Silencing Skepticism: Contradiction in Creation

A common objection by skeptics to the inerrancy of God's Word has to do with what are perceived to be the two accounts of creation in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible puts it this way:

First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)	Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) "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.... So God created man in his own image."	Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.) "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 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."	Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) "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 the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

Some skeptics will also point to an apparent contradiction in the order in which humans and plants were created. In the so-called first account, plants are created on day 3 in verse 11: "Then God said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them'; and it was so." Humans, on the other hand, are not created until day 6 in verse 26: "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'"

In the alleged second account of creation, on the other hand, the first man is created before plants. Verse 5 tells us, "Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground." In verse 7 man is created: "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." Then in verses 8 and 9 God creates plants: "The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food..."

So, are the skeptics right? Are the first and second chapters of Genesis two separate accounts of creation, and do they contradict one another? And does this cast doubt on the inerrancy of Scripture?

NO SHRUB OF THE FIELD

The last alleged contradiction above is perhaps easiest to refute. What the text says did not exist prior to the creation of man was any shrub or plant "of the field." The word for "field" is the Hebrew שדה (sadeh). It refers to a limited area of flat land suitable for agriculture. This is in contrast to Genesis 1:11 where in saying "Let the earth sprout vegetation" the word for "earth" is ארץ ('erets), which refers to the "land" in general. Consider how the two are contrasted elsewhere in Scripture:

"Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When you come into the land [ארץ 'erets] which I shall give you, then the land [ארץ 'erets] shall have a sabbath to the LORD. Six years you shall sow your field [שדה sadeh], and six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its crop...'" (Leviticus 25:2-3)

For six years the Israelites throughout the "land" (ארץ 'erets) were to sow their "field" (שדה sadeh). But on the seventh year the "field" was to be allowed to rest. Thus, whereas in Genesis 1:11 God caused the "land" to spring forth vegetation, in Genesis 2:5-9 what is missing before man is cultivated plantlife, agriculture. Why? Because "there was no man to cultivate the ground."

But what about verse 9 which says, "the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?" Wouldn't the "fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind" created on day 3 in Genesis 1:11 qualify as "pleasing to the sight and good for food," and include "the tree of life" and "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?"

Not necessarily. For one, the trees of life and of knowledge could very easily have been specially created trees in the garden 3 days after the rest of plantlife was created. Second, not all fruits are edible, so it could be that the fruit trees created on day 3 bore inedible fruit, and on day 6 God created trees that produce edible fruit. However, I believe a better answer is found in answering the other alleged contradiction between these so-called creation accounts.

In the first chapter of Genesis, God creates plants on day 3 in verses 11 and 12, birds on day 5 in verses 21 and 22, then land animals on the first part of day 6 in verses 24 and 25, and then creates man and woman in verses 26 and 27. Plants, then birds, then land animals, then man and woman. But in the second chapter of Genesis, God appears to create man in verse 7, plants in verse 9, land animals and birds in verse 19, and then woman in verse 22. Man, then plants, then land animals and birds, and finally woman. The two sequences are totally contradictory! Right?

THE PLUPER-WHA?!?!

Though several translations of the second chapter of Genesis render the original in such a fashion as to suggest chronological order of creation, others do not. Take, for example, the NIV:

"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground...Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." (Genesis 2:7-19, emphasis mine)

The words as rendered by the NIV are fully compatible with the first chapter of Genesis. God had planted a garden, and had formed the birds and land animals, then He creates Adam and places him in the garden and brings the animals to him. Finally, He creates Eve. Thus, the two sequences of events are in harmony: Plants, then birds, then land animals, then man, then woman.

This difference between rendering the Hebrew נטע (nata` meaning "planted") and יצר (yatsar meaning
"formed") "planted/formed" versus "had planted/formed" is the difference between the perfect form and the pluperfect. The perfect tense is the simple past tense, but the pluperfect tense is sort of the past of the past. The original wording of this passage allows for either rendering. In fact, the context of the passage suggests strongly that the pluperfect is intended, and an insistence that this is not the case appears to be an attempt to impose contradiction upon the first and second chapters of Genesis where no such contradiction exists:

"Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had 'molded' them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: 'He had molded.' The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible." (Leupold, Exposition of Genesis)

Some allege that the pluperfect tense is not allowed by the structure of the original Hebrew. This is simply not the case (see "Are there two creation accounts?" in the additional resources listed below). However, for the sake of argument, what if they're right? Is there another option?

FORMING THE ALREADY CREATED

Take a closer look at Genesis 2:8,18-20:

"The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed...Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.' Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him."

Notice that in verse 8 God planted a garden in a specific geographic location, and placed the man there. That's in stark contrast to the creation of vegetation described in the first chapter, which appears to be across the whole earth. Thus, God is simply causing certain kinds of vegetation, which He had already created, to grow in this specific area.

Then, with a specific purpose in view--namely, the naming of all birds and land animals in an effort to find a suitable companion--God forms examples of all the creatures He had already created prior to creating Adam, and presents them to him in this specific geographic area. After all, how long would it have taken for every kind of land animal created to make its way by foot to this one small garden, wherever it was located? It certainly would be more time efficient for God to simply form examples of previously created animals right there in the garden for Adam to name.

So, it is perfectly reasonable to see the first chapter of Genesis as a chronology of the creation week, with the second chapter "zooming in," temporally speaking on day 6, and geographically speaking on the garden of Eden. There, He creates man and places him in a garden. He plants in that garden what He had already planted elsewhere. He forms wildlife in that garden which He had already formed elsewhere. There simply is no contradiction.

THE CREATION ACCOUNT (SINGULAR)

Thus, the Bible only contains one account of the creation week: the first chapter of Genesis (extending briefly into chapter 2). It is patently obvious that the author of the bulk of the second chapter was not intending to write a separate account of creation. Where is the earth said to be formless and void? Where is the separation of land from water? Where is the creation of the sun, moon and stars? Where is the creation of sea creatures? They're absence is mysterious--unless we accept the obvious: that this is not a separate account of creation, but rather a "zooming in" on day 6 in the garden.

Thus these chapters do not present a contradiction in any way, shape or form. Skeptics like to point to this portion of Scripture as evidence that the Bible is inerrant, but what they demonstrate is that they are biased and have presuppositions which they artificially impose upon the text. Like I said in the introduction to this series, "their bark is bigger than their bite."

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

• "Are there two creation accounts?" (Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry)
• "Contradictions: Two Creation Accounts?" (Answers in Genesis)