Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Joshua Wroten
the Old Testament narratives found in Genesis and other Ancient Near East
myths.1 On one side are secular critics who use the debate to attack Christianity
and the reliability of Scripture. On the other side are young earth creationists that
proudly stand for what they consider to be a literal reading and interpretation of
Scripture. In the middle are those that both affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of
Scripture while also recognizing that there are legitimate similarities between
certain historical narratives in the Pentateuch and Ancient Near East myths.
Probably the most critiqued narratives are the two creation narratives found in
Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25. The most damaging critique that attacks the doctrine
of inspiration is the argument that these two creation narratives contradict. This
paper will examine that critique and answer the following question: are there two
serious theological discussion for at least the last 200 years.2 Before that time,
the primary view of both Jewish scholars and Christian scholars was that the
Pentateuch was primarily the production and writing of Moses alone. The view
view of textual composition.3 Over the last 200 years, many new views about the
1 Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About
Testament, edited by R.K. Harrison and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing), 12.
2
The so-called critical views are diverse and varied in their claims and
German biblical scholar Julius Wellhausen in the 1900’s. The theory is commonly
has been strongly critiqued since its introduction, it is still arguably the strongest
Wellhausen theorized that there are four distinct sources for the entire
differences found in the Pentateuch. The four letters (JEDP) represent separate
writers or literary sources that together contributed to the composition of the text
as we know it today. The abbreviation JEDP comes from the following. The J
stands for the Yahwist documents based primarily on the use of the word
Yahweh for the word God. The E stands for Elohist and is based on the use of
Elohim for God. The D stands for Deuteronomy and is limited to the book which
One reason that this theory has gained a wide audience over the years is
that it helps provide a logical explanation for the differences found in the
different styles of writing. One example is the different names for God that are
used throughout the Pentateuch. In Genesis 1:1-2:3 the writer uses the term
Elohim for God, but in Genesis 2:4-25 the writer uses the compound Yahweh
Elohim.
evidence these duplications, and this issue also appears in the flood
narratives, the covenant with Abraham, the casting out of Hagar, Jacob
having his name changed, and Joseph’s sale to slaves headed to Egypt.
Scholars suggest that the duplications or contradictions are created when the
time of either the author or the time of the document’s writing. They are
Genesis 11:28, yet the common position is that the Chaldeans do not appear
in Mesopotamia until a much later period.4 If this is true, then the word
Chaldean was added at a later time for explanation purposes and was not
written by Moses.
4 William D. Barrick, “Ur of the Chaldeans, A Model for Dealing with Difficult Texts.”
Many evangelical scholars believe that there are two creation narratives
but that they are complementary not contradictory. Although most traditional and
conservative scholars see no basis for the JEDP theory5, many do see validity in
some type of compositional theory. This does not mean that they question
Mosaic authorship. Rather, they believe that Moses drew upon other literary
sources (both oral and written) and synthesized them into something that closely
resembles the Pentateuch we have today. The issue addressed in this paper is
not the evidence for or against multiple sources in the writing of the Pentateuch
but whether or not the sources for the two creation narratives contradict. The
answer to this issue is vital to how we understand and apply these texts. If the
two creation narratives are contradictory, then we are left with many unsettling
questions.
The most obvious question is - if the Bible is inspired by God, how can
and inerrancy.6 For those that believe the Creation stories contradict each other
while also affirming divine inspiration of Scripture, that conflict forces them to
modify the manner in which these portions of Scripture are applicable today.7
5 Gleason Leonard Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. (Chicago: Moody
www.theologicalmatters.com 1/27/2014.
7 Enns, Introduction, xix.
To begin, one must explain whether the two texts in question (Genesis
Did the author intend them to be viewed as one document? There is certainly
believes it is likely that they were intended to be read together as one document.8
Another scholar Peter Enns believes the stories are not the same, do not have
the same source, and are not intended to tell the same story. Enns goes as far
direction.
Enns, there are six distinct contradictions between the creation narratives, which
provide the basis for his claims that the stories are separate and contradictory.10
All critics do not share agreement with Enn’s entire list of contradictions, but
there are three specific areas that seem to garner general agreement from critics.
