Contradictory Creation Accounts

[Mythbuster]

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.



There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. 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. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.

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.

[eyeheartlenin]

OK, I'll bite, if it is all right with you. Factually, the reason for two differing creation narratives in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 is simply that each creation story comes from a different tradition within the first five books of the Old Testament. There are a *lot* of different voices in the Bible, and these are two of them:

The account in Genesis 1 was borrowed by an ancient editor from "P," the "priestly" tradition, dating from after 597 BCE, when the people of Judah, the southern Hebrew kingdom, were dispersed throughout the Babylonian empire.

The account in Genesis 2 came from "J," the "Yahwist" tradition, which refers to the Deity by the unpronounceable name YHWH (spelled "yood-hey-vahv-hey" by English speakers). This is the earliest tradition represented in Genesis, dating from the tenth century BCE, which means that Chapter 2 is considerably more ancient than Chapter 1.

[Source for the preceding paragraphs, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1968, pp. 3, 4, 10, 12]

It would be important for the first two chapters of Genesis to agree on chronology only if Genesis represented history, understood since the nineteenth century as "what really happened."

Instead, Genesis makes theological statements about creation by the Deity and about humanity. Since Genesis is a theological document, the conflicting chronologies of the first two chapters are beside the point, for believers who are not fundamentalists.

If one is dealing with fundamentalists, it's a different matter, and what you will hear from them is probably something like Matt's slick claim that "there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2," that you quoted, which, you are right, can easily be disposed of. Fundamentalists fanatically believe "there are no contradictions in the Bible," which is utter nonsense (those people really set themselves up for a fall), so maybe focusing on the first two chapters in Genesis will be productive for you.

[RGacky3]

I don't think its a contradiction perse, 1 is supposed to be a physical creation account, the other one is the creation account of life.

Its not ment to be taken as a concrete creation account, as was said its a theological account.