Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

Subject Author
This is one I haven't seen addressed before psychoboy
Genesis 1:25-27 seems to state that animals were created before humans.

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

Genesis 2:18-19 seems to state that humans were created before animals.

---

Incorrect. (see below)

Quote:

---

What is the apologetic resolution to this seeming contradiction?

---

Answer: Reading what the verses actually say!


The passages are as follows:

Quote:

---

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. 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. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

(Genesis 1:25-27)

---

Quote:

---

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 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.

(Genesis 2:18-19)

---

The phrase "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air", is a parenthetical. The book of Genesis frequently uses parentheticals. Notice also that Genesis 1:25-27 says that God created both male and female humans, yet Genesis 2:18-19 says that Adam was alone (no female human had been created yet). This is another example of a parenthetical.

Another example includes the words of Eve to the serpent (God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it...) How could Eve have known what God said regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, when Genesis 2:16 indicates that the warning was given to "the man", which occured before Eve was created? (verse 18 states "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an help meet for him." ) In other words, Eve was not present when Adam was informed of the tree of the knowledge and given the prohibition. The Bible does not record when Eve became aware of the prohibition... Yet she clearly knew about it when the serpent was introduced in Chapter 3.

The book of Genesis is not a chronological play by play account of creation. There is a general chronological progression of events recorded in the book, as there is also in the other books of the Bible, but more importantly, there are numerous parentheticals throughout the entire Bible. Chapter and verse order does not determine chronological order of the events described. Instead, what the text SAYS is what indicates what happened chronologically, not the chapter and verse order. These are common errors and misconceptions of the skeptics.

Quote:

---

Re: This is one I haven't seen addressed before jeff
Quote:
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,


my copy of the LXX reads thus, david...

Quote:
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone, let us make for him a help suitable to him. 19 And God formed yet farther out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the sky, and he brought them to Adam, to see what he would call them, and whatever Adam called any living creature, that was the name of it.


this would seem to indicate that, after forming adam from the earth, god futher made the animals out of the earth.
how do you explain this descrepancy?

---

Interesting point...

My first thought in reading your post was that the phrase "yet farther out of the earth" does not necessarily relate to time sequence, but instead may simply mean that land animals, like man, were formed from the outer edges of the earth, i.e., the dust. But, this would present another apparent contradiction in the LXX in Genesis 1:20,21... Let the waters bring forth reptiles having life, and winged creatures flying above the earth in the firmament of heaven; and it was so. And God made great whales, and every living reptile, which the waters brought forth according to their kinds, and every creature that flies with wings according to its kind; and God saw that they were good. The verse that you quoted (2:19) says that God "formed yet farther out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the sky, and he brought them to Adam..."

The above seems to be a contradiction (flying creatures were initially brought forth from waters, but then apparently had been formed from out of the earth). Further inspection of the verbs however, yields a different explanation. The verbs in question, translated in English as "created" (or made) and "formed", are not the same. It appears that there is a distinction between two sets of verbs in the book of Genesis that correspond to the English words translated "created" (or made) and "formed". The verbs for "created" (or made) are the Hebrew words "bara" and "`asah"; whereas, the verb for "formed" is the Hebrew word "yatsar". In English, we often assume that these Hebrew verbs "bara", "'asah", and "yatsar" all mean essentially the same thing... But, such an assumption is wrong. The Strongs definitions of the terms demonstrate the differences between the terms. Interestingly, the word "yatsar" does not appear in Genesis until Chapter 2, and it is used in the verse you quoted...

The following link provides further information... ecclesia.org/truth/1-2.html (Disclaimer: I do not agree with everything written on the linked page, nor with the theology espoused by the website, however, much of the information at the link is interesting and accurate).

Whereas everything living thing had been created or made (bara or 'asah) by the sixth day, Genesis chapter 2 seems to indicate that not everything was "formed" (yatsar) by that time. For example, although you were "created" in Adam and Eve by the work of God in creation, you were not "formed" or "fashioned" by God until you were brought forth in the womb of your mother... Therefore, the words "bara" and "'asah", used in Genesis chapter 1 and 2, are distinct in meaning from the word "yatsar" used in chapter 2.

Strongs definition of the Hebrew word "yatsar" is the following:

formed
Old Testament Hebrew Definition:
03335 yatsar {yaw-tsar'}
probably identical with 03334 (through the squeezing into shape),
([compare 03331]); TWOT - 898; v
AV - form 26, potter 17, fashion 5, maker 4, frame 3, make 3,
former 2, earthen 1, purposed 1; 62
1) to form, fashion, frame
1a) (Qal) to form, fashion
1a1) of human activity
1a2) of divine activity
1a2a) of creation
1a2a1) of original creation
1a2a2) of individuals at conception
1a2a3) of Israel as a people
1a2b) to frame, pre-ordain, plan (fig. of divine)
purpose of a situation)
1b) (Niphal) to be formed, be created
1c) (Pual) to be predetermined, be pre-ordained
1d) (Hophal) to be formed


