HOME Doctrine Contact Bookstore Biographies Links Events Seminars
HOME Doctrine Contact Bookstore Biographies Links Events Seminars
Scriptural – Separated – Sound
The question arises "Does Genesis chapter 2 contradict Genesis chapter 1?" To those who look for such things, the Author of Scripture provides much fodder to those who wish to scratch only the limited surface for their quest to discount the Divine claims. However, for those who know the One True God as Savior and Lord, understand that no such contradiction exists and that the answer lies deep within the original text itself. First one must understand that translations are not where Biblical arguments rest.
For many weaknesses exist in trying to go from one language into another, for grammar and syntax vary from language to language. This is why one should be workingly familiar with the original languages that the Scriptures were Divinely inspired in, which are Hebrew in the Old Testament, and Greek in the New.
Because the origin of the Divine Scriptures takes place over 1400 years by 47 different human pens all in the hand of One Author- the Creator God, several areas must be considered to varying degrees to comprehend what stands written. Three of these areas are - culture, chronology, and language.
First consideration is the culture, which is Semitic, and it is ancient, that is what was done in Jesus' time was not necessarily done back in Moses’ time. So, a person needs to be aware of chronological differences within a given culture. Along with this is the language and how it expresses thought; the ancient Semitic cultures have different ways of thinking and writing than we do today.
Biblical Hebrew is very different from Greek and more so from English. The Greek language has six tenses. However in contrast, Biblical Hebrew is not a "tense" driven language. Grammarians tell us that it is a "aspectual" language. What does this mean? It means that the one form of a verb can be translated as either past present, or future depending on the context and various grammatical cues.
The most common cue is called the "vav-consecutive " that makes an imperfect verb refer to the past, either as a simple narrative past, such as: he spoke, or as a past perfect - he has spoken, or as a plu-perfect, he had spoken, which are determined by the flow of the context. Beginning Hebrew students translate the vav-consecutive preterite , as it is also called, as a simple past tense, but this can be confusing in many O.T. passages.
Another aspect of Semitic expression is seen as an "A" and "B" format. That is narrative "A" is given in its detail including a chronological sequence; then narrative "B" follows to highlight some aspect of "A" and since "A" has already 'established" the historical details, what "B" narrates may not follow the established chronology due to emphasis or focus. Therefore, based on the established timeline of "A" advanced Hebrew students would translate the "vav-consecutive-preterite " verb as a pluperfect. Example, in Judges 2:6 we see the translation from Hebrew, "And when Joshusa had let the people go…" Here the vav-consecutive preterite is correctly translated as a pluperfect, "had let."
However in 1 Kings 7:13 we see the translation in the KJV, "And King Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre…" This could be confusing because it makes it seem that Hiram was sent for "after" everything transpired in chapter 6. The problem is, in chapter six we are told the building and completion of the temple and the royal palace was thirteen years in the building. Therefore with this flow of context that is established in chapter 6, the "A" narrative, it is obvious that Hiram was involved at the start of the building process, since he was a key figure in its construction; therefore in Chapter 7, the "B" narrative, with its "vav-consecutive-preterite " should be translated as a pluperfect: "And Solomon had sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre," indicating that Hiram was involved for the duration of the project.
Genesis Chapter two would fall into this pattern. The "A" is Genesis One where the order and chronology is established; Chapter Two is the "B" where the narrative becomes focused on an aspect of the detail of Chapter One. Chapter One, the "A,” tells us that the plants, fish, birds and animals were created before man, who was created male and female after the animals on day six. Chapter two, the "B," now focuses on the specific details of man's creation. Chapter 2:4 should be translated, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God had made the earth and the heavens, 5: 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…. 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. 8; And the LORD God had planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom He had formed. 9: and out of the ground the LORD God had made every tree to grow that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food…. 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. 19: And out of the ground the LORD God had formed (vav-preterite ) every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air and brought (simple imperfect) them unto Adam to see what he would call them.
Again the pattern is followed in verses 21 and 22: "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs (this is the "A" part), and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib (this is the "B" part), which the LORD God had taken (vav-consecutive-preterite , as a pluperfect), made he a woman (simple imperfect).
