NOUS MINISTRIES

Presents

The Creation Stories of Genesis

© 2001 Nous Ministries

INTRODUCTION

Reading the Bible is extremely difficult for most people. If struck with the urge to begin reading the holy script, nearly everyone begins "at the beginning" with Genesis. They then proceed through Exodus but then typically get bogged down somewhere in Leviticus when they run into all those rules and regulations. The stories in Genesis and the fantastic tales of Exodus are exciting enough to hold most people's attention therefore many folks know the stories found here fairly well.

In this essay we will be dealing with one of the best known stories from the Bible: the creation. Most everyone who has started the task of reading the Bible is very familiar with this story. Even those who have never cracked the binding on the holy text know the story fairly well. Most of us are familiar with the famous first words of Genesis: "In the beginning." We know that God is said to have created the "heavens and the earth" and all those "creepy" things that "creepeth" upon the earth. We know that Adam was made first and that Eve soon followed after being extracted from Adam's side. We know about the Garden of Eden. We've heard the story of the talking snake and the forbidden fruit. We've heard how the couple was tossed from Paradise after disobeying God's commandment not to eat the fruit. This is as primordial a story as one can get! However, how many of us are aware that there are actually two stories of creation in the Bible?

This article will detail these two accounts and tell how Hebrew Bible scholars have found them. This revelation, however, has not gone unchallenged. Bible-defenders like J. P. Holding maintain that the two stories of creation are actually the work of one author and that they display internal consistency to this fact. Scholars disagree. It is the intention of this essay to bring out these scholarly opinions not only to enlighten our readers about the formation of these early chapters in Genesis, but also to unplug the nonsense that the likes of J. P. Holding advocates in order to keep the precious notion of biblical inerrancy intact.

WHO WROTE THE PENTATEUCH?

The first thing we need to do is recognize that tradition (and the typical Bible-defender) maintains that Moses wrote Genesis (and indeed the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, known as the Pentateuch or Torah). This is based upon many internal references to Mosaic authorship (Ex. 24:4,7; 34:27-28; Nu. 33:2; De. 1:1-5; 4:4-5; 31:9-12,24-26 Jos. 1:7; 8:30-35; Ju. 3:4; 1 Ki. 2:3; 2 Ki. 14:6; 22:8-11; 23:21-25; Ezr. 3:2; Ne. 8:1; 9:14; Da. 9:11; Mal. 4:4). For Christians, Mosaic authorship is reinforced by statements made in the New Testament, even from the lips of Jesus himself (Mk. 12:26; Lk. 16:29-31; 24:27 [Moses' writings are called Scripture by the New Testament authors]; 24:44; Jn. 1:17; 5:45-47; 8:5; Ac. 15:21; 2 Co. 3:15). With this amount of evidence, how could tradition be wrong? In fact, many Bible-defenders guard the notion of Mosaic authorship vehemently. They claim the first five chapters of the Bible were written as history, and to deny such figures as Adam and Eve as historic is to deny the Bible. They say that to discount the historicity of Adam and Eve is to say that "the fall" is a myth and that redemption through the cross of Christ is nonsense. Ultimately, to deny the historicity of Adam is to deny Jesus Christ. You can see how much is at stake for these people if it is shown that Moses was not the author of the Torah and if the Bible itself was mistaken about its many claims that he was.

However, as early as the eleventh century CE, observant readers noticed that there were oddities in the text of the Bible. One of the first challenges to Mosaic authorship came when one of these observant readers discovered that Genesis 36 gives a list of Edomite kings who lived long after Moses was dead. How could Moses have written about men he couldn't possibly have known about? Later readers furthered the suspicion that Moses was the sole author of these texts by noticing that one section of scripture that said there were two of something was later contradicted by another section of scripture that said there were actually seven or fourteen of the same thing. They also noticed that a certain order of events given in one chapter and verse were found to be reversed in subsequent passages. Readers even stumbled across "doublets:" stories that have two versions. Other oddities appeared if in fact Moses had written these documents. For instance, in the books Moses was supposed to have penned, he is always referred to in the third person. Descriptions about him, such as being described as the "humblest man on earth," seemed very strange for a person writing about himself (if, indeed, he really was the humblest man on earth!). In addition, repetitions of the phrase "to this day," was a clear indication that whomever was doing the writing was looking back from his time into the distant past. These discoveries, which occurred over centuries, placed great stress on the belief that Moses alone wrote the entire first part of the Bible. How could one author make such "errors?" The errors are there, indeed, so what could account for them?

