As different as morning and evening: Genesis 1 and 2 contradictions

God creates the sun and the moon, in a creation account that is completely different than the one in Genesis 2 (public domain).

The young-earth creationist’s worldview is built on the supposition that the book of Genesis is meant to be read as perfectly preserved, literal history, in much the same way one might read “Seabiscuit” or “The Devil in the White City.”

Unfortunately for YECs, they do not have to go very far into scripture to run into problems with this approach. That’s because the first couple chapters of Genesis contains not one, but two creation accounts, and — if read entirely literally — they are completely contradictory and irreconcilable. Let’s have a look. (I’ll be jumping around a lot, so here’s a link to the New International Version’s translation of the passage you can refer to.)

If Genesis 1 is nothing more than a historical narrative, then God made plants and trees appear across the land on the third day (verses 11-13). He then made fish and birds, concurrently, on the fifth day (20-23), followed on the sixth by land animals (24-25) and, last of all, humans. All indications within this text are that men and women were made simultaneously: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

Now, turn the page. The second creation story opens with an introduction (Genesis 2:4) that closely mirrors Genesis 1:1: “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” The verse in no way indicates that what follows is simply a more detailed look at creation from a different perspective, as YECs claim; it says, “This is the account.”

Moving on, an individual man (the same Hebrew word is used as in 1:26, but it’s now translated singularly rather than as “mankind”) is the first thing God is described as making in Genesis 2. And this creative act occurs explicitly at a time when “no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up” (2:5), even though the plants and trees were supposed to have been made three days prior. Trees appear after this, when God plants the garden of Eden in verses 8 and 9.

This is the first major contradiction in the literalist view. Genesis 2:9 says, “The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground — trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food,” after he made man (we haven’t even gotten to woman yet). But Genesis 1:24-31 provides no hint that additional plants or trees were made on the sixth day; all that had already been said and done, as it were.

Skipping down to Genesis 2:18-19, God remarks that it’s not good for man to be alone, and so he then, at that point, proceeds to form “every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens,” even though these also were supposed to have already been made, and on different days — not at the same time. And finally, after all the birds and beasts are named (sorry, no fish in this creation account), God gets around to making woman (she’s not named Eve till after the fall).

Unlike in Genesis 1, Genesis 2 contains no mention of days, mornings or evenings that separate out the various creative periods. And, as you can surely see, the order of the two is completely different. Genesis 1: Plants and trees, fish and birds, land animals, men and women. Genesis 2: Man, trees, land animals and birds, woman.

YEC proponents have, of course, attempted to explain away these apparent contradictions. It’s in their best interests, after all: If they can’t even get to the third chapter of Genesis without their literalist exegesis falling apart, then they’re in serious trouble.

So, for example, Creation Ministries International author Don Batten (who has a Ph.D. in horticultural science, for crying out loud!) uses the fact that Genesis 2:5 mentions there being no one to “work the ground” as evidence that the passage refers only to “cultivated” plants, not plants in general.

But in Batten’s effort to “take God at his word,” he has to omit part of it. He fails to note the more important reason Genesis 2:5 gives for why plants hadn’t yet appeared: because “the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land.” Cultivated plants may need someone to work the ground, but all plants need water, Dr. Batten. With your Ph.D., I would have guessed you already knew that.

The second way YECs try to ignore these contradictions is just as dishonest to the text, if not more so. As Answers in Genesis author Paul Taylor explains, they believe the verb used in 2:19, which the King James Version renders as “formed” could just as easily be translated “had formed.” (Presumably, this is also true of the verb used in verse 2:7, when God “formed” Adam, and the story would be all mucked up if we translated that instance has “had formed,” but I won’t go there.)

Indeed, this is how more modern translations like the NIV and the English Standard Version render 2:19, in an effort to skate around the contradiction. But this is obviously not faithful to the overall story. Read 2:18 again: “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.'” He’s not saying he “has made” a suitable helper already, he’s saying he’s got some makin’ yet to do. And so, in the next verse, he proceeds to make land animals and birds.

Adam also takes the opportunity to name the various creatures as God produces them, but verse 20 (“But for Adam no suitable helper was found”) reiterates the main purpose for God’s bringing forth of all these new critters: To find a helper for man.

The YEC’s interpretation would, instead, make the story as follows:

1. God knows Adam needs a wife, and that it’s something he has yet to make (verse 18).
2. Instead of making the wife God knows is missing from creation, he brings before Adam a whole bunch of other things he’s already made, perhaps just to show off (verse 19).
3. Adam politely explains that he is not interested in his wife being an ostrich or a buffalo (verse 20).
4. And so (verse 21 being clearly tied to verse 20 by the conjunction “so”), God finally makes the thing he apparently knew needed to be made way back in verse 18.

As a recent blog post by Slacktivist’s Fred Clark so wonderfully points out, the literalists’ main problem is that they are trying to harmonize two accounts that weren’t meant to be harmonized. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 tell two different and separate stories, which contain very different (but equally important and true) teachings about God, humanity and the relationship between the two. The danger in YECs’ modern efforts to puree the two narratives into one is that they risk distorting these lessons such that the real, eternal value intended by the original authors (and ultimately, by God) is lost.

In other words, the key to understanding Genesis 1 and 2 is not finding some secret way to harmonize them together; the key is accepting that they were never meant to be “harmonized” at all. Let them be separate. Let them be different. As long as they aren’t both read as straightforward history lessons, there are no contradictions between them.

I believe that there is truth in the first two chapters of Genesis that goes far beyond the superficial questions of the order in which life appeared and the number of days it took God to make everything. In my view, these two snippets of ancient literature contain the essence of God’s reason for making mankind, and the relationship he desires with every man and woman who now lives.

To me, this is truth that is beautiful and irreplaceable — life-changing, even. To me, this is truth that is much too important and too precious to risk cheapening by insisting a sacred myth be read literally or to risk diluting by harmonizing the Bible’s many disparate voices into meaninglessness.

Tyler Francke is founder of God of Evolution and author of Reoriented. He can be reached at

  • Anna

    Just, yes.

  • Duncan

    So Gen 1 and Gen 2 contain very important teachings about God, humanity and the relationship between the two. Then surely the question is not the relatively unimportant ‘Can YEC harmonise Gen 1 & 2 literally?’, but ‘How well does YEC fit with the important themes of Gen 1 & 2?’ I put it to you that YEC fits better with those themes than any evolutionary view I have seen.

