Genesis 2 as Evidence
Believe it or not, perhaps the Bible itself offers us the greatest insight into the question posed. Although Genesis 1 offers the Story of Creation while referring to a period of various “days,” it is Genesis 2 that offers further insight into the figurative nature of the Story of Creation. Compared to Genesis 1 discussing six days worth of creation and a seventh day of rest, the account of Genesis 2 offers a deeper and perhaps more spiritual understanding of the creation of humanity and the world around us. In this regard, Genesis 2 presents the Story of Creation within the lapse of a single day in that there is no designation between the various acts of creation. Now I am by no means arguing that the accounts presented in each of these respective chapters are at odds with each other, but rather I am arguing that the author of Genesis appears to not place any degree of importance on the duration of time, but rather on substance. In this regard, it would be understandable to accept the Story of Creation as being symbolic in its meaning.
Further in Genesis 2:1 it states “At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” It is here that we find a singular term (time) being used to reference the period of creation. I find this reference intriguing because it further solidifies the singular nature of God’s creation. In other words, the Lord created the heavens and the earth, but this statement does not find any necessity in referring to either the number of days of creation or for that matter any particular duration of time. With this said, it would appear that this passage offers insightful understanding regarding the nature of God’s creation, in that Genesis 2 further expounds upon the bounty of theology that is offered from the inspired Word of God without any emphasis on time in particular terms.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
In a literal translation, Genesis 1:31 and 2:1 state that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. Genesis 2:2 states that God finished his work on the seventh day. Genesis 2:4 begins an account of the day in which the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
Interpret this literally and the creation accounts dissolve into nonsense, with creation happening in one, six and seven days. To make any sense of it, both creationists and others are forced to take at least some of these accounts figuratively and not literally. If you want to take the Bible seriously, you can't take it completely literally, even if you are a literalist!
M. Glass
as has already been covered... the different stories of creation are in perfect agreement - you simply are misunderstanding them. At the risk of repeating what was already said - Genesis 2:1 is the 6th day and the creation of man...it's not the story of creation - it's a focus on that day of creation in particular... I don't want to be rude.. but I'm quite shocked that people can't read these two passages without thinking they disagree... It shows to me there's no way God COULD write the story without people disagreeing with it...
Seriously... can you imagine a version of the Bible being written that some portion of the world wouldn't say 'That's not God's word... he wouldn't say that' .. or some version that no one would claim that there are contradictions? I sure can't... man is incredibly faulty.. It's been my opinion that when God created the heavens and earth - and the animals .. he had a good thing going. Then he created man... it's been downhill since.
Genesis 1:31 and 2:1 say: "And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
[The heavens and the earth finished in six days.]
Genesis 2:1 says: "And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done."
[God finished his work on the seventh day.]
Genesis 2:4b-7 says: "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up- for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground - then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
[the day of creation]
A one day creation, a six day creation and a seven day creation. That's what you get if you interpret the Bible literally.
M. Glass
I can see how it would be interpreted as a contradiction.. but it really isn't
First off the statement 'And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made' only at first appears that he took 7 days... just read the sentence again - he rested on the seventh day... just the same as in the other verse... no conflict - it's just the wording of 'On the seventh day God finished his work'.. If you worked 6 days of the week - on the seventh you would have finished your work... The creation was a week - with the last day resting.. same in both.
as far as verse 2 it is an entirely different type of story...It's mainly dealing with the creation of Adam but also the naming of the various generations of animals and plants by him. Verse 2 is not an actual step by step story the way the first verse is -- you can tell by the wording itself
2:4 begins
'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens'
He's telling us right off the bat.. that what we have is a telling of the generations of animals and also man that was created 'in the day that the lord made the earth and the heavens'....
The 'creation of the heavens and earth' was the entire process... not day 1.....same as it says 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' in verse 1..this is not simply the first day.. but an introduction to the process. Although I had never considered the interpretation you are describing.. it seems you are saying that it contradicts because of the use of the word 'day'? Just like in hebrew - our word day has a double meaning.. it can either mean a time.. or an actual day - like the phrase 'back in the day' =) What separates this day from the days in verse 1 is most importantly the lack of the mention of 'evening and morning'.
But back to the point - Verse 2 is a telling of how he created the animals and also man.
Let's look at the verse once more - ' These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.'
As I said... this part is not a 'step by step' of creation.. it is just as it says 'the generations in the day that God made them (heaven, earth, plant and herb)' It is a special verse devoted entirely to the telling of the process of making man - and later Adam naming the animals. The purpose of this verse in not to simply retell the creation story a second time (there would be no point to that).
With that in mind.. this is why the statement of God 'having not caused it to rain upon the earth' is not an issue... simply because this is not a retelling of a creation.. but used to express a different idea..
I'll try to state it the verse in more of a plain english.. rather than Bible english -
' This is the story of the making of all the living things on the Earth (generations), and how it occurred ... to witness the process we return to the point just before their making - the point before God had made it rain upon the Earth and before there were a man to work the ground.'
The supposed 'contradiction' arises when you assume that 'God not having caused it to rain' is in chronological order to Genesis 1.. or that this is a step by step piece. It is an introduction to Genesis 2 in the same way that 'In the beginning..' is the introduction piece for Genesis 1.
That is the way it reads for me... and believe me - it was difficult for me to try to put this into words for you.....understanding the verse and explaining it are two entirely different things - but this is the interpretation I've always got from this verse.. In genesis 1 we tell the story of how it all was created - in Genesis 2 we go back a step.. and tell the story of animals and man. The verse serves to separate Adam from all the other beasts and make clear man's importance.
Hey... I'm no Bible scholar.... I value the fact that you've pointed out the 'contradictions' because I've never understood what people meant by a contradiction in Genesis... I feel it's in the reading that it sounds like a contradiction...
My point was not that Genesis contradicted itself but that if you took it literally it contradicted itself. The problem is not with Genesis so much as a literal interpretation of Genesis. You have to get away from literalism to make sense of the two creation stories, with their different orders of creation. You have proved my point by showing how a less than literal interpretation of the passages gets round the problem of a literal interpretation.
M. Glass
First, even as a Bible-believing creationist, I want to say thanks for bring attention to Genesis 2. I am surprised how many Christians have not noticed this chapter. The Hebrew used it not thought to be figuaritive, but this brings attention the order and matter of time we have grown to think. I do think that in the 2nd chapter of Genesis it is referring to time as a "period" or "era", just as we would say, "I lived in California for a time". There are no specifics.
I would also like to point out that Job is recorded as the oldest and thus first book of the Bible written, between Job and Psalms we see great awe and majesty described by the writers.
Thought we have learned so much through science and technology, there is so much we do not know. It is amazing to me to think of the beauty, creativity and perfection that is made in space and here on earth--which to me point to a God with intelligence, morality and emotion--similar to ourselves. The study of science is intriguing but it shouldn't get in the way of ruling out the Creator.
"The study of science is intriguing but it shouldn't get in the way of ruling out the Creator."
Ruling out any creator(s) is a philosophical question. There can never been any scientific evidence to "rule out" a creator.
Creation in six literal days is a scientific question and it is clearly ruled out.
"there is so much we do not know."
I assume you are speaking for yourself. At any rate this does not seem to be a good basis to "point to a God with intelligence, morality and emotion--similar to ourselves". That seems be be quite a non sequitur. Our ignorance implies a supernatural being similar to ourselves? I don't think many people would like this "argument".