Post Author: Bill Pratt
A common misunderstanding of the Book of Genesis is how chapters 1 and 2 are related. Specifically, chapter 1 claims that land animals were created before Adam (see Gen. 1:24-26), but chapter 2 seems to claim that Adam was created before land animals (see Gen. 2:19). Is it possible that these two creation accounts are contradictory?
The alleged contradiction is refuted when we look more closely at Gen. 2:19. The NIV translates the verse, “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.”
Notice that the verse says that God had formed the animals, meaning that the animals were already formed before Adam. So the contradiction evaporates.
Some translations (e.g., NAS), however, don’t translate the word had, but leave it out (either translation of the verse from Hebrew to English is permissible). Does this make it a contradiction?
No, not really. When we look at the focus of chapter 1, it seems to be on the order of creation, but the focus of the passages surrounding Gen. 2:19 is on the naming of animals and the creation of Eve.
According to Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe,
Genesis 1 gives the order of events; Genesis 2 provides more content about them. Genesis 2 does not contradict chapter 1, since it does not affirm exactly when God created the animals. He simply says He brought the animals (which He had previously created) to Adam so that he might name them. The focus in chapter 2 is on the naming of the animals, not on creating them. Genesis 1 provides the outline of events, and chapter 2 gives details. Taken together, the two chapters provide a harmonious and more complete picture of the creation events.
A footnote in The Apologetics Study Bible explains:
Chapter 2 is a second creation account only in the sense that it gives a more detailed accounting, not a contradictory one. While chapter 1 provides a general description, chapter 2 is specific. Twofold accounts were common in ancient theories of creation (e.g., the Babylonian story of Atrahasis). The differences in the order of the creation events are due to the narratives’ respective purposes. The first gives a loosely chronological account, gathering creation events into a discernible pattern to show the symmetry of creation’s purpose. The second is topical, focusing on the sixth day by expanding on the creation and the relationship of the man and the woman. Genesis 2 presupposes chapter 1 and does not duplicate all the creation events.
So Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1 at all, once we see the different purposes for the two different creation narratives. In fact, they are complementary to each other, with Genesis 2 filling in details from the creation account of Genesis 1.