    • Since young-earth creationism is completely based upon the literal interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2, the question of “Can YEC harmonize Gen 1 & 2 literally?” is not at all “unimportant” to that view. If the answer is no, then YECs are mistaken in their interpretation of that part of scripture — end of story.

      • Duncan Vann

        Hi Tyler, hope you’re having a good day.

        So I take the bible pretty literally when it talks about the creation, miracles and the resurrection.

        What if somebody points out to me that the gospels don’t have the same version of the resurrection? Is that a problem?

        Not really. I’m still convinced that Jesus literally rose from the dead for all sorts of reason. Probably all four writers accurately convey the resurrection with different emphases and perspectives. I don’t need to have a detailed harmonisation of exactly what happened to believe that they all reported on that literal event, do I? And even if I came to the view that one of John’s witnesses was muddled, that might affect my understanding of biblical inerrancy, but it needn’t end my belief in the resurrection.

        I take the Genesis creation account literally too. It’s not nearly as important as the resurrection and the evidence isn’t nearly so strong, but I do have reasons to believe it. The creation account tells me that:- God made the world and especially people (he gave men and women authority over the world). He made the world good, free from sickness, corruption and death. He made men and women for each other. Adam sinned and the world became corrupted; and the natural world followed him. God began to build his people, real people, from the beginning.

        The YEC view fits in with all of this. No evolutionary view I’ve seen tells the same story. So even if you’re right and YECs shouldn’t present Gen 1 & 2 quite as literally as we tend to, that still leaves YEC much better fitted to the important teachings that follow from Gen 1-3.

        (In my view – of course you might disagree with that statement, the point here is to demonstrate that YEC need not rely on strict literalism, not to actually prove that I am right about all those points. Also I do accept that Christian evolutionists have made some progress, particularly in emphasising the future rather than the past).

        • Hi Tyler, hope you’re having a good day.

          Hey Duncan! Likewise, brother. Thanks for writing back. You ask some good questions, and I’ll do my best to respond.

          First of all, I appreciate your point about the variations in the resurrection accounts, but it’s not completely fair to compare the gospels with Genesis, and here’s why: In his chapter 1 introduction, the author of Luke explicitly describes the purpose and nature of his writing and those of the other gospels. And he describes those writings as “orderly accounts” of “the things that have been fulfilled among us,” passed down by “eyewitnesses.” And the Gospel of John, in verse 20:30-31, explains the deeper purpose: that we might believe Jesus is the Messiah and have life in his name.

          There is not any part of Genesis that claims to be an eyewitness account, nor is there a place where the purpose of the book is clearly laid out. Therefore, I think it’s open to reasonable interpretation. We are left to prayerfully and cautiously guess at the author’s or authors’ purposes in writing, and the question then becomes which interpretation is the most reasonable? And this appears to be exactly the track that you’re on, so we’re in good shape.

          Now, I would submit that the problem with your “test” here is that the points you’ve chosen to measure the two possible worldviews are drawn, not entirely from scripture, but from the young-earth creationist view. So, of course, the YEC viewpoint is the one that shakes out on top. Evolution is perfectly compatible with most of the points that you believe are derived from the biblical narrative, and the ones that are incompatible with evolution, I would argue, are also incompatible with scripture itself.

          The creation account does say God made the world good, and that he created people and gave us dominion over all living things. It does say he created men and women equal and for the purpose that they would complete each other in marriage. It does say Adam sinned and was cursed for it, and it does say God has actively pursued relationships with people for as long as there has been people for him to have relationships with.

          What I must question are your assertions that the creation accounts teach that God made the world originally free from sickness, corruption and death, and that Adam’s sin corrupted the natural world. And I don’t question them because they’re incompatible with evolution, but rather because I think they’re incompatible with scripture. The Bible does not say humans or animals could not die before the fall of man. The Bible does not say there was no pain or suffering before the fall of man. And the Bible does not say that the curse of Genesis 3 is what brought pain, suffering, death and corruption into the natural world. There are precisely four things cursed in Gen 3: the serpent, Eve, Adam and the ground (but only inasmuch as it produces thistles and requires man to work it for food).

          In fact, there are several indicators within the text that suggest death and pain were very much a part of the prelapsarian world. The most obvious one is that God planted a tree of life in the garden of Eden. If nothing could die anyway, what possible purpose could it have served? It would have been completely useless.

          Also, a world where all living creatures are called to be fruitful and multiply would soon be a very unpleasant one if there were no death. I’m sure you have some inclination of how fast animals like fish, small mammals and insects reproduce. The earth would have been “filled,” and its resources completely exhausted long before you or I were a twinkling in our ancestors’ eyes. Also, in a world where there is no pain, why did God curse Eve saying he would INCREASE her pain in childbirth? It seems to me like Eve already knew what pain was and was fully capable of experiencing it.

          There’s more. God’s warning about the tree was that Adam would die “the day” he ate of it. Eve clearly expected the death would be immediate, to the point she thought she would even die from touching the fruit. But they did not physically die that day. The text indicates they both lived hundreds of years after the Garden. So either the serpent was telling the truth about the penalty for eating from the tree, or the death God warned of was a different kind of death than they expected (which is what I believe, that the actual penalty was the far graver punishment of spiritual death — the severing of our soul from our source of life, God).

          And finally, God’s words in Genesis 3 say nothing of animal death and carnivorism being part of the curse. You’d think he might have mentioned it. He thought Adam should know about thistles and thorns (verse 18), but not the fact that the lions and crocodiles that used to be harmless would now be killing machines?

          No, I’m afraid that the existence of pain, suffering and death (what the philosophers call the problem of evil) is a problem for all Christians, not just we heretics who take a more nuanced view of Gen 1-3.

          The question for you is whether you agree with the points I’ve made here. Do you still think scripture clearly teaches that God’s original design contained no pain, suffering or death? And if the answer is no, then perhaps evolution is not so incompatible after all. At any rate, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts when you have a chance.

          • Duncan Vann

            Hi Tyler

            When I started out, I wasn’t being all that ambitious. So I didn’t set out to prove a YEC position, just to counter the argument that inconsistencies between Gen 1 & 2 disproved YEC. I chose the resurrection because I think most Christians would agree that you don’t have to harmonise all the different accounts to believe in a literal resurrection. You’re right to say that Genesis is more open to interpretation. So that, I think, leaves you plenty of room to believe in a literal resurrection without believing in a literal Genesis; and it leaves me plenty of room to believe in a literal Genesis without having to harmonise Genesis 1 & 2. So I claim that my initial argument, though unambitious, stands.