Therefore, since the precise chronology is established by chapter One, the events in chapter two are to be understood in that light. Therefore there was no reason for the writer to follow that sequence since now his focus is on how man fits into the creation picture, making chapter two not a chronological narrative. This is noted by a Hebrew scholar, who states that some Hebrew constructions are not to be taken as chronological,
For when a Hebrew writer wishes to explain or prepare the way for what is to follow by the mention of some fact which lies outside the main course of his narrative, the passages quoted at the beginning of this note shew conclusively that he purposely disconnects it with what precedes, by the choice of a construction not suggestive of chronological sequence…." (S.R. Driver, A treatise on the use of the tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions, p.88 [emphasis mine])
As usual once we understand the syntax and cultural expressions involved with the Scriptures, the naive ideas of contradictions disappear, which is especially true with the Genesis One and Two issues. This is born out by several English translations which follow this pattern and translate the vav consecutive, verse in 19 especially, as a pluperfect: Darby translation, New International Version, Douay version, and The English Standard Version.
Also, the Hebrew Old Testament Commentary, Kiel and Delitzsch also notes,
The circumstance that in Gen_2:19, the formation of the beasts and birds is connected with the creation of Adam by the imperf vav consec., constitutes to objection to the plan of creation given in Gen 1. The arrangement may be explained on the supposition, that the writer, who was about to describe the relation of man to the beasts, went back to their creation, in the simple method of the early Semitic historians, and placed this first instead of making it subordinate; so that our modern style of expressing the same thought would be simply this: “God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed.” (Kiel and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, electronic version. s.v. Genesis 2:19) (emphasis mine)
Also, Bible scholar, Albert Barnes understands and notes concerning this verse,
He is now to be introduced to the animal kingdom, with which he is connected by his physical nature, and of which he is the constituted lord. Not many hours or minutes before have they been called into existence. (Albert Barnes. Barnes' Notes on the Old Testament - Volume I (Ge 2:19). Joseph Kreifels.)
Again, the Scholars of the KJV Bible Commentary state concerning verse 19,
The Lord God formed every beast of the field is to be understood as The Lord God had “formed every beast of the field” (cf. ch. 1). (KJV Bible commentary. 1997, c1994 (18). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.) (Emphasis mine)
There is a harmony not a contradiction in understanding Genesis One and Two even in a normal literal understanding of the contextual flow. The Scriptures here are written in the form of the ancient Semitic, Hebrew perspective, and when understood from this perspective show that the writer of Genesis Two was not contradicting what stands written in Chapter One. All of which rests on the Creator-given discernment to those that are truly born again, as stated in the new testament: " But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2:14. The only people who would object to this understanding are those who want to make the Creator God's unchanging, infallible Word conform to mini-minded man's fallible, always changing ways of thinking.
One's world view affects how one approaches God's Word the Bible. One falls into one of two basis classes determined by their world view:
First class, which, based on it epistemology and corresponding biases, holds to something like:
The Creator GOD of the Bible is Omnipotent, and Omniscient and therefore with HIM all things are possible, such as picking up a "human" pen and expressing Himself clearly and infallibly on paper (or clay) and preserving what He wrote from generation to generation. And the problems with understanding HIS WORD are solely due to man's ignorance and not HIS WORD.
The Creator GOD of the Bible is Omnipotent, and Omniscient and therefore with HIM all things are possible, such as picking up a "human" pen and expressing Himself clearly and infallibly on paper (or clay) and preserving what He wrote from generation to generation. And the problems with understanding HIS WORD are solely due to man's ignorance and not HIS WORD.
Then there is the -
Second class, which, based on it epistemology and corresponding biases, holds to something like:
The god of the bible does not have the power, or knowledge to effectively communicate with his creatures, and when he tried to, MAN, being more powerful, obfuscated what this god was trying to write so that we have to rely on MAN and his "great intellect” to tell us what this little god said or "tried" to say in his word. Therefore, the problems with understanding his word is due to this god's inability to effectively communicate and the unenlightened state of those he was trying to write through. Now, this "enlightened” group is always asking the satanic question, "Yea, hath god said?" And answers, "Most likely he did not." For example:
SQ: "Yea, hath god said that HE created in six literal days?"
A: "Most likely he did NOT according to what MAN says and the 'facts' HE interprets"
SQ: "Yea, hath god said that he flooded the entire world in Noah's day?"
A: "Most likely he did NOT according to what MAN says and the 'facts' HE interprets"
This writer falls into the First Class way of thinking. What all this comes down to is One’s choice. All we are and become are anchored to the choices we make. The most important choice in our lives comes down to this: Am I willing to choose to repent and have Jesus Christ in my life as my personal LORD and Savior? The Old Testament says, “Choose you this day whom you will serve…” Josh 24:15. The final choice is yours dear reader, and be careful; because all eternity hangs in the balance with what belief system you embrace.