G-d in a box?
What do you believe is the correct way to worship G-d?
I choose to believe that God doesn't make mistakes. Gen 1 says that the order of creation is thus: 1-animals, 2-man and women together.
Gen 2: 1-Man, 2-animals, 3-woman.
God doesn't make mistakes.
Ge 1 and 2 are completely different.
I completely understand the translation issue. What always gets me thinking about in this passage is an all knowing God that knows everything from the beginning of time to the end let’s Adam search for a mate (or even presents them to him for approval) among the animals supposedly knowing full well that he would eventually need a female version of himself as a compatible mate. That is what seems contradictory to me. I’m not trying to be facetious but either God is all knowing or he isn’t? I am one of those very unfortunate people that think that’s it’s ridiculous that Noah fit all of the animals on an ark (no matter how big). I was raised religious and still am, but my life would have been so much easier if I could have just blindly believed it like 95% of the other kids in the church.
P.S. And where the heck did Cain’s wife come from??! Lol!
Question: Genesis 1:20 God says, Let the waters bring forth...fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven(KJV). Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air(KJV). Were the birds created out of the waters or the ground?
They are not only obviously different authors, but whoever wrote the first creation account also wrote the second flood account. They are parts of what is called a creation-myth, followed by a mono-myth. Those who interpret them as they should be will recognize they have updated information for the few chosen. Those who read them as historical are metaphorically refereed to as those who carry the ark, and not see inside. Standing outside the narrow gate.
The two accounts have different authors. The first account is likely from the priestly source, which is later than other major sources in the Bible
It was written by man, accurate or not as to how things transpired. I had my own questions on some things that did not appear correct. But after all is said and done, I return to the first verse…, “In the beginning, God…”
Interestingly enough there is a very awesome book by that title. Worth a read.
The Herald, thank you for this. No man or woman existed during the time when God was creating. All we have is God giving an account of His works to whoever took dictation (as it were), with Him calling the shots on His play by play and the styles He wanted to use as suitef His purposes and pleasure. I had not thought that to think that it's all true and real even though it doesn't make perfect sense to me. Again, thanks for the reminder as to who's story and account this is. Blessings.
@@deuteriummeridian8998 Well Thank You for that DM. I’m glad there are other good souls like yours that see these matters in a sensical way. God bless your days my friend.
Yes.
Actually Elohim more accurately Alahim is a term not a name, It's Hebrew for "mighty one," or a "ruler, judge," or someone with power or strength. In most places of Scripture, it refers to The Most High Yahuah Alahiym. Yahusha (The Brought Forth Son) meets these same characteristics, otherwise Yahusha in His Own right is Alahim aka a Mighty One!
Genesis 1 is not meant to be read literally! Like much of the bible it has a poetic nature that us moderns simply cannot wrap our minds around because we always want straight up and to the point, logical answers
Yeah. As I have begun to learn, it’s us trying to read this eastern text (Torah) with a western mind that thinks that “problems” are meant to be explained instead of realizing those are meant by the author of the text to bring us to the significant meaning of the passage.
You're saying this is Hebrew poetry - what literary devices indicate this to you?
Platinumotion, I disagree with you. Most comments on TH-cam are written by people who intend to be understood and choose their words for that purpose. Why should God, who made each of us in His image, not also do likewise? He patterned us after Himself, just as He says. As for truth and logic, logic only has its reality within the bounds of truth. A baby really doesn't know that its parents are its parents, but the baby senses the truth that comes from its mother and father. In time that same person will see the logic of the truth of the parents, but will be running on truth regarding their parents far more profound than mere logic. You could call that faith, hope, and love.
@@anthonywhitney634 ancient Hebrew is not the same as English... Ancient Hebrew is not even the same as modern Hebrew, if what I say entices you, research it. If not, no point in continuing.
@@deuteriummeridian8998 you're comparing a book that was written over 3 thousand years ago to TH-cam comments... This is exactly why people aren't getting the full picture
What would be a good Hebrew / Greek English translation. Unfortunately, all my bibles refer to all the different names of God as God or lord God rather then there actually names .