            I do think that it’s clear in scripture that our sin and God’s grace are closely linked to both spiritual and physical consequences, such as sickness and healing, physical death and resurrection. When Jesus dies and finishes sin, the tombs break open and the dead rise up. He proves he has the authority to forgive sin by physically healing the paralytic. I could go on and on: the OT and NT are full of a wide variety of examples.

            Evolution, or at least atheistic evolution, is very different. Co-operation and competition; growth and death; sexuality good and bad: everything is presented as arising from evolutionary processes. There’s a lot of examples of this too, every
            time I switch on a natural history programme.

            But my Jesus does not see these things as natural at all, rather he is angered to compassion when he sees the sick and the hurting. He gifts us with
            the power of the coming age to rescue the oppressed. So there’s a big difference between the bible’s idea of God’s good creation and the impact of sin; and the evolutionary version without God. It’s not just a few specific curses in Genesis 3, but a conflict that we face in our mission today.

            I realise that people can and do make similar points very ably without having to express a YEC position. Tom Wright, for example, explains this very well in ‘Surprised by hope’ where he largely ignores the Genesis controversy. That’s an approach I respect.

            But it’s a bit more difficult to combine a Christian view of Genesis with evolution, in my view. To be fair Christians have got much better at doing this. Gone are the days when I could fairly assume that anyone who didn’t take Gen 1 literally wouldn’t take the biblical miracles literally either (heretics!). But I still do see confusion when people try to put the two together.

            Muddling perfect innocence with perfect maturity and so supposing that immaturity is the same as sin … Accepting the consequences of sin as a natural part of God’s creation – (and yes as Christians we all have the difficulty of proclaiming God’s kingdom alongside our current suffering, but I still think there’s a difference) … Separating the spiritual from the physical …

            As for the rapidly growing small creatures and the scary lions. Maybe lions still respected people for some time after the fall. Maybe they had plenty of other things to eat. Maybe I got it a bit wrong – but I still think you’re talking about a very different world before and after the fall and I don’t think that’s properly reflected in an evolutionary viewpoint.

            Thanks for listening.


          • Hey Duncan, thanks for the reply! It’s a complicated issue to be sure. I’ll just respond to a couple of your points here.

            You’re right to say that Genesis is more open to interpretation. So that, I think, leaves you plenty of room to believe in a literal resurrection without believing in a literal Genesis; and it leaves me plenty of room to believe in a literal Genesis without having to harmonise Genesis 1 & 2. So I claim that my initial argument, though unambitious, stands.

            I disagree. Saying Genesis is more open to interpretation than the Gospel of Luke does not change what the word “literal” means. If Genesis 1 and 2 are to be taken “literally,” then they are historical accounts of the exact same event (creation), and there should be no contradictions between the two. Indeed, if they are meant to be perfectly rendered literal accounts of the same event, then “harmonizing” them should be no challenge whatsoever. The fact that we are discussing whether harmonizing the two is even possible seems to me to cast plenty of doubt on the idea that they were intended to be read literally.

            When Jesus dies and finishes sin, the tombs break open and the dead rise up.

            The dead didn’t actually arise (or at least didn’t come out of the tombs) until after the resurrection, and we don’t know exactly what the purpose of this was. The ground also shook and the sky turned black and the veil in the temple was torn when Jesus died. There was a lot of stuff going on, and I think it could reasonably be suggested that all of it was a testament to the fact that the only Son of God had been murdered by mankind.

            He proves he has the authority to forgive sin by physically healing the paralytic.

            Right. He heals the paralytic to demonstrate that he is God and has the authority to forgive sin. To me, that clearly shows that they are two separate matters. If your thesis were correct, that sin is the cause of sickness and death, then it seems God’s act of forgiveness alone would be enough to heal the paralytic, and make him immortal to boot.

            I’m sorry, man, but if it were really as simple as you seem to be claiming it is, I’m pretty sure we’d see it spelled out that way in scripture. I’m pretty sure the Book of Job, which is all about the problem of evil, would have had at least one tiny passage where Adam and Eve’s sin was lamented as the act that brought all pain, suffering, sickness and death into the natural world.

            But my Jesus does not see these things as natural at all, rather he is angered to compassion when he sees the sick and the hurting. He gifts us with the power of the coming age to rescue the oppressed.

            Of course, but why does this have anything to do with whether or not God’s creative process involved evolution? Jesus’ message was about denying our inner natures, putting it to death even, and following his ways. Why would we expect anything other than the natural world being opposed to a selfless, perfect God, just as we are inherently opposed to him?

            Maybe I got it a bit wrong – but I still think you’re talking about a very different world before and after the fall and I don’t think that’s properly reflected in an evolutionary viewpoint.

            I believe scripture clearly shows that we’re talking about a very different “mankind” before and after the fall. The passage shows that it’s humans that were primarily affected, and I believe the changes were primarily spiritual and in their perceptions of God and the world. You can, of course, disagree with me, but I think we must both be very careful in suggesting the curse and the fall of man did things that aren’t mentioned or even alluded to in the text.

          • Duncan Vann

            So at the moment Jesus dies the temple curtain tears, from top to bottom; and the bodies of the saints are raised. So the barrier between God and men has been broken; and death has lost his power. I think that’s a fair interpretation.

            Not a proof, but then I don’t think the bible’s nearly as systematic as you suggest. The Holy Spirit doesn’t always spell things out. He didn’t write the bible like a scientific textbook or a statement of faith.

            Instead, he inspired different authors to give their own perspective. Ecclesiastes and Job are a classic illustrations of that. I’d hardly expect them to reinforce a standardised doctrine: I’ve heard people propose that these writings are almost arguing with Moses. Even Job can’t hold God to the rules he thinks he should be following; and his friends do even worse.

            Yet there is a certain cohesion to scripture as a whole. As you’re reading, things pop out: look at the way that the NT draws out of the OT things that contemporaries didn’t even realise had been planted there.

            I am not setting out an argument that you must take a YEC position (although I largely do), but inviting you to consider that there might be more to YEC than simply insisting on a strictly literal Gen 1.

            I’m not sure where to go from here. I have a feeling that we might be too far apart to make much further progress with a direct discussion, particularly if we focus on creation vs. evolution (and there is a time investment). So I wonder whether you’d be willing to mull over my idea that the human spiritual condition (which I agree is primary) is also closely connected to the condition of our physical bodies and our environment? Don’t feel you have to respond to this as an argument, just have a look out for whatever pops up as you keep on reading your bible.