By the mid-19th century, analysis grew to the point where, as Speiser says in his introduction to the Anchor Bible Genesis, "the conclusion which virtually all modern scholars are willing to accept, is that the Pentateuch was in reality a composite work, the product of many hands and periods." [Genesis p. xxiii] In a broad view, the sources used in this "composite work" have been labeled J, E, P and D. The name given to this notion is called the Documentary Hypothesis. Although major scholars the world over subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis, it does not stand as it once did. It certainly has had its share of critics and detractors (see our article on Attacking the Documentary Hypothesis for some relevant details) but it has withstood as the only viable explanation for the discoveries made in the Hebrew texts. The fact that sources were used to compile the books of the Pentateuch has really never been seriously challenged. What has changed considerably in the years since the hypothesis' development is the dating of these sources and which one came first in the compilation of the Five Books of Moses as well as how they were blended and edited together to produce the final form we have today.

Briefly, the sources discovered are (with thanks to Richard Elliot Friedman's book, Who Wrote the Bible):

The documentary hypothesis also uses the shorthand "R" for the Redactor or editor who brought together the J, E, P and D material into a single set of writings we now know as the Pentateuch. It should be noted that the use of each of these alphabetical shorthand letters does not necessarily imply that there was a single individual who wrote all of any given strand of material, but rather there was a like-minded group that existed over time with shared perspectives and traditions.

Important for our discussion here regarding the creation stories of Genesis we need to note how scholars discovered the "E" and "P" sources. Initially, scholars who were noticing the various styles of writing in the Pentateuch thought there were only two sources: J and E, based partly on their use of either Yahweh (Jehovah) or Elohim for the name of God. However, as Friedman points out,

They discovered that E was not one but two sources. The two had looked like only one because they both called the deity Elohim, not Yahweh. But the investigators now noticed that within the group of stories that called the deity Elohim there were still doublets. There were also differences in style, differences of language, and differences of interests. In short, the same kinds of evidence that had led to the discovery of J and E now led to the discovery of a third source that had been hidden within E. The differences of interests were intriguing. This third set of stories seemed to be particularly interested in priests. It contained stories about priests, laws about priests, matters of ritual, sacrifice, incense-burning, and purity, and concern with dates, numbers, and measurements. This source therefore came to be known as the Priestly source--for short, P. (p. 52-53)

As noted a moment ago, the two main sources, J and E, are believed to have been written in the two separated kingdoms of Judah and Israel respectively. This is believed partly because when the two sources are separated there are abundant clues that the J author is concerned with matters in Judah while the E author seems focused on matters relevant to Israel. One can read more about this evidence in Friedmans' book, pages 62-69. However, following the collapse of the Northern Kingdom, these two sources (like the two peoples) were combined. Stories from each kingdom were blended together so that traditions from each could be preserved. Thus you get the many doublets found in scripture. Important for us to note here is that the P source was written as an alternative to this combined product of J and E (JE). One of the hallmark differences between the P source and JE is that "there are no angels. There are no talking animals. There are no dreams...In P there is no blatant anthropormophisms. In JE, God walks in the garden of Eden, God personally makes Adams' and Eve's clothes...P depicts Yahweh as more cosmic, less personal, than in JE." (Friedman, p. 191)

Now that we know scholars believe the Torah to have been compiled from a number of different sources and not simply from the pen of Moses, we can now see how their hypothesis is demonstrated in the first two chapters of Genesis: the two creation stories.

IN THE BEGINNING....TIMES TWO!

