DoubtingDave

We all know that the Bible presents two creation accounts, but that doesn't stop apologists from defending the Bible.


Don't Genesis 1 and 2 present contradictory creation accounts?
Genesis 1
Day one - Heavens and earth are created. "Let there be light." Day and Night.
Day two - Atmospheric waters separated from earth waters.
Day three - Land appears separating the seas. Vegetation is made.
Day four - Sun, moon, stars are made.
Day five - Sea life and birds are made.
Day six - Land animals, creeping things, and man (male and female) are made.
Genesis 2
States heaven and earth were created. There was no plant yet on earth, no rain yet, and no man. But, a mist rose watering the surface of the ground. Then the Lord formed man from dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Finally, God made Eve.

Here is Matt Slick's "refutation" of it.

I also seen apologists make claims of a complementary account.

What do you think of this argument. Does it work or does it not? If not, why not.

judge

It is generally considered that there were originally two accounts of the creation story just as there were two accounts of the flood story and two accounts of the Goliath story.
At some point both groups were united and the leaders or priests ended up with two accounts, slightly different of the same stories.
The solution, to keep both groups happy was to combine the stories into one account.
This is part of what is known as the documentary hypothesis. There used to be a member here called Dean Anderson who once put together a great post on this, which I thought was pinned, but I cant see it but maybe Toto can find it.

There is a great book on this which is easy to read called Who Wrote the Bible, by Richard Eliot Friedman. Check it out.

Added in edit:
Sorry I just noticed that you seem to probably know this stuff. Matt Slicks' arguments are just what we would expect from someone who is committed to the view that the bible is 'gods word".

Iskander

There are two account and they are not complimentary.

Why one of the two accounts was not suppressed in ancient times by those responsible for its preservation is what I would like to know.

Toto

The post on the Documentary Hypothesis is post 4 in the BCH Recommended Reading.

As to why one of the accounts was not eliminated - it seems to be a pattern. Religious groups have to create a big tent that takes in a lot of different points of view, so they construct their sacred literature by adding things in and just ignoring the contradictions. That's why you have four gospels that cannot be reconciled.

judge

As these "double accounts several times as I indicated, one must ask is there any evidence of "complimentary accounts" like this occuring elsewhere in ANE literature.
If not then why does it just happen to occur in the hebrew bible? And why several times?
This a reasonable question fro a literary standpoint.

If, however it is "gods word" then why did god make these instances look like they were originally two accounts?

Here is good explanation of why the Goliath story sure looks like two accounts

manwithdream

I have a different idea about Genesis 2. I think that Genesis 2 describes a second creation of the animals that happened after the animals were already created for their own kind in Genesis 1.This time G-d created the animals to make a mate for Adam, but he did not like any of them,so G-d made the woman from his rib.

The animals created then might have been different because the snake had legs and could talk to Adam and Eve. Talking animals might have looked different too.

In Genesis 2, I think it did not rain yet, but the ground could have been wet from the gathering of the water into seas, so some plants could have grown right away in the field, or maybe the only plants that grew before the rain were plants that grew at the edge of the seas or in the seas like seaweed or swamp trees, and none grew in the field before it rained.

I am sure you will consider these ideas to be nonsense, but I think they fit the stories in Genesis 1 and 2.

Kenneth Greifer

DoubtingDave

I also heard that these were two different events altogether.

Is there any site dedicated to refuting Matt

spin

Let me say for accuracy's sake that the first verse in Genesis should be understood as "In the beginning when god created the heavens and the earth" this is followed by the state in the beginning. It is not until v.3 that any creation takes place, when god turns the lights on: "let there be light". This means:

Day one - "Let there be light." Day and Night.

Each day starts with an act of divine fiat, "god said..."

The chapters don't represent the boundaries: the second account starts at 2:4. Now note how Gen 2:4 starts, "these are the generations". Check out 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, etc. The statements about generations beginning new sections.

I know it's pointless to argue with this (would you argue with a wall?), but contemplate day six of the first creation account. It clearly indicates that humans were created last. Verse 26 says that animals were created, while v.28 says "Then god said, 'let us make mankind...'" Either humans were created before or after the animals, but not both. In fact, according to creation #2, the first human was created before vegetation, for after creating Adam he created a garden for him, making all the trees for him, though in #1, vegetation was created on the second day.

This is just funny: "Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam", proof that Matt is talking through his hat, as it indicates the logistics of two different stories.

Minimalist

Is there anything that will do that? If so, please bottle it.

mg01

I've also seen it stated it could be translated as the more awkward: "In the beginning of god's creating of the heavens and the earth." As in as a setup for the next verse to describe the initial conditions. Then the first event, as you said, was turning on the lights.