            In the spirit of equity, you might also like to suggest something for me to ponder.

            God bless

            London, England

          • Thanks for reading and for your response. I will do as you have suggested, but you should know that I have considered your idea at length in the past. I certainly believe scripture and my own experience suggests that sin can and does have a profound impact on the spiritual, emotional and even mental well-being of an individual and society as a whole, and hence, leads to much evil. What I have not seen clearly or consistently demonstrated, in scripture or in experience, is the idea that the sin of the first humans introduced catastrophic changes to the physical world, or that the forgiveness or removal of sin necessarily correlates with the restoration of physical health and life. Sometimes God heals and sometimes he doesn’t, yet he offers forgiveness to all. Nevertheless, as I said, I appreciate your offer and will revisit the subject.

            I imagine we can both agree that, whether you believe it’s literal history or not, the lessons of Genesis 1-3 are deep and profound. We see much of the nature of God clearly demonstrated (even, I would argue, an illustration of the trinity), and we also see his view of nature and of human beings. We see his desired relationship with us and we see what caused that relationship to be severed. So, what I would ask you to consider, is this: How does it enhance your doctrinal understanding of God or your understanding of how you are called to minister in his name if, in addition to the deeper lessons of Gen 1-3, you believe those chapters to be literal history rather than symbolic representations of the complex actual events?

          • Duncan Vann

            I will think about this Tyler. From my perspective it’s a much better challenge than the original post: does settling Genesis actually help me in my mission?

          • myklc

            Oh, two years ago. Nevermind. I was just going to ask if not believing in a literal 6 day creation had the same eternal imapct as not believing in the resurrection.
            That would certainly determine the impact of your mission.

          • Duncan Vann

            Oh hi myklc – I am still here as it happens.

            No, I never thought that the six-day creation had the same eternal impact; and I’d already moved out of a YEC church into a ‘mixed’ viewpoint church 25 years previously.

            In the last couple of years, though, I’ve softened my creationist stance and I’m now taking more of a ‘don’t know’ viewpoint. I still think that the creationist story – a good God, a good creation, a fallen world, etc. – fits much better with the world I see around me and the way people behave. But it’s gotten too much of a stretch for me to fit the six days and the science together.

            So I think of myself as a creationist whenever I am thinking about people; but not when I am thinking about rocks science and analysis; which is not a consistent view I know, but hey better to have some of your inconsistency out in the open where you can see it, I suppose .. umm?

            In terms of mission – I suppose it depends how you use your viewpoint. If your understand of evolution gets you thinking that sickness, disease, violent etc. are all a good and natural part of God’s creation, I think that’s a mistake. Likewise if you use your creation to wall off Christians who don’t agree with you, that’s a mistake too.

            Anyway I replied because it’s interesting looking back on one of these conversations to see where I was. I still don’t think the differences between the two accounts is a problem for creationists: it’s not that rare to find two seemingly different but valid perspectives in business / families / churches / history / bible etc. – I think people sometimes assume that literalism is the only reason to value a YEC viewpoint, but it isn’t.

          • Why does the fall of man have to be limited to young-earth theology? I fully believe in and accept the fall of man, and I’m certain most theologians who have rejected the young-earth and literalist model over the years did as well.

          • myklc

            Wow! Congratulations on having the honest heart to change! I was a fierce YECer for a long time, but couldn’t reconcile my growing knowledge of nature with my interpretation of scripture. I struggled for years trying to fit them together, thinking that a perfect God would give creation a history that would coincide with the laws God put in place, but I realised that God is not a deceiver. So I spent another few years grappling with what Genesis really is, and how the Jews understood what it was about. I have also always been a fierce contender for the faith to ‘christian’ cultic groups like the SDA, LDS and JWs and found that many of the indicators of heterodoxy I recognised in those groups were also present in the YEC organisations I was familiar with. In particular where an excessive or incorrect focus on one doctrine bent the rest of their thinking about God, the book and the world.

            Disease and violence are indeed part of the natural world, not as any right or wrong but simply a result of biological processes. When humanity enters the scene however, there’s a different set of rules in application. Because we are made in the image of God. Nature is created, but we are the only things created in the image of God. We are the only things given God’s special attention and direction. We are the only things in immediate relationship with God. The rules for us are different because we are made for a different purpose.
            If the death of animals and plants was not part of the plan from the beginning, then the planet would very quickly have become full, mostly of bacteria.
            Anyway, God bless you as you continue to work through your faith!

          • Duncan Vann

            Thanks myklc.

            Tyler, I agree the fall of man doesn’t have to be limited to YEC. Lots of Christians believe in evolution; and many in the ‘God in evolution’ crowd have made a much more effort than I have to reconcile the two to their own satisfaction at least.

            Picking up on myklc’s point, I see a distinction between the withering of a leaf or human hair, which seems part of the normal process; and the death of a person or animal through sickness. I still don’t believe that the sickness and pain that we see today is part of the good creation we read about in Genesis (whether it evolved or not).

            That doesn’t necessarily mean ‘no cellular death before the fall’ which I didn’t believe once I thought about it even as a creationist on account of the science. But I still don’t entirely buy the evolutionist idea that the world is developing just fine and nothing has gone wrong either. There’s other ideas: myklc’s makes the point that people are special (true); another friend thinks satan fell and corrupted things much earier on; and so on … some strengths … but I am still not convinced by any of those other ideas I have heard either. I agree that people are special but I think people and the natural world are more connected than you have it, Myklc; and the satan idea is a nice hypothesis but there’s not much reason to say it’s what actually happened.

            I realise I didn’t argue that well enough to convince anyone, but my point is really that I’m not convinced by anyone’s view at the moment: I am in the place where I don’t really buy YEC any more but I don’t buy evolution either. The Christian evolution viewpoint has made great steps forward from the versions I heard as a teenager, so perhaps some day we will all come around to a view I can agree with. 😀

            Yes, continuing to work at it, but also, well, it isn’t the most important thing to focus on and get right either, is it?

          • Hey Duncan, thanks for your comments. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your views, as well as the way you are wrestling through these complex and weighty subjects. I certainly agree that the discussion is just as important — if not moreso — than everyone just arbitrarily agreeing with X, Y or Z because of the common ground we share in Christ.

