It is said: "In the first creation account the earth was first covered with water and land did not appear until later. In the second creation account there was no water at first. The earth was dry land and was later watered by a mist."

But the second verse set does not say that "there was no water at first" at all. It says that there was no rain, which is not quite the same thing.

A common question is that whereas Genesis 1 has plants made before man, Genesis 2 has man made before plants. But it is really rather simple to see that Genesis 2 indicates no such thing as is claimed, for the latter specifies that what did not exist yet were plants and herbs "of the field" -- what field?

The Hebrew word here is sadeh, and where it is used of known geographic locations, refers to either a quite limited area of land, and/or a flat place suitable for agriculture, as opposed to the word used in 1:11, "earth", which is 'erets -- a word which has much broader geographic connotations.

See for example:

• Gen. 23:12-13
• Ex. 9:22
• Lev. 25:2-3

A key to understanding what is being described here is that verse 2:5 goes on to explain WHY there were no "plants of the field" -- because a) there was no rain upon the earth, and b) there was no man to work the earth -- the two key elements for agriculture according to the ancient mindset. Thus, what this passage indicates is that there was as yet no organized agriculture, and that makes sense of the verses following, where God specifically plants the garden of Eden and places man to tend to it.

Genesis 2 is not indicating that there were no plants created yet at all, but that a special place was set aside for the foundation of agriculture and for plants "of the field" to be developed.

PROBLEM: According to this text God told Moses, “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD [Jehovah, Yahweh], I was not known to them.” However, the word “LORD” [Jehovah, Yahweh] occurs in Genesis in many places, both in combination with the term “God,” as “LORD God” (Gen. 2:4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, etc.) and alone as LORD (Gen. 4:1, 3, 4, 6, 9, etc.).

SOLUTION: This difficulty can be explained in several ways. Some believe it was introduced into Genesis by way of anticipation. Others hold that the full meaning of the name was not known previously, even though it was in use. Or, perhaps some special character of the covenant-keeping God as was indicated by the sacred name “LORD” (Jehovah, Yahweh) was not revealed until Moses’ time. Still others think Moses (or a later editor) placed the name in the text of Genesis retrospectively, after it had come into use. This would be like a biographer of the famous boxer referring to the childhood of Muhammad Ali, even though his name was really Cassius Clay at the time. In favor of this is the fact that the common suffix “-ah” (which stands for “Jehovah”) attached to names (such as, Mic-ah, Jon-ah, Jeremi-ah) is not generally found in names before Moses’ time.

My husband recently had a discussion with one of his professors regarding Hebrew scriptures in Genesis. My husband has concluded that because there seems to be [contradiction] between the order of creation in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 that the Bible is not flawless. I do not share his conclusion and would like to have an answer for him. The scriptures in question are Genesis 1:1–2:3 vs. Genesis 2:4-22. He has claimed to be a believer for 10 years, but now believes that man has mucked up the Word of God and that the Bible is not completely accurate and has flaws. Could you help me?

–R.H., USA

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis.

My husband recently had a discussion with one of his professors regarding Hebrew scriptures in Genesis. My husband has concluded that because there seems to be contradition between the order of creation in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 that the Bible is not flawless. I do not share his conclusion and would like to have an answer for him. The scriptures in question are Genesis 1:1-2:3 vs. Genesis 2:4-22.

This is a common argument used against the traditional understanding of Genesis (i.e., God created everything in six normal-length days approximately 6,000 years ago). This argument attempts to show that inconsistencies exist between the first two chapters in the Bible. Critics and skeptics use it in their efforts to show the Bible cannot be trusted. Some Christians who believe in billions of years use it in trying to show that these chapters should not be understood in their plain sense. However, the argument is based on a misunderstanding of Genesis 2.

Genesis 1:1–2:3 provides us with a chronological account of what God did on each of the days during Creation Week. Genesis 2:4–25 zooms in on Day Six and shows some of the events of that day.1 Let’s take a look at what happened on Day Six, according to Genesis 2, and we’ll see there is no discrepancy here.

- Adam is created (Genesis 2:7)
- Garden of Eden created (Genesis 2:8–9)
- Description of river system in Eden (Genesis 2:10–14)
- Adam put in Garden and given instructions (Genesis 2:15–17)
- Adam names some of the kinds of animals (Genesis 2:18–20)
- God creates Eve (Genesis 2:21–22)
- Description of Adam, Eve, and marriage (Genesis 2:23–25)

The particular issue that people have with Genesis 2 is that the order of the creation of man, animals, and trees seems to be contrary to the order stated in Genesis 1.

Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of man.

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 being. (Genesis 2:7)

Following the creation of man, Genesis 2:9 mentions that God created trees, including the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9)

Then Genesis 2:19 mentions the creation of certain land animals.

Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. (Genesis 2:19)

At first glance this seems to be a contradiction because Genesis 1 has the animals and trees created prior to the creation of man; however, both issues can be resolved by an understanding of the original language and the translation process.2 The Hebrew word for formed in both passages is yatsar. The New King James Version (quoted above) translates the verb in its perfect form.