The scripture refers to Moses as the author. Undeniable. I believe he simply dictated to different scribes. Therefore, the writing style is different. What's difficult about that.
I like the theory that they're talking about 2 different creations: one where the God and the "divine council" (Elohim) participated in creation, and another more personal creation by YHWY Himself where he creates Adam/Eve. This could be why there were people obviously outside the garden.
If there's two creations, then not everyone would fall under the sin of Adam n therefore no need for the Second Adam (Jesus). There was only one creation.
Hi, Christopher.
With respect, it is always misleading to insert our speculations and theories. We must stick to the Revealed Word, otherwise we end up far away.
@Eightball Wizard Lol, well it's kinda like science. Usin the "evilution theory" to lure gullible people away from God. Granted evilution isn't science 🤣🤣🤣
@Eightball Wizard
Perhaps we should humble ourselves before our Creator and ask Him to show us the true context - then all apparent contradictions will be resolved, to our intellectual satisfaction too.
But sadly, our rebellious nature urges us to jump to erroneous and premature conclusions, to our own detriment.
It is not those who believe God that are gullible!
@Eightball Wizard They SHOULDN'T. It's not compatible with Scripture. Accordin to evilution, things came to be by death. Death didn't occur til AFTER the Fall n was part of the curse. If death occurs before sin, then why did Jesus suffer n die on the cross to save us from sin n death? So that's biblically incompatible with evilution "theory" n undermines the Gospel to the point of blasphemy. There's so much more as well. On day six of creation, God looked at everything n saw that it was very good (Genesis 1:26). What would be very good bout death? Aside from Scripture, evilution is scientifically impossible. Look up biogenesis, the laws of thermodynamics, entropy, irreducible complexity, on n on. Mutations have NEVER provided a gain of information, only a loss of n is harmful, not helpful. Evilution claims mutations are what drives it. So those believers are VERY COMPROMISED in their faith.
Im confused man first or not. Chapter 1 or 2?
Hebrews 6:4-6
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
Hebrews 6:4-6 says if someone had the holy spirit, but they fall away it is impossible to renew them to repentance. I am a Christian and I have left the faith recently but I have since repented.
I am now confused as to what Hebrews 6:4-6 means because I thought I was a partaker in the holy spirit?
Is it possible that your “leaving the faith” was simply going astray? Your repentance and return are a sign that the Holy Spirit was still there convicting you of your sin.
@@sueregan2782 Hmm possibly yes.
The verse that you’re reading in Hebrews has nothing to do with us today. Like today’s Christianity the input them selves in every single passage in the Bible.
The author of Hebrews is talking to Jews. That’s number one. The Jews that the author is writing to are in danger of abandoning Christ and going back to the law i.e. temple animal sacrifice. The sum total of what Hebrews is saying in the passage you posted has to do with the Jew leaving Christ to go back to the law. The author is saying once a Jew does that he cannot go back to Christ. Since you and I and anyone else are not a Jew i.e. an Israelite from the southern temple i.e. Judah. This passage has nothing to do with us. As per the person who commented That person is probably correct you just backslid just like me and everybody else.
There is a great book entitled " Genesis Misunderstood: The 7 Day Theory" that wonderfully explains the difference between the two chapters. Genesis 1 is not about creation at all.
Thank you my Sister for C-L-A-R-I-T-Y.
One thing people even Christians forget, God is not limited by space and time. God created vegetation and saw that it was good does not mean at that moment in (time) as we see it was created. God not limited by time sees the beginning and the end all at one time. So he can create, see it’s good without it even being in existence in that moment we see it on the earth.
Just as vegetation needs water it also needs sunlight which was not created till after.