            I do believe the earth is in need of a restoration, as scripture says, but I think the biggest part of that is the simple fact that we humans have failed so spectacularly in our God-given role to steward the planet and its creatures, and have instead plundered whatever we wanted and polluted and corrupted the rest. (I’m being somewhat hyperbolic here, but you get the point.)

            What I don’t believe is that a single act of disobedience thousands of years caused some evil magic curse to descend on creation, one which continues to spark cancer and hurricanes today. Whatever the ultimate cause of suffering, pain, sickness and death, from a Christian perspective, I can’t see any way around the ultimate fact that our good and loving and all-powerful God allows all of it because he must have some larger and greater purpose in mind, which we may glimpse at times but cannot fully comprehend.

            The YEC theology in this regard feels, to me, like a desperate and short-sighted attempt to get God “off the hook” for suffering, when we should be trying to take a bigger-picture, and frankly, more biblical, view of the subject.

            Hope that makes sense. Thanks again for the discussion.

          • S K

            So if someone could provide some logical explanation, would you change your mind?

          • I’m not sure how one could logically explain why, for example, God would create a tree that miraculously grants eternal life, in a world in which nothing could die anyway, but sure. For the sake of discussion, I am open to being convinced otherwise.

  • Alan Christensen

    No matter how well YEC fits with the themes of Gen. 1 and 2 (and I tend to agree with the author about the two creation stories), YEC needs to also fit the facts provided by geology, DNA, and so on. Unfortunately for YEC, those all point toward evolution.

    • Duncan Vann

      Hi Alan. You’re right that I haven’t covered the gap between YEC and the scientific consensus, but this post was mainly about the fit between YEC and Gen 1-2. Still my answer would be broadly similar to that I’ve given to Tyler below.

  • Did anyone consider that Genesis may just be about the origin of Israel and a promise made to Israel and therefore the whole World that a savior would come? Two individuals can seed a nation and become a people, but it is unlikely that a whole species propagated from two individuals. Theological truths are to be found in the first two chapters, firstly that God is creator, men and women are created equal before God yet complimentary, humans were created to be taught by and have fellowship with God and that men are easily led astray and away from God by themselves and the devil. At the beginning after Adam and Eve’s fall into sin and therefore death, God promises to crush the enemy and Eve will be the seed of his destruction. This promise comes again to Noah and Abraham. Abraham is promised “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed”, and this has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. There is very little about other people there (except Cain’s wife) because it concerns Israel as the chosen root of salvation. We are included in the promise made to Eve, what does mother of all the “living” mean if as unsaved people we are considered “dead in our transgressions”? I think Pete Enns might have similar stuff to say.

    • Did anyone consider that Genesis may just be about the origin of Israel and a promise made to Israel and therefore the whole World that a savior would come?

      You mean that they were real individuals, but merely the ancestors of Israel and not all people? I’ve considered that before, and I think it’s possible. If I were to take the text literally, that’s the interpretation I would prefer. It at least explains where Cain’s wife and the people of Nod came from, without believing God created a world that necessitated incest, which YECs seem to have no problem accepting. It also explains why Cain was afraid “strangers” would find him and kill him after murdering Abel, even though the literalists believe there were no other humans in the world at that time besides his parents.

      • It is encouraging to have the freedom in Christ to explore this without being put down. Thanks Tyler.

        • Yes, I did mean that they were the ancestors of Israel only, but the spiritual ancestors of all since God chose them to reveal his law and salvation plan to. It makes sense considering we are by faith “children of Abaham”.

        • Where the Spirit is, there is freedom, my friend. I deserve no thanks for that 🙂

      • Jumin Rhee

        Some believe (yecs and oecs) that men amd women mated with earth angels or fallen angels.

        • DarkX Studios

          If you are talking about Genesis 6, then they are wrong. Never has that happened. This link helped me with this

          Basically, the Sons of God were not angels but the men of israel or the followers of God. The daughters of men were the sinful women, I think. Angels, fallen angels, etc. are spiritual and cannot materialize. They have no need to reproduce (especially physically) but the Bible never has said an Angel has physically mated with humans.

          • Jumin Rhee

            Hey, sir. Thanks for the response. That is an alternative explanation. However, if this is the case, why were only the women sinful? Why no mention of the daughters of god mating with the sons of man? Takes two to tango. As I see various mythologies all over the world speak of gods/angels mating with humans, as well as main school Jewish beliefs, I personally feel that may be the ticket, IMHO. Also, no matter how righteous or depraved a human is, they will not birth nephilim. Human + human = human.

      • Pastor Chris

        The premise that literalists believe that Cain and Abel were the only other humans than their parents living at the time of the murder is flawed. If Genesis is to be taken literally, then it is apparent that there were others living. The interpreter could easily make a statement that there is no literal time period mentioned between their births and their confrontation. The text does not say “now Adam lay with his wife many times but she had only birthed 2 sons.”

        Your overall argument on the Genesis accounts is relatively sound. Try to avoid arguments such as this one being referenced by this comment.

  • Will

    Yes, you sure showed them! This is awesome!

  • Sharon Horton

    Most stories in the bible are symbolic. The book of Genisis is symbolic of having children

  • Edward Baumeister

    I have a few things to say on this topic if you don’t mind:

    First of all, might I comment that the problem of the plants forming is solved quite simply and rather obviously. What I believe you have here is a misreading of the text. If you read the text again, you will see quite clearly, I think, that verses 4-6 are quite clearly talking about before man was created (day 3) and verse 9 is talking exclusively about the ground in the garden of Eden. Therefore there is no problem there.

    Second we come to the animals: I really do not have a problem with the text being translated as “had formed” rather than the present “formed”. As a matter of fact, the Tyndale translation, which predates the KJV translation, uses the past form of the word. The KJV is not the original perfect translation that it is often treated to be. It was made by imperfect people who were probably not actually Christians in the correct sense of the word. I think we should be going back to the original Hebrew, which can be translated as “had formed”. This does not seem to me to be “obviously not faithful to the overall story” as you put it. Originally my view had been that God brought the animals to Adam so he could find a helper. However after rereading it and thinking about it, I’ve thought, “where does it actually say that? Where does it say that God brought the animals for any purpose other than for them to be named?” I think that the author just put what he did to emphasize that there was no suitable helper, or possibly God did it to emphasize the fact to Adam. I’m not sure.

    Genesis 1 and 2 are two different creation accounts, one is general, two focuses on just day six in the Garden of Eden.

    • f you read the text again, you will see quite clearly, I think, that verses 4-6 are quite clearly talking about before man was created (day 3) and verse 9 is talking exclusively about the ground in the garden of Eden.