These areas are the number of creation days, the order of creation, and the
stylistic differences. Even the most ardent traditionalist agrees that there are
One must first consider whether the three areas of contradiction on Enn’s
list are valid contradictions or just differences. Can these contradictions and/or
8 John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992),
97.
9 Peter Enns, Israel’s Two Creation Stories. www.biologos.com 5/4/2010.
10 Ibid.
narratives are different and thereby account for the differences? The evidence
found in the text and discussed below provides a basis to view the texts as
connected yet distinct. They are connected by the same topic of creation, yet
Since the first and second areas are intricately connected (days and order
out over six days. The first three days focus on the creation of space (light,
oceans and sky, and land) and the last three days focus on the filling of that
space (stars and moon, fish and birds, animals and man). The first narrative has
six distinct days of creation: Day One - light; Day Two - separation of the waters
above and the waters below; Day Three - separation of water from land and
vegetation; Day Four - sun, moon, and stars; Day Five - sea creatures and sky
creatures; Day Six - animals and man. This order of creation is very different
from the one presented in Genesis two, where man is created first, then a
A simple reading of chapter two suggests that at least some animals and
Genesis 2:5–7 (NASB95), “5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth,
and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent
rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a
mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the
ground. 7 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.”
7
The words for shrub and plant in 2:5 are different from the words used in Genesis
is different in type (i.e. cultivated plants),11 but this solution raises other
questions. If at the time of Genesis 2:5, this type of vegetation did not exist, then
there is additional creating that God does after the creation of man. This would
go against a literal reading of the six days of creation in chapter one since the
traditionalist/literal view holds that the entirety of creation was completed in those
To build upon this idea, Genesis 2:19-20 is more clear in differing from
chapter one.
Genesis 2:19–20 (NASB95)19 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; and whatever the man called a living
creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and
to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there
was not found a helper suitable for him.
translate the word formed (vs.19) in the past tense as had formed.12 From a
translation perspective, this is completely arbitrary since this verb form matches
both Genesis 1:25 and 2:7. A consistent translation is formed not had formed.
Also, this verse begins with the conjunction now ( ) ְוwhich is the same
introductory conjunction that is used in Genesis 1:20 and 1:24. The NASB does
not translate the conjunction ( ) ְוbut the NIV does. Genesis 2:19, “Now the LORD
God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals…” This form is used to
11 Ibid., 57-58.
12 The NIV and ESV are the two best know examples of this translation choice.
depict “that which happens next.” The author is describing the events as they
happen. One might think in terms of the phrase, “and then.” The same goes for
the noun every ()כּ ֹל. It is the same word used in chapter one that is translated all.
This word is typically used to prove that the first narrative encompasses all of
creation. In this case, man clearly existed before the creation of animals. The text
had been previously created and just brought before Adam or that they were a
The introductory title for the narrative creates an issue. Genesis 2:4
(NASB95) states, “4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they
were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.” Although
some translations leave out the word day ()יוֹם, it is the same word and structure
that is used in chapter one. If day ( )יוֹםin the first narrative means a literal twenty-
four hour period, then it seems logical that it means the same thing in Genesis
2:4. The evidence demonstrates that an attempt to fit all that happens in chapter
two into day six of chapter one violates a proper approach to translation and
chapter two make the storyline more difficult to reconcile. Genesis 2:4 (NASB95),
which begins the second narrative, states, “This is the account of the heavens
and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth
and heaven.” Since this is the opening of the second creation narrative, it seems
Some would suggest that the creative acts in chapter two are distinct and
separate from chapter one and focused only on the garden area. Although it is
certainly true that the context of the second narrative is the garden, this
explanation does not account for the use of the noun day ( )יוֹםin verse four, the
conjunction now ( ) ְוin verse five, or the noun every ( )כּ ֹלin verse nineteen.