Thank you LORD , that you HAVE-revealed your word to the simple 😲. Of books ,opinions, questions , and endless deep deep, deep intellectual vocabulary exercise and pride of human knowledge , can only lead one into the abyss with more ,more questions ? .??? 😳😱🤦♂️🤷♂️🤮
1 is in chronological order. This is why it says 1 day,2 day etc. This is not mentioned in Gen.2. he's rehashing what he done but not in chronological order and in HIS time which is like ONE DAY. And he obviously FORMED images in ground of animals to see what Adam would call them
My thing with this all is first you have to look at the people that take up such a care over the Genesis account, and are they believers or are they normally non believers ? I find for myself it is normally non believers that want to persuade or dissuade others by breaking down such a book. I am kind of talking in your pattern usage of language here Alisa. People don't use oh weird formatted point of reference, unless they are deflecting and don't want to eat their dinner first; they want to go right to dessert. Being the fact oh Genesis 1-3 is pretty counteractive to the mind for how it participates with the living experience as for how we know it. Like what kind of dude is going to write such a blah account, and than tie it up with kind of this fanatical type of pace that puts us in context, figurative and allegory, narrative in all one swoop. I myself am pretty good at writing and at reading and dissecting things from others writings.
But I personally believe that a lot of stuff by Moses were purposely left out.
Because it just reads that way to me, just my opinion and I have the Holy Spirit like you with me like other Christians here do. Genesis for those parts you were dissecting; always feels like there were a whole lot more left out, than what oh were put in there. Even when I were a kid I thought that, but one kind of keeps that information to oneself. Because the rest of the Bible is so full and rich but compact at the same time in its offering, but it does not leave me feeling I were so much held out on. Where Genesis to me makes me feel lacking 4 more there; it really does to me when upon reading.
I were going to be quite a good script writer at one time; a literary type of one. So I know how to catch onto certain handles in what is going on in displays. How things get appropriated and drawn out, 2 catch people unaware in their most vulnerable so state. And in all the other Bible books I can tell those were written by skill handed types at trying to give us the best they know of the being known as God: who they were in relation to at a particular time. But Genesis to me gives basically empty needless type here description to me, really in areas. Like I am being snowed in. I hope that I am not seeming to blasphemy or commit heresy or am doing something else against the Word. Just seems to me like those first three chapters were/ are really withholding of information to me for my stupid opinion on such things like that.
Example,
Either Moses were told to hold out on us by Lord God, or what someone or group of people did it all on their own. I thought that Shakespeare were a fake when I were younger; I always thought that it were a group of some sort what collaboration. Now it has come out that a lot of here people have valid points to dispel the fact that there were ever a man singularly named Shakespeare that could actually here write. They could prove there were a man here named Shakespeare, but there is no proof of him actually writing anything of real note. None of anything of greatness came out.
So I have credential for my opinion. Though I never gotten a college degree. You and I are alike, friend.
Genesis 1-11 are a bit ambiguous. That can be attributed to many factors. 1) Ancient Hebrew meditation literature is often intentionally ambiguous and always feels like it is leaving things out, especially comparatively to our modern literary styles. (The Bible project does a really good overview on this topic.) 2)It is also important to keep in mind that close to (if not more than) 2,000 years passed between Genesis 1-11 and Moses's birth. All of the stories of Genesis would have been oral tradition passed down over that time, or directly given from God.
Not skeptics. Scholars. People who are highly educated in Hebrew and have spent years if not a lifetime studying the Hebrew scriptures. Why would an author change styles between chapters? On first glance it reads like vegetation was created in different orders... but that can't be right, why? "Because the one who needs correcting is always me; not the Bible." If one puts in the effort and energy any contradiction can be resolved, is this really how one determines truth?
I am a Christian I love and respect you but i don't know how you consider that as a good respond !! since first church of the father's they talked about the two different accounts of Genesis 1_2 Agustin for example ...
2:05 Yeah, but we're not talking about mere human authorship with human styles. The whole thing is supposed to be a clear and direct message from God, right?
My favorite teaching is that both Genesis 1 and 2 describe Creation, but Gen1 is energetic and collective. Gen2 is fleshed out and individual. Gen1 is the big picture synopsis; Gen2 is the attention to details, particularly humans and “the weeds.”