However, this Hebrew word may also be translated in its pluperfect form. In this case, it would read that God “had formed” these creatures, as some other translations have it (e.g. ESV, NIV, etc.) For example, Genesis 2:19 in the NIV states:

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. (emphasis mine)

This rendering eliminates any problem with the chronology because it refers to what God had already done earlier in Creation Week. This would mean that the plants (Genesis 2:9) and the animals (Genesis 2:19) had already been formed by God earlier in Creation Week. William Tyndale was the first to translate an English Bible directly from the original languages,3 and He also translated the verb in its pluperfect form.

And after that the Lord God had made of the earth all manner beasts of the field, and all manner fowls of the air, he brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them. And as Adam called all manner living beasts: even so are their names. (Tyndale, Genesis 2:19)

He has claimed to be a believer for 10 years, but now believes that man has mucked up the Word of God and that the Bible is not completely accurate and has flaws. Could you help me?

This seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which is clearly spelled out in our statement of faith.

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science. (emphasis mine)

It is important to notice that inerrancy only applies to the original autographs (manuscripts). It does not extend to every copy and translation. As a result of this misunderstanding, people have sometimes come across an error in one of the translations and mistakenly assumed that the Bible must contain errors. In truth, the error was made by either a translation committee or a scribe responsible for copying the manuscript.

I would recommend a book entitled Nothing But the Truth by Brian Edwards. It explains the issues of translation and inerrancy in good detail, and would address your husband’s questions .

To automatically assume that this is a contradiction portrays the author of Genesis in a pretty dim light. Was he so inept that he couldn’t keep from contradicting himself in the first two chapters or were these chapters written with two different focuses? Rather than immediately assuming that the writer could not get his facts straight in the first two chapters, one should dig a little deeper (as you have done by asking us) to see if there is a better explanation.

While man and the devil often do attempt to muck up God’s Word, we can have confidence that God’s Word is true and accurate from the very beginning.

In Christ,
Tim Chaffey, AiG-US

Footnotes

1. Many mistakenly believe that Genesis 2:5-6 refers to the third day (Genesis 1:11–13) of Creation Week because of the plants mentioned. However, these two specific plant categories mentioned in verses 5 and 6 (i.e., shrub of the field, plant of the field) are very different than the plants created on day three (fruit trees, grass, plants yielding seed). The shrubs of the field were plants with thorns, which only came about after man sinned. The plant of the field refers to cultivated plants. These were not in existence on the third day, because man had not been created, and, obviously, had not fallen yet to bring about thorns.
2. There are other possible solutions as well. For example, perhaps the creation of the trees and animals in Genesis 2 only refer to events in the Garden of Eden on the sixth day. This solution works well for the problem with the trees, since God created the Garden that day, but it is more problematic for the animals.
3. John Wycliffe produced an English translation before Tyndale, but his translation was directly from the Latin Vulgate.

The “Problem”

Critics have charged that the first two chapters of the Bible contain a contradiction regarding the creation of the vegetation. Some old-earth creationists have pointed to the same passages to bolster their claim that the early chapters of Genesis need not be interpreted as historical narrative. The passages are found in Genesis 1 and 2.

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day. (Genesis 1:11–13)

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

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 being. The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:4–9)

The Solution

There is a rather simple solution to this alleged contradiction. On the third day of the Creation Week God made certain types of plants: “grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree” (Genesis 1:11). Each of these terms translates specific Hebrew terms for grass (deshe’), the seed-yielding herbs (‘eseb mazria zera), and the fruit trees (ets pariy).

Beginning with the fourth verse of Genesis 2, the writer zooms in on the events of the sixth day. God made Adam (v. 7), the Garden of Eden along with the plants therein (specifically mentioned are the fruit trees, vs. 8–9), and Eve (v. 22).

What about the plants described in verse 5? Why weren’t those created on Day Three when God made the other plants? The context provides the answer. Verses 5 and 6 provide a description of what the world was like prior to the creation of man. Two specific types of plants are translated from specific Hebrew terms: “plant of the field” (siah hassadeh) and “herb of the field” (eseb hassadeh). Hebrew scholar Mark Futato defines these terms as “wild shrubs of the steppe” and “cultivated grain” respectively.1

This verse is preparing the reader for what is going to happen next in the narrative. The herbs of the field were not around because Adam had not been created yet, so there was no one to till or cultivate the ground. The “wild shrubs of the steppe” are plants that often have thorns, and these thorns would not have been present until after the Curse.2

While announcing the Curse, God said to Adam, “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:17–19, emphasis added).

As a result of the Curse, Adam would no longer have it easy. Instead of eating the abundance of fruit from the trees in the garden, he would need to till the ground and grow crops for food.3 This would be hard work, because the ground was now going to produce thorns and thistles.

Conclusion

A closer look at the text reveals there is no contradiction. In Genesis 2:5–6 the writer set up the narrative and informed the reader of what was to come. These verses provide a description of the world on Day Six before God created Adam. The grasses, fruit trees, and seed-yielding herbs were created on Day Three (with the exception of those within the garden), but the thorny plants and cultivated grains came about after Adam was created.