Major biblical scholars agree that there are two creation accounts found in the first two chapters of Genesis. One of the indicators that there indeed are two stories is the fact that both accounts describe similar events but in a different order. Additionally, in the first account the creator is always referred to as Elohim. In the second version, the creator is referred to by his personal name, Yahweh. The first version is very cosmic in scope, whereas the second is much more "down to earth." The first version is a self-contained narrative that begins with Genesis 1:1 and ends at Genesis 2:4a. The second version is also completely self-contained and begins at Genesis 2:4b. As this article continues, we will elaborate on the evidence that supports the hypothesis that two stories by two different authors are found in these opening chapters of Genesis.

The Bible-defender we will be using as representative of "the masses" in this article is J. P. Holding. His site, Tekton, has been referenced before in our essay on the Formation of the Gospels. Holding's site is devoted to a more learned defense of Christian apologetics than a number of other, more prominent, webpages so we find it a good source of material. Holding begins his attack on the idea that there are two creation stories in Genesis by reclassifying one of the accounts as a "family history," thereby removing it from the genre of a creation story altogether. If he can tell us one of the accounts isn't really a creation story he can then claim that two such stories cannot possibly exist. He does this by telling his readers that there is a Hebrew word that is found throughout the Bible that works as a "dividing point." That word is toledot and is translated into English as "generations." He claims this word has the "connotation of a family history or succession." Since the advent of the Documentary Hypothesis, scholars have said that the division between the two creation accounts in Genesis is found within Gen. 2:4. Interestingly enough, it is at this point that we also find the word toledot used

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

Holding says that this phrase marks the beginning of a "'family history' of the first men in creation."

What Holding doesn't tell his readers is that the actual division between the two creation stories occurs in the middle of this verse! The first creation story ends with the phrase, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created." The second story begins, "In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." The Hebrew word toledot is commonly used by the P writer as he is concerned with "dates, numbers and measurements" as we noted above. It is used here to complete (not introduce) the creation story he had just given. What we have discovered then, with Holding's unwitting assistance, is the actual division, not between a creation story and a "family history," but between the P account of creation and the J version! We can further our proof of this, not only by noting the use of toledot in 2:4a, but also by the abrupt change in the name used for God in 2:4b. Prior to 2:4b, God has been consistently named Elohim. This name changes suddenly at 2:4b where he is called Yahweh. This is further evidence of two sources that have been used to complete the first part of Genesis.

One of the reasons, as mentioned earlier, that scholars are led to believe there are two creation accounts in Genesis is the fact that there are certain "contradictions" between the two stories. For example, in the first creation account God creates plants first then man/woman. In the second version, man is created first, then plants, followed by the animals, then the creation of woman. Holding tries to defend this difference in the sequence of creation events by telling us that the second creation account doesn't actually come out and say that no plants were on the earth before man was created, but that there simply wasn't any "organized agriculture." Here are the two relevant passages

Gen 1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.
Gen 2:4-5 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. 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 one to till the ground;

It may be important to note what Holding does not: the fact that both accounts go on to create mankind. For the first story, it occurs near the very end, in verses 1:26-30 which constituted the creation of the sixth day. The plants, in the first account, are created (as noted) in verse 11, which constituted the third day. Clearly, then, plant creation came before the creation of humankind. Holding has pointed out that Genesis 2:4-5 tells us that "no plant of the field was yet in the earth" and that is all well and good. But he has not told us that in the second story, man is created in verse 2:7. Afterward, God creates a garden "toward the east, in Eden" (v.8) and places the newly formed man within it. It isn't until verse 2:22 that God finally gets around to creating a woman. Here it is obvious that man was created first (for "no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up" just as Holding has indicated) in verse 7, whereas plants (in the guise of the garden) were created second, as a place for man to live.