      You are incorrect. The text simply is against you in this matter, and your interpretation is plainly false, regardless of how many times you say “quite clearly” in the same sentence. What’s clear is that verses 4-6 set the stage for what is to come. They introduce the story and describe the setting in which God begins to work in verse 7. You honestly think that the author opens with a brief description of “Day 3” and then zooms ahead in time to Day 6 without the slightest explanation or introduction? It utterly strains one’s credulity. Modern translations like the ESV go so far as to even make verses 5, 6 and 7 part of the same sentence.

      The bottom line is that it appears to be painfully obvious to the vast majority of Bible scholars, translators and readers that verses 4-6 are a cohesive and integral introduction to the story that follows, not a disconnected snippet as you suggest. If it’s not obvious to you, I’m afraid I can’t help.

      The KJV is not the original perfect translation that it is often treated to be.

      Sure, agreed.

      It was made by imperfect people who were probably not actually Christians in the correct sense of the word.

      Wait, what?

      I think we should be going back to the original Hebrew, which can be translated as “had formed”.

      I think we should be going back to the original Hebrew, which can more consistently be translated as “formed.” In any other context, “formed” would be the obvious and standard translation. “Had formed” is called for arbitrarily, in an effort to skate over the perceived contradictions with the story in the previous chapter.

      Originally my view had been that God brought the animals to Adam so he could find a helper. However after rereading it and thinking about it, I’ve thought, “where does it actually say that? Where does it say that God brought the animals for any purpose other than for them to be named?”

      Verse 18, where God says, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him,” immediately followed by the narrative of God bringing the animals before Adam for a tryout of sorts. Verse 20 reinforces this interpretation, by noting, “But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.” Obviously, finding a helper for Adam was a big part of what verse 19 is all about.

      Genesis 1 and 2 are two different creation accounts,

      Yep, I completely agree.

  • parrster

    I read your article, and then searched for alternate answers to your conclusions. I found the following article and was wondering how you would respond to it, as it succinctly seems to answer your points of contradiction.

    • Hi parrster, thanks for the comment. I read the article, and I appreciate the link, but I don’t believe it really addressed the points I raised. The article seems to completely ignore the fact that the text clearly says (supposedly on Day 6 of Creation Week), that “Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up.” Its only response to the contradiction in order is either vague conjecture that only a specific region is in view (which is not remotely suggested by anything in Genesis 2:5; indeed, the mention of there having been no rain yet on “the earth” seems pretty global) or that it is referencing only cultivated plants — which is already anticipated and responded to in my piece. And the article’s response to the contradictory order of the formation of man, beasts and birds is even more feeble; it basically just asserts that there is no contradiction and alludes to a 19th century scholar who supposedly changed his mind about the point. Color me unmoved.

  • Quill

    “5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[b] 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, 6 but streams[c] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” ?

  • I remember when I was a young and fairly new Christian, I was in a discussion with some other older-in-the-faith Christians. I can’t remember exactly what we talked about but somehow the question of when Man was created came up.

    “On what Day was Man created?” someone asked me, testing me.

    I had a vague idea that Genesis 1 had an account about Days and also that Genesis 2 had some more detail. So, thinking out loud, I looked at Gen 2, saw that Man was created BEFORE the plants, turned back to Gen 1 and read that plants were created on Day 3, and said triumphantly, “Man was created on Day 3!”

    My friend was dumbstruck by my ‘logic’ or perhaps, my ignorance and stupidity. After all, it clearly says that Man was created on Day 6.

    I learned later, through YEC materials, that Genesis 2 is just a more detailed story of Genesis 1, but I could never fully get on board with that. No matter how many times YECs try to tell me that the stories don’t contradict AT ALL, I am not convinced. Ah well, after all, I am just a sinful human relying on my fallible interpretation.

    • Ah well, after all, I am just a sinful human relying on my fallible interpretation

      Aren’t we all? 😉

  • Laura Hamm

    I had trouble with this a while back when starting a bible reading plan and that was one of the first things to jump out as a serious headscratcher, the obvious timeline problems. A google search, a bunch of links and a treasure trove of varying opinion pieces later, I stumbled upon one that I have not seen described anywhere else or even referenced here (if it is, forgive me). It wasn’t the churchy “you don’t believe what we do? HERETIC!” and it wasn’t the atheistic “that is why the bible can’t be trusted” but it was a clear, plausible explanation for how it all fits together.

    The essay is at

    Essentially the explanation they offer is that Genesis 1 describes God’s actions as what he “made,” and Genesis 2 is what he “formed.” In other words, he set up plans for his creation in chapter 1, and 2 is how it actually came together, even if not necessarily in the same order.

    I asked a pastor who had some Hebrew skills at our church about it and he didn’t flat out refute it as a plausibility, and it makes sense for me. Just a thought.

    • Unfortunately, the Hebrew words are pretty much the same. Slightly different variants are used throughout in both chapters – there isn’t a consistent “made” – “formed” dichotomy.

      The most common word translated “made” in Gen. 1 is wayyaas. The most common word translated “formed” in Gen. 2 is wayyiser.

    • I’ve heard similar interpretations in the past, and I certainly have no quarrel with digging deeply into the text from a variety of different viewpoints. (Actually, I believe that’s exactly what it’s for.) But ultimately, I still think it makes more sense that God told a couple simple stories to convey some very, very complicated theological truths, rather than that he meant for us to take a story about a talking snake as literal history.

  • Cassie Hale

    I like your site but would like to point out that absolutely zero folks in my area that believe in YEC use the NIV. They all use KJV, NKJV, NASB and now the ESV. On the other hand, all my friends that believe God used evolution use the NIV, NLT, NRSV, so I think the NIV, regardless of how they harmonized the two chapters, has nothing to do with YEC. Also, the commentary in ally NIV study Bibles keeps open an evolutionary interpretation. Just a different perspective!

    • Hey Cassie! Thanks for the different perspective! I share some of your experience. I definitely hear from a lot of YECs who prefer the KJV or NKJV (which kind of baffles me, considering how this translation probably offers the most difficult-to-reconcile renderings of Genesis 1 and 2). But NIV and ESV are also very popular with them, in my experience (and the ESV has the same problems as the NIV as far as the arbitrary renderings of words in Gen. 1-2 to avoid contradictions). Personally, I use the ESV for reading and the NASB for study, so I guess I don’t fit your experience at all! 🙂 But thanks a lot for sharing. Glad to hear you like the site.