Because all of the important elements from chapter one that traditionalists
claim mark it as a literal, real-time creation narrative are also included in chapter
two, there is no option to arbitrarily place the events of the second narrative
within the framework of the sixth day. There are other options for understanding
and interpreting the word day ()יוֹם, but one must be willing to entertain the idea
that the first creation narrative is not a literal seven day period of time. In chapter
two, God creates the man (before plants and vegetation have filled the earth),
then places the man in the garden, and then creates all animals and birds (sea
creatures are not included) and brings them to him for naming. Once that
complementary being for him, God then intervenes again and creates the
woman. If the principles that are applied to the first narrative are applied to the
second narrative, then the text demonstrates a substantial contradiction with the
first narrative. In the first narrative, creation takes place in six days with a distinct
order, and in the second narrative, creation happens in one day. If one holds a
traditionalist approach to chapter one, then these differences rise to the level of a
contradiction.
10
The final area of contradiction is the difference in style. The first narrative
composed passage that highlights the chaos in the world before God intervenes
and creates purpose. It is ordered and systematic. There is a verbal formula that
is faithfully repeated for each element of creation. “Then God said, Let there
be…and there was…” which is followed by “God saw…that it was good.” This
provides a unique structure to the passage that is dissimilar to any other part of
similar to other historical narratives found in Genesis. The structure of the first
narrative is missing in the second, and the storyline does not follow a noticeable
pattern.
majestic and powerful in the first narrative. No details are given for how God
creates. Instead the emphasis is this: what God wants done is done and is done
well. It is God alone who brings order and purpose to the chaos that exists. The
second narrative takes a more detailed and local perspective. The writer’s focus,
between God and man. Time is spent explaining why there is no vegetation.
There is explanation for the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil. God is presented in terms of a human with humanlike actions. He uses His
hands (instead of words) to craft and form the man and woman. He directly
demonstrating to man that he is not compatible with the other animals, God
11
creates the woman to be his match. He even goes as far as putting the man to
sleep so that, one can only speculate, he does not feel pain.
Lastly, the words used for God are changed. In chapter one the generic
Hebrew term for God is used, which is Elohim. Once the second narrative
begins, the word Yahweh (the personal name of God given to Moses) is
combined with Elohim. From this point forward, Yahweh Elohim is used
start building their entire case from this change found between the narratives.
They view this as proof that these two creation narratives had distinct and
separate sources. That view has garnered less and less support through the
there are stylistic differences between the two narratives. Traditionalists argue
that the differences can be accounted for because the purpose of the narratives
is different. Therefore, the change in the names for God are intentional, in order
in order to do the same. If that is the case, it seems that the author did a poor job
of transitioning between the two narratives and that the overall affect creates
disunity.
The more widely held position by evangelicals is that there are two
different narratives, which explains the stylistic differences, yet they are not
13 Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary edited by David A.
Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Waco: Word Books, 1987) Introduction, xxxv.
12
contradictory. Just because there are different sources or source material for the
two narratives, does not mean that they cannot be harmonized. The different
names for God and the different styles do communicate something different to
the reader. It is certainly not controversial to suggest that the author of the
differences between the narratives have been proven over and over again to be
“Whatever our opinion may be about whether the two accounts of Creation in
chapters 1 and 2 originally belonged together, there is little doubt that as they are
put together in the narrative before us, they are meant to be read as one
account.”14 The author/editor of the text could easily have edited the words to
contradiction. It would have been simple to use the same name for God at each
reference or to provide better transition between the two narratives. But a choice
was made not to do so because either the differences are intentional and
contradiction between the two narratives. Regardless of the reason why, one
would seriously demean the intelligence of the author when one makes
14 J. H. Sailhamer, Genesis. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Edited by F. E.
potentially be different source material, but it does not demonstrate that there is a
contradiction.
So how does one reconcile the probable contradiction found between the
two creation narratives regarding the days and order of creation? A proper
understanding of the purpose of Genesis one frees us from forcing the more
literal, historic narrative in Genesis two to match it. By allowing Genesis one to
all creation, we are freed from either glossing over the contradictions or reducing
Why should we not view the Genesis one narrative as a literal six days
reasons. While each reason may not end the discussion on its own merits, I
believe that together they demonstrate that the author never intended for the text
to be viewed literally.