Now, Holding tells his audience that the second creation account (which, keep in mind, he believes is nothing more than an extension of the first, written by the same author) only tells us what "did not exist yet;" that is, the plants and herbs "of the field." He tells us that the word translated in 2:5 as "field" is the Hebrew sadeh, which refers to a "quite limited area of land, as opposed to the word used in 1:11, "earth," which is 'erets--a word which has much broader geographic connotations." He doesn't want us to know that sadeh can refer, as he says, to a "quite limited area of land" like a cultivated field, but can also be used to mean simply "land" as opposed to the sea. Additionally, 'erets can indeed be broad in scope, meaning the earth as a whole. However, it too can simply mean "a piece of ground" or simply "soil." The translation of ancient Hebrew is not nearly as clear cut as Holding would like to make it for his apologetic purposes. However, it is very certain that the two creation accounts do indeed refer to the land in different ways. The first account is obviously more universal in scope. The second is far more intimate and personal. This is indeed indicated by such word choice as Holding has pointed out. However, as we will see as this article continues to develop, these choices tell us of two separate authors with two different views of creation rather than one author simply detailing his earlier account as Holding and other Bible-defenders want to maintain.

It is interesting to note that although Holding quotes from scripture, and even tells us of certain word choices in their original Hebrew, how he fails to notice what those quoted passages actually say. In verse 1:11 there is no distinction between what plants grew and what plants didn't. There is no separation of "agricultural" plants from "wild" vegetation. It clearly tells us that grass, herbs and fruit trees all grew upon the earth. If God set aside a "special place" (Eden) for his human creations, that's fine. But verse 2:5 is also very specific in that it says, "every plant of the field before it was in the earth." Are we to believe that some plants, contrary to what verse 1:11 states, were reserved from the initial creation of vegetation for planting in a special "field" found in verse 8? There is nothing biblical to support this notion other than a confused Bible-defender's reading of scripture.

Now, Holding may very well be correct about the second creation account focusing on organized agriculture. This is because the second author (the J source) is more personal in his (or her) style. The author is much more concerned with human rather than cosmic affairs, thus the difference in word choice and scope. What Holding has actually done (inadvertently, of course) is helped point out the differences that major biblical scholars see in the differing creation accounts and what helps them determine that two separate authors were the composers of them. Holding has simply created a minority opinion (of one, it seems) for the interpretation of the text while the community of bible scholars hold a different opinion. It's a free country and we suppose everyone's free to believe whatever he or she wants. The question now is whose assessment do you believe based on the evidence presented?

One of the other indicators that bible scholars use to determine that we are reading two creation stories rather than one is the differing sequence used by each for the creation of beasts and man. In the first creation story, animals are created before mankind.

Gen. 1:24-5 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.

Of course, mankind (and womankind!) are created in following verses. In the second creation story, the beasts of the field are created after Adam to be his helpmates.

Gen. 2:18-20 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.

Holding admits that this contradiction in the sequence of events poses a problem which "is a little tougher to deal with," but then goes on to defend his position that despite the contradiction one author is still responsible for both stories.

After a great deal of discussion regarding word choice in the English translation of the passages found in Genesis 2:18-20, Holding concludes "that there is [no] contradiction, but...G2 [the shorthand he gives to the second creation story starting at Genesis 2:4b] is reporting the order out of sequence purposely in order to stress man's dominion over the created animals." (italics ours) This strikes us as odd for a number of reasons. First of all, Holding is not arguing that indeed there isn't a differing sequence of creation between the two stories. He simply gives his opinion for why that difference is there. Secondly, he is claiming that the reason the contradiction (and we're aware that he isn't using that term) is there is purposeful. Holding claims that in the second creation account, the singular author is purposefully reordering the creation of man and beast to "stress man's dominion over the created animals." At first glance this argument almost sounds valid, especially when one looks only at the passages he has supplied to support his point. What Holding has failed to do is let us see the rest of the story from Genesis 1, verses 26, 28-30.

Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." ... God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

If the same author is responsible for both accounts, why did he explicitly state man's dominion "over the created animals" in his first chapter but then make this same point again in his second by enigmatically reversing the order of creation that he had just given a few paragraphs before?

It's clear that the sequence of events is out of order. Holding tries to argue that the author had a reason to flip-flop his sequencing but is very weak in doing so. The only way he can get his point to make any sense is by conveniently omitting the relevant verses that destroy his argument from chapter 1 of Genesis. The text itself is very clear and leaves little room for argument. In the first account animals are created first and mankind is explicitly told that they have dominion over them. In the second animals are created as an "after thought" by God, to be "helpmates" to the man. For some reason, Holding believes that the same author, after already telling us directly that man had dominion over the animals in chapter 1, now uses "imagery" in chapter 2 to tell us exactly the same thing. There's nothing more pathetic than a Bible-defender who has to read into scripture things that are not there in order to have their arguments carry any weight.