      • Cassie Hale

        I thought all along my church was open to at least Old Earth since they constantly reiterate that we remain silent when the Bible is silent, Major on the Majors, minor on the minors, etc. However, they just had a conference last weekend and I nearly choked when I saw the Indiana Creation Science (didn’t even know there was such a thing) would be leading a workshop. Because I am very involved, it was assumed I would attend. I absolutely refused and am formulating a letter of concern because I feel they violated out own statement of faith. Our church preaches ESV from the pulpit, but 99.99999% (you get the picture) use the NIV–which is why I do. I do like the literary quality of ESV better and hate all the harmonizing the NIV attempts. Thanks for the response. I share your posts quite a bit. I recently had a friend say she had nearly lost her faith over YEC, but after reading all the stuff I post, she says it helped save her faith. Amen to that!

        • Amen indeed! That’s awesome to hear. Sorry about that conference. A similar thing happened at an evangelical church I used to attend.

      • Jumin Rhee

        I had to ask what “tho-oo meant. They said it was “thou” and it means you. I said it wasn’t in the concordance.

  • James

    Hello, It seems to me that chapter one talks about the creation of the world where mankind was made after everything else. Chapter 2 doesn’t disagree. It states in verses 5 and 6 “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.” So there were plants growing before there was man. Then verse 7 tells us that God made man, and then in verses 8 and 9 say “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” So it seems to me that God created the earth, then the plants and animals, then man, then He created a garden and made plants grow there specifically for man. This seems to explain why it has plants growing after man was formed. Lastly before I go verse 1 of chapter 2 states “Thus the Heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” Just something to think about.

    • Hey James. The wording in the King James Version is a bit confusing, but if you really look at it and all the other translations ( ), it’s obvious that there were, in fact, no plants on the earth at the time God made man. (At least, in this chapter.)

      You also don’t address the order with man, birds and animals at all. In Genesis 1, birds and animals are made before mankind; in Genesis 2, they’re made after man but before woman.

  • Brad Lord

    In my opinion, Genesis 1 is God’s perspective as an eternal and timeless being, and Genesis 2 is how it all fit together from man’s perspective. In general, IMHO, anytime anyone claims the Bible has a contradiction, the difference involves man’s flawed point of view of the infinite.

    • Hi Brad, why do you think Genesis 1 is God’s perspective and Genesis 2 is man’s perspective?

      • Brad Lord

        God exists on a higher dimension than time, so his view of things is different from ours. Let’s use an example of something humans are on a higher dimension than. If my son is playing with his train set, he can choose to start with a caboose, then add an engine. He can then add a blue car between them, a green car second, a red car before the caboose. If his sister came in to play with it later, she would say the order was engine, green, blue, red, caboose. My son could justifiably say, no the order is caboose, engine, blue, green, red based on his perspective as designer. I think we can make a similar case that genesis 1 is God, outside of time, designing the entire space time construct with the end goal of man in mind. Did he put man in last? Yes. Did he put man before vegetation? Yes. I would also argue that he saw his creation of man as very good because, as a timeless God, he sees the end result of man glorified in Heaven, where God is currently in the seventh day of rest with man.

        • Ok, sorry, let me clarify – what in the text makes you think Genesis 1 is God’s perspective and Genesis 2 is man’s perspective?

          • Brad Lord

            It seems abundantly clear from the text. In Genesis 1 there’s no man until day six, so obviously this is how God viewed creation. God is speaking things into being, and in my opinion, they aren’t all necessarily coming into being in chronological order; rather, God is introducing things in the order presented, but at different points in human-understood chronology. By day 6, the heavens and earth were completed; my understanding of science is that the universe is still expanding, and thus not complete, so that tells me the work of creation is complete in God’s eyes, but it hasn’t come to completion from man’s perspective. Genesis 2 just zooms in on man’s experience of creation. If you see something in the text that makes this theory untenable, please tell me. I’m in the beginning stages with this thought process.

          • Well, it’s a fun theory to think through.

            I think one issue is that Adam is not the author of Genesis 1, nor is Genesis being written by an eyewitness as events occur. Genesis 1 is written by a human being many, many centuries later than the kinds of things Genesis describes. So, the fact that Adam doesn’t show up until the end doesn’t seem to have a bearing on whose “perspective” we’re talking about. Someone on the outside of these events is writing about them. Inspired by God, sure, but whoever is writing is writing long after human beings have been around. So, I don’t think we have any warrant from the actual text to understand Genesis 1 as “God’s perspective,” at least not any more or less so than the rest of Genesis.

            For instance, in Genesis 2, before the creation of man, we have ground and we have a mist that comes up from the ground. Would you say that’s also from God’s perspective and, if so, how does that fit into Genesis 1? Also, in Genesis 2, God makes Eden apart from man, then puts man in it, so mankind is still not “experiencing” that part of creation.

            I’m not saying your theory is totally implausible; it just seems to me like something you have to come up with -outside- the text, then make the text fit as opposed to the texts as they stand. The texts as they stand say nothing about being told from this or that perspective. They narrate a seven day creation, then introduce the origins of the earth and tell it very differently with an unusual focus on the local geography. I would probably agree with you that 1 and 2 are different stories serving different purposes; I’m just not sure those purposes are “God’s perspective” and “man’s perspective.”

    • Hey Brad, I don’t think I totally disagree with you. On the one hand, it seems obvious that the two texts have very different underlying themes, styles, theological focuses and points of emphasis. I’m not sure I would say one text is “God’s perspective” and one is “man’s perspective,” because it’s just not that cut and dry and I think there are still too much overlap for that to be the case, but one text is clearly narrower in focus and the other quite a bit broader.

      On the other hand, and I’m not sure this is what you’re doing, but I’ve often heard young-earthers say something like the texts “are just from different perspectives,” as though that magically makes the contradictions vanish. Um, it doesn’t. If both of these texts have to be read as literal historical accounts, then it doesn’t matter what perspectives they may or may not be told from. The contradictions are still there, and they’re still contradictions.

      You could hear a history of the American Revolutionary War from the perspective of a Massachussetts minuteman, and you could hear a history from the perspective of an attendant in the court of King George III, and no doubt those two accounts would be very different. However, if one account said the Revolutionary War began with the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and the other account said it began with the Siege of Yorktown, the two accounts would be contradictory. The fact that they were told from different perspectives doesn’t excuse them getting objective historical facts wrong.