The usage of the verb "yatsar" (formed) in Genesis chapter 2 may have a much more interesting meaning than what is first realized... I have often been fascinated by some of the theories that state that there was a "pre-Adamite" earth... meaning that humanoid creatures and societes may have been in existence before Adam. The apparent distinction of using the verb "yatsar" to describe the "formation" of Adam lends some support to such theories. It is also interesting that the "formation" of Adam is not stated until the midportion of chapter 2 of Genesis, which is after the "creation" of male and female mentioned in Chapter 1... This does not mean that chapter and verse order dictates chronology, but when examined in light of the differences between the usages of the verbs "bara" and "yatsar", this lends more support to pre-Adamite earth theories.

Strongs defintion of "bara" is the following:

created
Old Testament Hebrew Definition:
01254 bara' {baw-raw'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 278; v
AV - create 42, creator 3, choose 2, make 2, cut down 2, dispatch 1,
done 1, make fat 1; 54
1) to create, shape, form
1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1a1) of heaven and earth
1a2) of individual man
1a3) of new conditions and circumstances
1a4) of transformations
1b) (Niphal) to be created
1b1) of heaven and earth
1b2) of birth
1b3) of something new
1b4) of miracles
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to cut down
1c2) to cut out
2) to be fat
2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat



And Strongs defintion of the word "'asah" is the following:

made
Old Testament Hebrew Definition:
06213 `asah {aw-saw'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 1708,1709; v
AV - do 1333, make 653, wrought 52, deal 52, commit 49, offer 49,
execute 48, keep 48, shew 43, prepare 37, work 29, do so 21,
perform 18, get 14, dress 13, maker 13, maintain 7, misc 154; 2633
1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to do, work, make, produce
1a1a) to do
1a1b) to work
1a1c) to deal (with)
1a1d) to act, act with effect, effect
1a2) to make
1a2a) to make
1a2b) to produce
1a2c) to prepare
1a2d) to make (an offering)
1a2e) to attend to, put in order
1a2f) to observe, celebrate
1a2g) to acquire (property)
1a2h) to appoint, ordain, institute
1a2i) to bring about
1a2j) to use
1a2k) to spend, pass
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be done
1b2) to be made
1b3) to be produced
1b4) to be offered
1b5) to be observed
1b6) to be used
1c) (Pual) to be made
2) (Piel) to press, squeeze


As can be seen above, there is overlap in the terms, yet there are also important distinctives between them. The placement of the different terms in the book of Genesis seems to be consistent, and this would therefore solve the apparent contradictions you have raised. This is another example of how translations are deficient and can lead to apparent contradictions (including the Septuagint). The usage of different words that have similar or near similar meanings (near synonyms) are often the source of apparent contradictions in translations.

Regardless of the above, the phrase in the LXX "And God formed yet farther out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the sky..." still seems to be a parenthetical simply because the action seems to be apart or separate from the formation of Adam.

Quote:

---

also, why would god form the animals, bring them to adam to name, be searching for a 'helpmeet' among them, and THEN decide that it's not good for adam to be alone? why were they searching for a helpmeet in the first place?

---

The above has been discussed before in other threads... I will see if I can find the thread.

Quote:

---

Re: This is one I haven't seen addressed before        Cugel
Why would Adam bother naming the animals anyways?

---

Who knows?

Perhaps it was a way of demonstrating his God-given dominance. The text says that God brought the animals to Adam to "see what he would call them".

Quote:

---

There were several animals recently discovered, never before recorded, do we check to see what Adam called them to make sure they have the right name?

---

The text does not specifically say that Adam named every living creature. The text (of the LXX) does say that "whatever Adam called any living creature, that was the name of it."

Quote:

---

What about animals named after places and people? This makes no sense. Did he name Buffalos or Bison? Why bother. Noah should have named them, if anyone.

---

Although the text indicates that "whatever Adam called any living creature, that was the name of it", it does not preclude other humans renaming animals later.

Quote:

---

There are two different Genesis stories, you are not being honest in seeing them.

---

Actually, I tend to agree that there is a distinction of God's activities described in chapter 1, versus the activities described in chapter 2 ("bara / 'asah" versus "yatsar"). One set of verbs is in the first chapter, and the other verb "yatsar" is introduced in the second chapter... This forms part of the argument that the two chapters were written by different persons (which I think is a weak argument).

Quote:

---

Re: This is one I haven't seen addressed before        Rev Etherman
David if you're right about the phrase being parenthetical then the two accounts (birds being created from water and formed from the ground) are contradictory since they'd be referring to the same event.

---

I was not right about the phrase being parenthetical if they were referring to the same event (creation of birds versus formation of birds).

Quote:

---

If we discard the "parenthetical theory" then one has to wonder why God created all the animals then formed them again later when trying to when he was trying to find a helpmeet for Adam.

