Moving on to Genesis 2 (the full chapter can be read here), the first issue that stands out to me is the different order of creation when compared with the story told in Genesis 1.
The Order of Creation
In Genesis 2
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a 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. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. […]
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; […]
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
To sum up the order in Genesis 2:
- God created man
- God created the Garden of Eden and other plants.
- God created animals.
- God created woman.
In Genesis 1
Full chapter can be read here
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. […]
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. […]
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. […]
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. […]
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
To sum up the order in Genesis 1:
- God created plants.
- God created animals.
- God created humans.
In case you didn’t catch that, in Genesis 1 we have Plants, Animals, then Humans. In Genesis 2, we have Man, Plants, Animals, then Woman. Two very different orders.
A Possible Explanation: Differences in Translations
The two accounts appear to conflict each other. In searching for answers, I found arguments that the text of Genesis 2 doesn’t necessarily state that man was created before plants and animals, or that animals were created before woman. Depending on the wording of the translation, it could be interpreted to mean that the plants and animals were created first, then man was created and placed in the garden to take care of the plants, then the animals were brought to him to be named, and finally woman was created. So the order becomes Plants, Animals, then Man and Woman, which matches up with the order in Genesis 1. The NIV translation, which is the version quoted above, is the most favorable to this interpretation:
NIV
Then the Lord God formed a 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. […]
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them […]
The wording used here (“had planted”, “had formed”) leaves open the possibility that the garden was already planted and the animals were already formed at some unspecified time in the past before man was created. So in the NIV translation, there is no clear contradiction with Genesis 1. But other translations are less favorable to this interpretation.
NASB
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. 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 […]
This translation stays neutral. At first glance, it seems most natural to interpret it to mean that man was created first, then the garden, then the animals. But technically, you could say that the garden and animals were created first, then man, then man was placed in the garden and the animals were brought to him to be named.
NLT
Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person.
Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he placed the man he had made. […]
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.” So the Lord God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would call them, […]
The NLT is on the other end of the spectrum. It pretty clearly states that man was created first, then the garden, then the animals.
My purpose here isn’t to go into an extensive comparison of translations. The point I want to get across is that only 2 chapters in, there are valid questions relating to scientific inaccuracy and inconsistencies.
The Tree of Knowledge
Regarding inconsistencies, another one that stands out is about which plants humans are allowed to eat.
From Genesis 1:
Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
From Genesis 2:
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
In Genesis 1, there is no mention of forbidden fruit; humans may eat any plant and any tree with fruit and seed. In Genesis 2, we learn of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which man is forbidden from eating. This is an important detail that is strangely omitted from the first account, and contradicts what Adam and Eve were told in chapter 1, which is that they may eat any tree with seeded fruit.
The types of responses I have found for this are that maybe the Garden of Eden with the Tree of Knowledge weren’t created until after chapter 1, or maybe the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge didn’t have seeds so it didn’t fall under the category of fruit that Adam and Eve were allowed to eat.
When I was young, I used to find questions as I read the Bible, and breathe a sigh of relief when I found an “answer.” If there was an explanation, any explanation, then I didn’t have to stop believing. But now, on the flip-side, I understand that simply having a hypothetical explanation isn’t enough. Sure, you can claim that the Tree of Knowledge wasn’t created yet, or that it had fruit, but that the fruit somehow didn’t have seeds. But if you want to convince someone new to the Bible that it is the perfect Word of God, it is not reasonable to expect them to accept these types of explanations as enough to convince them of the truth of what they read here.
My thoughts on Genesis 2 continue in the next post.