      • Brad Lord

        The difference is that your example includes two flawed men telling different accounts while Genesis includes one account told from two perspectives, both given by the same God. I don’t think they contradict each other in the least. And I’m certainly not a YEC, I don’t have enough information to definitively decide how old the earth is, nor is it particularly relevant to my faith.

        • They are not telling different accounts, they are giving the same account (it’s the exact same historical event: the American Revolution) from different perspectives, just like what you claim is happening in Genesis 1 and 2. That’s the problem. If you have the same historical event being described in two stories, and they don’t agree on the details or the order of events, then the two accounts are contradictory. Period, end of story.

          And, I’m sorry, but it doesn’t particularly matter whether you “think” the accounts contradict. If they are meant to be read as accounts of the same historical event, then they do contradict, plainly and obviously. Whether you can see that or not does not change anything.

  • Todd LaRue

    It’s nice to see a polite and intelligent discussion when viewing comments on the web. Makes it enjoyable and shows Christ’s work in us. Imo though this does not affect salvation. If we are saved through Christ then regardless of our interpretations on Genesis we are all members of the body of Christ, including YEC’s. Having theological discussions of this kind are thought provoking and enjoyable, but they should not divide us. They should not pit us against one another. When in doubt I think we should continue to study, pray and search for answers. But until we get answers we can accept I think a literal approach is not a bad thing. God has put a soft spot in my heart for mormons. They show up quite often and I usually talk with them for quite awhile. They want to convince you that Smith is a prophet even though he contradicts the Bible constantly. So if we are at a stalemate I fall back on this. If Smith is a prophet and God ask’s why I didn’t trust him I would say: I chose to trust you, the promises you made that your word would not pass away, I believed your warnings about false prophets and Smith contradicted your Word constantly. So I chose your literal Word rather than their interpretations. But if Smith is a false prophet, the bible itself gives me nothing to stand on and I have no excuse. (their interpretations change salvation and who Christ is) So I’m saying that if YEC’s are saved then they are members of our family. We are to live in harmony. Friendly theological discussion like I see between the people on this page are great, but don’t let it divide us if some choose to stick to a literal point of view when reading God’s Word.

  • John

    Couldn’t God have given the “second account” of creation to specifically refute the possibility of future belief in ape to man evolution/origin of man? You once said that the flood was likely a local event in that region of the earth, could not the specific account of Adam be a local account to show that He was not made/formed from anything but the direct hand of God. As he is later placed in a previously created garden it shows plants were in fact already created. But there were no plants or animals in the location Adam was made, and therefore he could not have evolved from them. I.E. God saw the creation/evolution debate on millions of years coming, and wanted to clarify that man, and in turn Jesus the Son of God, is not some evolved ape from incestuous ape ancestors. Just a thought.

    • That’s a deeply flawed argument, primarily because you’re starting with a presupposition and working backwards. A 15th century geocentrist could have used the exact same logic to suggest that God included the story about the sun stopping in the sky in Joshua 10 because he foresaw the Copernican heliocentric model and wanted to clarify that the sun does revolve around the earth, and not the other way around.

      • John

        You can’t say that starting with presuppositions or presumptions and working backwards makes an argument deeply flawed, in some cases it’s the only way to start.(and has happened a lot whether in the case of evolutionary theory or a detective on a crime scene) If we’re talking astronomy look at how planets were measured before using radiowaves or how they take a distance of the earth to a planet to discover the distance of the earth from the sun. Of course people and scientists have made mistakes in the past with their presupositions but science is forgiving, maybe you should be 😉 I thought my question was a valid one, but if this blog is about you bullying a person’s (perhaps misguided but never the less curious) question because it may disagree with your predisposition and give me instead of a proper answer your strong rhetoric and irrelevant examples, then it’s no better than the yec blogs. I am truly sorry we can’t have better concourse about this subject

        • You can’t say that starting with presuppositions or presumptions and working backwards makes an argument deeply flawed, in some cases it’s the only way to start.

          That may or may not be true, “in some cases,” but regardless, it is not the only way to start when it comes to interpreting scripture.

          I thought my question was a valid one,

          That’s great that you think that. I thought it was a rather silly and fallacious question, and I explained why.

          but if this blog is about you bullying a person’s (perhaps misguided but never the less curious) question

          If you’re really this sensitive, then yeah, this blog probably isn’t the right place for you.

          because it may disagree with your predisposition and give me instead of a proper answer your strong rhetoric and irrelevant examples

          How is my example irrelevant? It shows how the exact same logic you used can also be used to support the idea that the sun rotates around the earth. Which suggests a flaw in your logic. It’s a perfectly valid argument.

          then it’s no better than the yec blogs.

          Well, the fact that you are allowed to comment here at all already puts us far ahead of most YEC blogs.

  • Chris Parker

    This may be old, but I am going to comment anyway. What I am about to say may sound a little off, however, it is a possibility. What if the two stories are alluding to two different worlds? The creation story of Genesis 1 is of an old planet that is no longer in existence or has life on it. God could have made a decision to either obliterate it completely and make a new planet or to commence a mass extinction on that planet so he can start over again.

    The reason why he may not have recorded this is the possibility of him being seen as a tyrant. So he decided to hide any action of him committing atrocities so he can still be seen as an all good God.

    • … Except that much of the Bible, Old and New Testament, references and even relies on the theological teachings of Genesis 1. Why would this be the case if it were talking about a completely different planet that God “scrapped” without ever mentioning or explaining why?

  • Tom

    I have just written a short book that presents a clear Biblical argument that Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential and not the retelling of the same story from a different perspective. The book is titled Genesis and Evolution, I will e-mail the manuscript to whoever is interested or you can get it on Amazon. By making Genesis 1 and 2 sequential, Adam and Eve are not the first men and women and this eliminates the conflict with evolution. I can go through my clear biblical logic if you are interested.

  • Alan Alldredge

    No. Gen 1 (mankind) and Gen 2 (antithetical priesthood) are a proxy/priesthood for this dispensation.

    1 – Lucifer’s sin cast judgment on “angel kind”. (Fruitful Place/Garden of Eden)
    2 – Adam’s sin cast judgment on “man kind” (Fruitful Place/Garden of Eden)
    3 -Christ does not sin casting redemption onto mankind (Desert)
    Gen 3:15 (the bruised/injured heel of the Messiah will crush the head of the serpent)
    Calvary prophesied from the foundation of the Old Testament.

  • Keith Mason

    Dont forget one day to God is 1000 year’s. Take that into acct so all your post want be irrelevant.