---

This goes to the heart of the debate. The meaning of the term "yatsar" (formed) is what is most important. It seems that "formed" is not the same as "created".

Quote:

---

And why didn't the omnipotent God know ahead of time that he would need to create a female human to be Adam's helpmeet?

---

The text does not say that God did not know ahead of time that He would need to create a female human to be Adam's helpmeet...

Why God did it in the order that He did is open to speculation... Perhaps God wanted Adam to realize just how amazing Eve was by making him wait for her! Can you imagine what it would have been like to be observing the reproduction activities of animals around you, and yet seeing that you had no such similar companion? Hmmmnn... something (or someone) is missing...

Quote:

---

Re: This is one I haven't seen addressed before jeff
Quote:
I still think that the phrase is parenthetical in the sense that there is a chronological break indicated. This is seen in the preceding sentence... "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone, let us make for him a help suitable to him." The man was obviously not alone (meaning that no other creatures had yet been created) because the next sentence says "And God formed yet farther out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field..." The meaning of this passage, in my mind, was that Adam was still "alone" in spite of other animals being "formed" (yatsar) or prepared for him as companions. In other words, Adam did not have a suitable companion (Eve) in spite of the multitudes of animals around him.


i honestly don't know how you draw this conclusion. to me, the sequence of events is quite clear...

god forms adam out of dirt.
god sees that adam is alone and decides he needs a helpmeet.
god makes the animals further from the dirt - can't find a helpmeet.
god makes eve from adam.

---

Your paraphrasing of the sequence of events is not correct in my opinion...

My interpretation of the sequence goes as follows:

God forms (yatsar) man ("adam" in Hebrew) from the dust of the ground. (Genesis 2:7)
God says that it is not good that the man ("adam" in Hebrew) should be alone and decides to make a helpmeet for the man. (Genesis 2:18 )
God forms animals YET FARTHER out of the earth - and brings them to Adam to see what he would call them... but there was was not found a helper comparable to himself... (Genesis 2:19, LXX)
God forms the rib taken from Adam into a woman and brought her unto Adam. (Genesis 2:20, LXX)


From the sequence above, the text does not say that the animals were created (bara or 'asah) after Adam was created. To the contrary, the LXX suggests that the animals were FORMED, and then brought unto Adam. These animals could have been descendants of animals that had already been created before Adam was created (they were animals that were formed YET FARTHER out of the earth, implying that previous formations had already taken place in the past). The term "yatsar" is occasionally used to describe fashioning, as in the womb (not creating). For example, "Thus saith the LORD that made ['asah] thee, and formed [yatsar] thee from the womb..." (Isaiah 44:2)

Quote:

---

this has (to my mind) a greater sense of poetic truth, if you like, in that god can't find a helpmeet because the animals, like adam, were made from the dirt. god is inspired to make eve from adam himself.

---

Agree.

Quote:

---

all of this of course contradicts the first chapter of genesis, but the second chapter is internally consistent and fairly obvious in intent.

---

I disagree that this contradicts the first chapter. The first chapter speaks of creation, the second of formation (perhaps an elaboration or explanation on what happened in the first chapter)... there seems to be a distinction between the terms made (created) and formed.

Quote:

---

why don't you believe (as many do) that the 1st chapter of genesis to gen. 2:4 comprise one oral tradition of the creation and what follows as another, both of which were simply recorded but never expected to jibe with each other?

---

I don't believe the same way as many others believe... I find it difficult to believe that the author of Genesis would purposely record two oral traditions that would never be expected to "jibe with each other". Many of the events recorded in chapter 2 are parenthetical... i.e., they are explanatory or qualifying remarks of the events recorded in chapter 1.

Quote:

---

Re: This is one I haven't seen addressed before psychoboy
Quote:

The phrase "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air", is a parenthetical.
A parenthetical without parentheses. How interesting.

---

Yes, it is interesting.

The original writings of the Old Testament did not have modern conventions of punctuation such as parentheses. The New Testament, on the other hand, may have had a few rudimentary elements of punctuation...

The following links may be of more interest regarding this subject...

website.lineone.net/~ntgr...-punc.html
www.katapi.org.uk/UBSGrNT/Intro3.htm
www.friktech.com/rel/canon/types.htm
www.bible-researcher.com/...text1.html

Quote:

---

So where do the implied parentheses go? Is it "God created man (and then he created animals)", or is it "God created animals (and then he created man)"?

---

Neither!

Both events are "parenthetical" in describing God's works of creation.

Quote:

---

Can you rewrite both of those verses, and clear them up only by adding parentheses? Or do you have to add something else, too?

---

There is no need to add modern punctuation marks. The text is easily understood by persons who believe that the Bible represents the Word of God. Non-believers, on the other hand, are easily led astray from the truth. Non-believers often misinterpret what is being said by the text, either because of the deficient translation of near synonyms (yatsar vs. bara), or because unbelief biases a person against ever seeing the truth.