You dont necessarily have to view it as absolute history.
I personally like to view them as symbolism. Especially when you consider that one was believed to have been written before the Babylon exile and one was written after, and you can tell which is which by the way the authors depict God in the story.
For example the one written in Banylon has literary references to the Enuma Elish (A Babylonian creation story), which might be why it focuses more on how God created everything in the universe, and "debunking" Peaganism, for a lack of better words.
I believe Elohim stands for what God really is. He is so much more than we think He is. We think of God as good, He is better. So the plural word Elohim is just an attempt to show His transcendence, His omniscience. Whatever we think He is, He is much more and then much more.
Elohim is actually just a generic term for anyone who is a disembodied spirit.
If it wasn't, then Samuel the prophet is the same as God, which is of course nonsense.
Samuel is described as an elohim when the medium of endor calls him forth from beyond the grave for king Saul. There is no way that the Bible would be affirming the same ontological status to a dead human.
1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Genesis 1 gives the creation account, Genesis 2 adds details. Simple.
Recieve it as the Word of God by faith. My pea-brain will never comprehend all the glory in scripture... especially if I question it as I do the words of people.
On the surface it seems like they contradict, but it is not impossible to harmonize them. Genesis 2 is a more specific account of day 6. Some plant life such as grass and trees were on the earth, but agricultural plant life (“shrub *of the field*”), as well as thorns and thistles, were not yet on the earth because that was a result of God creating man and making it rain, and the curse that came from the fall. And God is first called Yahweh when he’s characterized as a God of promise and deliverance, but in Genesis 1 the characterization was focused on God as creator of all things. Anybody who knows anything about the OT knows that names have meanings and can change to reflect different aspects of character (I.e., Abram > Abraham)
It’s just as complicated to try to explain a multiple author patchwork theory as it is to harmonize the accounts, which shows that it’s not really a spirit of textual criticism that drives one side or the other
Compare these verses The creation of Adam with Ef 2:15.
Can someone explain how in genesis 1 god started creating animal on the 5th day but in genesis 2 he created man before all animal of the earth?
I don't understand either side of this debate.
The order of events in the 2 chapters are different. Things that are different are not the same.
I don't understand the skeptic who says "look it's a contradiction, it must be a bunch of nonsense".
The author/authors were not stupid. They would have understood that. And yet both creation stories are given.
We could just be okay with that and have the conversation about what genesis is teaching us. The stories must be given for a reason. Maybe the reason isn't scientific chronology, especially if the author/authors seem unconcerned with it.
She didn’t mention Marduk nor the fact that the Hebrews were in captivity at the time an started to convert to the god of the oppressive
Yes, this WHOLE clarification which is a one sided idea could very well be the problem. Moses supposedly wrote the first five books of the Torah, and ultimately the Bible. But Moses never records an encounter with a Satan in the wilderness. The fact that Genesis 1&2 CAN be extrapolated from each other may be pointing to the idea that Moses, and or other authors wrote stories from God, but also intertwined stories from one or more Satans into the Torah and ultimately the Bible.
You are right, and this is what stated in Clementine Homilies 2 and 3, where Peter said the scriptures were changed, and now contain falsehoods. Peter also said Yeshua taught them to "be prudent money-changers" to be able to discern the truth from the falsehoods
@@wserthmar8908 thank you for this information. I have read some of the homilies, and am excited to read the rest. I don’t see any reason why all this stuff would be so confusing, unless it were mixed with false information. And the people who say it isn’t confusing just seem disingenuous. I’m gonna catch up on the Clementine Homilies. Thanks😊
Because one person can't write in several different styles or use different names for the same person..... That's a sorta narrow minded view of humans in general. I use different names for the same person completely depending on context in both speech and writing.
That's some mental gymnastics, it says birds were formed in day 5 in genesis 1, and in Genesis 2 it says they were formed from earth after the man is made.