The first reason is that the terms defining creation are not scientific. I think
John Walton does a good job of demonstrating that the focus of the Hebrew word
for create בראis on function not on material creation.15 Of the fifty instances of the
word create ברא, the vast majority are clearly defining function and not the
creation of something new. For example, Isaiah 45:18 (NASB95) says, “For thus
15 John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
2009), 41.
14
says the LORD, who created בראthe heavens (He is the God who formed the
earth and made it, He established it and did not create בראit a waste place, but
formed it to be inhabited.” The purpose of the word create בראin this context is
focused on its function. In this case, the earth was created with a function. That
creation upon the Old Testament. Although create בראcan certainly communicate
material creation, that is not the primary purpose for which it is used in the Old
and immediate fulfillment of what was spoken. To demand that this narrative be
the literal, scientific guide to the creation of the world when the text does not
require it is unwise.
The second reason is one that many have noticed over the years. If the
six days of creation are literal, then significant elements of creation are
completely missing from the text or are contradictory of what we know about the
universe today. For example, day one has the creation of light, yet it is not until
day four that the stars and moon are created. Day three has the creation of
vegetation, but there is no sun to create photosynthesis. On day two the heavens
are created. They are described as a solid structure that separates water below
from water above the earth. As Walton writes, “Day two has been problematic at
a number of different levels. In antiquity people routinely believed that the sky
was solid”16 Today, we recognize that the sky is not solid. Day and night are
created in Genesis 1:5 and referred to as “morning and evening the first day,” yet
16 Ibid., 55.
15
the sun and moon which mark day and night are not yet created. The moon is
referred to as a light, yet we know that the moon reflects light and does not
produce light. Also, the angels play an important role in Scripture, but they are
not listed in the days of creation. This is just a quick list that references some of
the conflicts we see in the first creation narrative. Of course, it is very dangerous
The point is not to correct Scripture with science but instead to recognize
that this narrative is written in the culture of its original audience. The original
evangelicalism finds so important. John Walton in his book The Lost World of
Genesis One rightly points out, “Through the entire Bible, there is not a single
instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No
passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World
science of antiquity.”17 The Bible is written in the language and from the
young earth creationists for many of the items mentioned above, but the
hermeneutics.18 The purpose is not to denigrate the young earth position but
instead to provide some options for those (like myself) that struggle with many of
17 Ibid., 17.
18 James Stambaugh, “Star Formation and Genesis 1,” www.icr.org, 1994.
16
The third reason the Genesis one narrative should not be viewed as literal
is that the earth is already preexistent before the days of creation. Genesis 1:2
(NASB95) states, “2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over
the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the
waters.” There has been much written on the phrase “formless and void “(וּ ֫תּ ֹה
֫ Although Hebrew scholars disagree about the exact definition of this phrase,
)בּ ֹהוּ.
all seem to agree that it implies a world that is unformed, unprepared, and
chapter one and the earth at the end of chapter one. God, through creation, has
brought purpose and function to the world that was chaotic. This suggests that at
some time in the past, God had already created some things (this may have also
been when angelic beings were created). Regardless of whether God uses the
already created21, or as Sailhammer suggests that God is preparing the land (the
Garden of Eden) for the arrival of the man and woman22 or any other biblically
grounded explanation, the point is that the text is not entirely clear. A rigid
19 Waltke, Sailhamer, and Walton have similar definitions. See resources in the
bibliography.