Now, it is irrelevant whether God intended man to have dominion over the creatures when considering the sequence of creation events given in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Verse 18 clearly tells us that, in this version, God saw man and felt it was "not good" that he should be without a helpmate and so said "I will make" one for him. Holding tries to focus on the following verse that says, "God formed every beast" and play with the translation that could render it "God had formed." It's interesting how he ignores the earlier passage which says God "will make" in the future tense as well as the very explicit statement in Genesis 1 of man's dominion over the animals. Again, the text itself argues for separate authors and Holding is once again found grasping for straws.

Holding admits that his argument for tense consideration in the preceding passages is weak and pulls up "another line of defense" for critics of his ideas "to gnaw on." He recalls the verses from Genesis 2:18-20 and highlights what he feels are important phrases

Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.

The only difference between the version that he uses and the one that we use is in word choice. In Holding's version the word "beast" is used instead of "animal" and "fowl" is used in place of "birds," but otherwise the versions are the same. Holding wants us to notice that, although God "formed" the animals and birds here, he brings before Adam animals, birds and cattle--"the domestic creatures!" He then asks, "Where did they come from?" He humorously claims that cattle were "already in Eden (a place of domestic specialty set aside!), and that the 'forming' of the beasts and fowls is an act of special creation, giving Adam 'samples' of these beasts and fowls from outside Eden for the sake of presenting them to the earth's appointed sovereign." He claims that, "In this passage the author clearly shows awareness of the cattle having already been created in G1, for he does not indicate their creation here, but rather assumes that they don't need to be created." It does appear that the second creation story is aware of the first from this observation. However, we're not sure how Holding arrives at his conclusion that the author of the second creation story "clearly" understood that the cattle had been created before in the first account. "Clearly" would be something more along the line of stating, "And, as the Lord God had created the cattle on the fifth day, he proceeded to create all the other beasts of the field and fowl of the air." Besides, what is really clear is that there is no indication that just "domesticated creatures" were formed in the first creation account. Genesis 1:24 is very "clear" that "And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." Notice that there is no differentiation between creatures here, wild or domesticated. In addition, if the reason the author of the second creation account didn't mention the formation of cattle is because he already knew about their prior existence from "his" account in 1:24, why didn't he also know about his account of the creation of birds from 1:21? There is no precedent to assume that the second creation story is actually talking about a "special creation." This is just an example of another Bible-defending technique to twist scripture to match a preconceived idea. The Bible must be internally consistent to be the Word of God, true and unblemished from beginning to end. It's dishonest to the text, to be sure, but it is frequently done. We don't know why Holding thought this new "line of defense" would give us critics something new to "gnaw on," but we can safely say it wasn't tasty, was instead quite mushy and didn't have much substance. We suggest that Holding head back to the kitchen to try to cook up a more savory dish if he wants to continue to argue for singular authorship of the two creation stories in Genesis.

FINDING THE TWO SOURCES

Now that Holding's defense has been breached and dismantled, we can continue with our study of the two creation stories in Genesis from a more scholarly point-of-view. The easiest way to see the two creation accounts is to ask ourselves some questions regarding the first two chapters of Genesis. When the questions are answered we will find out if, indeed, we are reading two versions written by two authors or a continuous narrative written by one.

First of all, what name is used for the Creator in Genesis 1:1-2:4a?

The word used is 'elohiym (or Elohim). This word choice is used consistently throughout Genesis 1:1-2:4a.

So, what word for God is used beginning in Genesis 2:4b-25?

Beginning immediately following the consistent use of Elohim in prior passages, God is now suddenly named hwhy (or Jehovah / Yahweh). Why would one author suddenly change his word choice for the most supreme of beings in mid-stream? This is accountable if we allow that actually two separate sources are responsible for the creation accounts.

For stylistic considerations, which of the two accounts is the more poetic and majestic?