According to Genesis 2:4 there were 2 separate creations. There was a mankind also created in the heavens. Which is the actual generation that Elohim made in their likeness and image. So many ppl overlook that important piece of the puzzle. Which means that God NEVER gave dominion to Adam and Eve; they were just slaves. He gave dominion to the first generation made in the heavens.. Please tell me your opinion on this comment.
In Genesis 1 we read, after it says that male and female are created, that God told the humans that they could eat any fruit. However, in Genesis 2 we read that God told Adam, before Eve was created, that he could not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Thus, if these are discussing the same creation event, God's allowance to eat every fruit follows his command to not eat one fruit, thus overriding it. Clearly that isn't the case. These stories are obviously unrelated.
Furthermore, the phrase "these are the generations of..." is used repeatedly in Genesis, but always to go forward in time, never backwards.
It's not that these accounts are contradictory. It's that man's insistence that these be read as scientific or historical texts causes them to appear to be contradictory. Genesis 1 is clearly a polemical response to the Enuma Elish, and is a masterpiece in literary criticism. The literal/historical view you impose on it robs it of that beauty and turns it into a flawed document. It's not the text that is the problem, it's these narrows views that get imposed on it that hurts the Bible.
The most important part of the Creation story is the Fall because correcting our faults is what we are here to do, to return home to God. That is the part of the creation parable that Jesus addresses with the parable of the Prodigal Son.
In Genesis, Adam and Eve listen to the wrong teacher and God punishes them by throwing them out of the Garden to work hard by the sweat of their brow and suffer through child labor pains and at the end of life, die instead of live forever.
Jesus changed this by saying that we, as prodigal sons, left God because we wanted to listen to the world instead of to God. In doing so, we made all of our own suffering and when we finally have had enough of that, we return to our Father, who allows us, with open arms, back in the kingdom of His inheritance to listen to Him instead of the world, and Jesus says with this we find our connection to God as being easy with light burden.
Genesis 1:1 speaks of previous age which holds the answers for science discoveries. Could be millions or even billions of years old. Genesis 1:2 is the Beginning of our current age of creation!!
Yes I’ve learned that the Bible does not contradict and always it’s me or others understanding of it.
Is this how Lilith fit in? Could one family produced Cain and the other produced Cain's wife? It would explain why their were others.
When you begin with the premise that the book CAN'T be wrong, it turns out the book is NEVER wrong.
But the Bible is NEVER wrong so the Bible is NEVER wrong.
So the Bible is NEVER wrong.
@@ndjarnag you have achieved enlightenment of the Christian variety
@@GodlessGubment Yeah. Basically Im never wrong! I just pick the book I like. Then I interpret it how I like. Then I say this is from God. Basically Im making myself God! and then I brag how humble I am!
@@ndjarnag you will have many worshipers
Another clarifying perspective: The book of Genesis isn't as much about the HOW of creation as it is about the WHO of creation.
in other words you havent read the bible
@@daniel1fullerton In other words people can have different opinions without you having to be condescending and dismissive. It doesn’t suit the salt of the earth.
@@keatsiannightingale2025 another irrelevant response, thank you
Yes it does
@@daniel1fullerton your ignorant
As a former adherent to materialistic evolutionary, an atheist, after my conversion to Biblical Theism, I never viewed Genesis 1 and 2 as contradictory.
Nor do I have an issue that Genesis is primarily an historical account. Trust it.
In order to understand the Bible the first thing is to know the original language in which it is written.
The secret to understanding Genesis 1 and 2, are the words, that must be understood within their context. Some of the Key words to know in that Hebraic meaning:
Beginning
Create-Bara
Make-Asah
Elohim
Yahweh
Secondly, since this book is alive, to understand its mysteries contained in Genesis 1 and 2, The Spirit of the Lord must open our eyes.
Another secret is in the phrase IN THE DAY, first found in Genesis 2:4. The reference is inside the day. That is also comparable to a day is as a 1000 years, used both literally 2 Peter 3:8 and metaphorically found in and psalms 90:4.