20 Bruce Waltke, Creation and Chaos (Portland: Western Conservative Baptist
17
Lastly, the transition in Genesis 2:4 between the two narratives seems to
contradict the idea that the second narrative is just a more detailed look at day
six. Genesis 2:4 (NASB95) states, 4 “This is the account of the heavens and the
earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and
heaven.” If the two creation narratives are both literal and intended to go
chapter one, the word day ( )יוֹםrepresents a literal, twenty-four hour time period,
then it would be fair to assume that when the same word is used in Genesis 2:4,
it means the same thing. To explain why they interpret day ( )יוֹםdifferently in this
verse, traditionalists suggest that verse four is actually the summary statement of
creation and that it does not apply to the narrative in chapter two.23 Because of
this, they claim that the first creation narrative ends at Genesis 2:4a instead of
Genesis 2:3.
used eleven times throughout the book of Genesis. As Hamilton points out in his
this manner. The best conclusion would be that Genesis 2:4 marks the beginning
of the genealogies that make up the book of Genesis and are separate from
Genesis 1:1-2:3. This also coincides with the shift in usage of God’s name from
23 Don Batten, “Genesis Contradictions?” www.creation.com Accessed 9/5/16.
24 Hamilton, Genesis 1-17 New International Commentary of the Old Testament, 151.
18
Genesis 2:4. By adding Yahweh to the more generic word for God (Elohim), the
writer is clearly drawing a line of connection between the two and identifying the
By recognizing that the first narrative is distinct from the second, the
following questions.
1.) Is the word day ( )יוֹםin verse four a twenty-four hour period, and if so
how does that fit with the six days in the first narrative?
2.) How does the state of the land or garden fit with the creation of land in
3.) How do we understand and interpret the words for plant and vegetation
in verse five, and what makes these words unique from day three of
4.) Why are animals and birds created after man in verse nineteen?
5.) Why does God speak everything into creation in the first narrative, yet
in the second narrative, God forms them with His hands using
preexistent material.
This is not to say that one should not work at creating a logical, biblical
reasons to not force explanations on the text that go against its straightforward
reading.
19
First, the two creation accounts are separate but complementary. The evidence
seems very clear that the material drawn upon for compiling the book of Genesis
is distinct and unique between the creation narrative in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and
Genesis 2:3-2:25. A separate but complementary view seems to fit both the
differences while also retaining a high view of Scripture. To not acknowledge the
differences between the narratives would be to choose rigid ideology over biblical
hermeneutics. Walton sums this concept up well when he writes, “The point is
not that the biblical text therefore supports an old earth, but simply that there is
no biblical position on the age of the earth. If it were to turn out that the earth is
young, so be it. But most people who seek to defend a young-earth view do so
because they believe that the Bible obligates them to such a defense.”25
Second, the reason there are two different narratives is that they each
have a different purpose. The structure and style of the first narrative directly
attacks the ancient near east cultural views of a multitude of gods interacting with
difficult to detect a polemic against idolatry behind the words of this verse (1:1).
between the God of the fathers and the gods of the nations, gods that the biblical
authors considered mere idols.”26 The story of the first narrative is that there is
one true God that has created each part of creation and assigned it a specific
25 Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 94.
26 Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 83.
20
role. Function and not science is at the core of understanding the first chapter.
function. It provides a literary framework for all the natural elements that can be
seen by the naked eye while remaining silent on the mode of that creation.
Third, the second narrative complements the first by telling the intimate
story of how God handcrafts the pinnacle of His creation, man and woman. This
chapter above all signifies that the God of Judaism is intricately involved in our
creation and sets the stage for the entire story of Genesis - God’s direct
involvement in the world. God’s concern for man’s aloneness and His
intervention by creating the woman provide the earliest pattern for how God
intended His creation to live. The story of the second narrative is in my opinion
the literal creation record. Just as the ten other narratives that are introduced by
the phrase “this is the account of “( )תּוֹלֵ דוֹתrepresent real people in real places at
real times, so I believe that this story is the most clear, accurate historic record of
Bibliography
Adar, Zvi. The Book of Genesis: An Introduction to the Biblical World. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1990.
Barrrick, William D. “Ur of the Chaldeans, A Model for Dealing with Difficult
Texts.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 20/1 (Spring 2009):7-18.
Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say
About Human Origins. Grand Rapids: Bazos Press, 2012.
Reyburn, Willliam D., and Fry, Euan McG. A Handbook on Genesis. New York:
United Bible Societies, 1997.
Walton, John H. The Lost World of Adam and Eve. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 2015.
Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 2009.