Not at all a very difficult question to answer. The story in Genesis 1:1-2:4a is far more poetic and majestic in scope. It begins literally "at the beginning" and describes Elohim's movement across the waters of chaos, forming the world from the primordial abyss. We read of the creation of the heavens, of stars and luminaries. It describes the creation of dry land rising from the sea, of animals and all manner of "creeping" things, of birds and finally of humankind in the likeness of the deity (ies). It is beautifully sequential. Creation takes six days, each concluding with the Creator's reflection upon his work as something which is "good." On the seventh day Elohim rests and blesses that day and all of his creation.

Which account is more personal with more of a focus on human beings?

This is an easy one since the version from 1:1-2:4a mentions human beings only as a final creation in the likeness of God. The second account, beginning with 2:4b, actually names the first man and woman. It revolves exclusively around the activities of the two humans, telling us about their creation, where they lived and how they were deceived by a very crafty serpent. It uses dialogue between the people and the deity. We understand what is going on in the minds of the people, their curiosity and fear. All these personal details are missing from the first creation story.

In what order or sequence did creation take place in each account?

This can be done most easily by listing the sequences for Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 side-by-side.

Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:4a

 

1 In the beginning when Elohim created the heavens and the earth,
2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from Elohim swept over the face of the waters.
3 Then Elohim said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4 And Elohim saw that the light was good, and Elohim separated the light from the darkness.
5 Elohim called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
6 And Elohim said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7 So Elohim made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
8 Elohim called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9 And Elohim said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the day land may appear." And it was so.
10 Elohim called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And Elohim saw that it was good.
11 Then Elohim said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And Elohim saw that this was good.
13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
14 And Elohim said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth."
16 Elohim made the two great lights -- the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night -- and the stars.
17 Elohim set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,
18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And Elohim saw that this was good.
19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
20 And Elohim said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky."
21 So Elohim created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And Elohim saw that it was good.
22 Elohim blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth."
23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
24 And Elohim said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so.
25 Elohim made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And Elohim saw that it was good.
26 Then Elohim said, "Let us make humankind ['adam] in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
27 So Elohim created humankind ['adam] in his image, in the image of Elohim he created them; male and female he created them.
28 Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon earth."
29 Elohim said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 Elohim saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Genesis: 2
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude.
2 And on the seventh day Elohim finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done.
3 And Elohim blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it Elohim rested from all the work that he had done in creation.

4a These are the generations of the heavens and earth when they were created.

 

 

Genesis 2:4b through 25

 

4b In the day that Yahweh (hwhy) made the earth and the heavens,
5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up -- for Yahweh had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground;
6 but a stream would rise from the earth and water the whole face of the ground --
7 then Yahweh formed man ('adam) from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
8 And Yahweh planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man ('adam) whom he had formed.
9 Out of the ground Yahweh made to grow every tree that was pleasant 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.
10 A river flows out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four branches.
11 The name of the first is Pishon; is is the one that flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there.
13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Cush.
14 The name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 Yahweh took the man and put him in the garden of Eden, to till it and keep it.
16 And Yahweh commanded the man ('adam), "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."
18 Yahweh said, "It is not good that the man ('adam) should be alone; I will make him a helper as a partner."
19 So out of the ground Yahweh formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man ('adam) to see what he would call them; and whatever the man ('adam) called every living creature, that was its name.
20 The man ('adam) gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man ('adam) there was not found a helper as his partner.
21 So Yahweh caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man ('adam); and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.

22 And the rib that Yahweh had taken from the man ('adam) he made into a woman ('ishshah) and brought her to the man ('adam).

23 Then the man ('adam) said,
"This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman ('ishshah),
for out of Man ('iysh) this one was taken."
24 Therefore a man ('adam) leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 And the man ('adam) and his wife ('ishshah) were both naked, and were not ashamed.