To be more specific, God told Adam, “In the day that you eat it you will surely die, found in the “second account” of Genesis 2, verse 17.
Did Adam Die, the answer is yes, immediately disconnected from God in the realm of His soul, and physically living a total of 930 years which is short of 1000 years.
They are actually the same story. After ADAM was made , God created each kind of animal before ADAMS eyes and brought them each before him to be named. The naming of the animals was a separate event, that also happened in the garden. Read it carefully and you will see. God did this so Adam would know who the maker was, and established a relationship between him, and the animals.
In the ancient world, the act of naming something was also a symbol of dominion. It was another way of giving man dominion over creation as its steward.
@Eightball Wizard Regarding the naming, in the ancient world the act of naming something indicated dominion over that thing. According to Genesis 1:26, one reason God made man was "so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Giving Adam naming rights over the creatures seems to be God certifying man's dominion and stewardship over creation.
@Eightball Wizard In the first statement I was quoting the Bible. In the second I was explaining what scholars have said about the symbolism of the act of naming in ancient near-Eastern cultures. This was to answer your question, "Why did he even need to name anything?" If you didn't want an answer, why ask the question?
Alisa, I would like to recommend bringing Dr. David Falk who is a mainstream Egyptologist who has a lot of evidence related to Pentateuch authorship, exodus, .....
Thankyou. 🙂
Gen 2 :5 is correct, there is no vegetation before men indeed. Read too Gen 4 : 14, Gen 6 : 1 - 4, Psalm 82, and John 10 : 34 - 35. Hope you'll understand. Gbu
Well then let's get you corrected! The first chapter is not a separate account, but an overview, a introduction to the text, it states this. The second chapter is in fact the beginning of the text, in which the six days play out. You'll notice that the beginning starts with the seventh day, let me remind you, one day to God is like a thousand years to man. At some point within the sixth day the saints are caught up in the rapture, completing the heavens and the earth and the whole host of them. At that point the one true God and his saints will make judgement, and then rest. Then the one and only will say to his saints, let us make man in our likeness and our image. This story will continue for eternity, for that which is has already been, and that which is to be, has been before, there is nothing new under the sun.
It helps if you read the Book of Jubilees. The second chapter literally says that an Angel has commanded Moses to write down the 6 day creation story. Then for the next few verses spells out what was created and on what day. There is zero confusion when all the ancient Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament is taken into account.
But the more interesting thing happens in chapter 3. (And this is where the confusion lies within the second chapter of Genesis) A very few key words are omitted that explains the timeline, and why it seems as if the author is not the same or skipping around. The naming of the animals actually happens on the 6th day, BUT THE SECOND WEEK. And it's a process that took Adam all week long. As each day he was shown a specific type of animal group, _"...the beasts on the first day; the cattle on the second day; the birds on the third day; and all that which moves on the earth on the fourth day; and that which moves in the water on the fifth day. And Adam named them all by their respective names, and as he called them, so was their name."_
Then on the 6th day (of the second week, after naming all the animals) God stated that he needed a helpmate. And that's when Eve was created out of Adam's rib. Adam only got to see her after a week had past. Which set forth some rules about man's uncleanliness, and our defilement. To which Adam was basically instructed to be in the wilderness for 40 BEOFRE he was allowed to enter in the Garden of Eden. (probably where we got fasting from) And Eve had to put in 80 days before she was considered holy and clean enough to enter the Garden of Eden.
Which by the way I found the most fascinating, is that Adam and Eve only spent exactly 7 years in the Garden of Eden. Then Eve was tempted by the Serpent on the 17th day of the second month after they had worked the land for the full 7 years. And upon kicking them out of the Garden, God was the one who made them clothes of animal skins. As only Eve covered herself with a fig leaf, and Adam had sewn himself a fig leaf apron. Oh, and the animals could all talk or at least communicate with one another easily... until the day God punished Adam and Eve, then they lost that ability, and were scatted to all ends of the earth. And Adam and Eve went to live in a land called Elda, where Adam worked the soil as he was taught in the Garden.