 

It is obvious that the second creation account is lacking the mention, in any detail, of when the earth itself, the stars, sun and moon and other heavenly bodies were made. The events that the two do share in common and thus can be compared sequentially are:

                                                  Genesis 1:                          Genesis 2:

                                                   plants                                    man

                                                   animals                                  plants

                                                   man/woman                          animals

                                                                                                woman

It doesn't take much of an observer to notice that we have events out of sequence between the two stories. We know that Holding and other Bible-defenders want to argue that there is some "theological" reason for this, but their reasoning rings hollow. A simple reading of the text reveals the differences and argues persuasively for the theory that two authors composed these differing creation accounts instead of one.

When we look at how the two accounts are different, we also need to ask how is the creation of human beings described in 1:27?

The text reads, So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Not much detail, eh? God simply decides to create human beings and does so (both sexes simultaneously) in his own image.

Is there any difference now between 1:27 and 2:7, 21-22?

Here the text reads, then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. ... So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. In the second story, the author details how the man was made "from the dust of the ground." There is no mention that this creature was made in the divine image. Also, the woman isn't created until later in the narrative, unlike the simultaneous creation of the sexes in the first story. Her creation is equally as detailed as the man's, in stark contrast to the Spartan description from Genesis 1. Why would one author change his style in midstream?

Now that human beings have been created, what are their tasks in 1:26, 28-30?

Again, the text itself testifies, Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." ... God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

Very sweeping in scope. These verses tell us of humankind's complete dominion over all the animals of the earth, be they legged, winged or finned. Every plant that yields seed and tree that bears fruit, indeed "every green plant" will be food for them.

What is man's task in 2:15-17, 19-20?

The text says, The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." ... So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.

Here, the text isolates man to the Garden of Eden. He is placed here merely to "till it and keep it." In the garden he is limited in the food he can eat. Unlike the earlier passage where humankind has been provided with every green plant, every fruit tree, for food, in these latter passages he is forbidden specifically from one tree. Instead of the sweeping scope of dominion over the entire earth and her creatures, in these latter verses the man's main function is to name the animals in an effort to find "a helper as his partner." The two accounts are clearly very dissimilar.

The Hebrew word 'adam means "humankind." How is 'adam used in 1:27?

The text reads, So God created 'adam [humankind] in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

'Adam is clearly used here to refer to humankind in general, "male and female he created them." The term is used inclusively, meant to include both sexes.

By comparison, how is 'adam used in Genesis 2:7-8, 20?

Again, the text says, then the Lord God formed 'adam [man] from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the 'adam [man] became a living being. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the 'adam man whom he had formed. ... The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the 'adam [man] there was not found a helper as his partner.

Here, the use of 'adam is clearly in reference to a single individual. Indeed, in many translations the word is used as proper noun. Clearly, the usage of 'adam between chapters 1 and 2 are different. Why would the same author alter his usage of the same word in this way?

From our answers above we can see that between the first two chapters of Genesis, two different names for God are used; one is clearly more poetic and majestic while the other is more personal; the sequence of creation events are different; the function of human beings differ as well as how they are (or he is) referred to. With this information in hand we can see how scholars conclude that the creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:4a comes from the Priestly source (P). The language used (in Hebrew especially) makes that clear. Yet theological issues important to Priests are also clearly seen, which is another indication of this story's provenance. For example, Genesis 2:2-3 explains why the Sabbath Day (the "seventh" day or Saturday) was so important to priests, and why they expected all Jews to rest on the Sabbath. Genesis 2:4b-25, on the other hand, comes from the Yahwist source (J). It reflects the more "human" (anthropomorphic) and personal interests as reflected in the answers to the questions above. We think along with the majority of Hebrew Bible scholars that, in light of the evidence, different authors penned the two creation stories (unless we want to believe, as Holding quips, that the singular author of Genesis 1-2 was "a Flaming Knucklehead").

Bible-defenders can make their claims only because they ignore the contrary evidence. They latch onto the two or three anomalies in the text and tell us that these oddities argue in favor of Mosaic (or at least singular) authorship. They obscure the facts and try to make their arguments without giving their audience surrounding scripture that brings the entirety of the text into focus. Holding claims that his site serves critics "piping hot." Considering the arguments he uses in defense of his apologetics, we suggest he check the temperature he is using because most of what he says actually comes out luke-warm at best.


back to apologist email