Are There Two Different, Contradicting Creation Narratives in Genesis One and Two?

Joshua Wroten

DM 711 Contemporary Theological Issues

Dr. Andrew Pitts

September 13, 2016

 There seems to be a continual debate raging over the similarities between

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

different, contradicting creation narratives in Genesis one and two?

The composition and sources of the Pentateuch have been a source of

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

that Moses authored the Pentateuch is considered the traditional or pre-critical

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

Human Origins. (Grand Rapids: Bazos Press, 2012), 37.

2 Ibid., 4-5.
3 Victor P. Hamilton, Genesis 1-17. New International Commentary of the Old

Testament, edited by R.K. Harrison and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing), 12.

 2

Pentateuch’s composition, which are critical of Mosaic composition, have

surfaced. These are commonly referred to as critical views.

The so-called critical views are diverse and varied in their claims and

theories of composition, but they do share certain elements in common. One of

these elements is a central premise based upon a theory presented by the

German biblical scholar Julius Wellhausen in the 1900’s. The theory is commonly

referred to as the documentary hypothesis or JEDP. Although the JEDP theory

has been strongly critiqued since its introduction, it is still arguably the strongest

influence on Old Testament scholarship. Even current evangelical scholarship is

greatly influenced by Wellhausen’s theory. A basic understanding of JEDP will be

helpful in evaluating and answering the original question.

Wellhausen theorized that there are four distinct sources for the entire

Pentateuch. It is a compositional theory that attempts to account for the

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

carries its name. The P stands for the Priestly Writer.

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

Pentateuch. These differences fall into three primary categories:

 3

1. Different literary styles - Throughout the Pentateuch there is evidence of

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.

2. Duplications and Contradictions - This is when the historical narrative appears

to be presented in two or more different forms, and these forms appear to be

contradictory. The creation narrative is the primary example that is used to

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

writer tries to synthesize two or more source accounts.

3. Anachronisms - An anachronism is a statement that is considered out of the

time of either the author or the time of the document’s writing. They are

typically based upon historical and archeological details that appear to

contradict the text. For example, Ur is referred to as “Ur of the Chaldeans” in

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.”

The Master’s Seminary Journal 10/1 (Spring 2009), 8.

 4

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

there be contradictions or errors? Furthermore, if there are two contradicting

creation stories, obviously one is incorrect. This is an important debate

specifically for evangelicals because it brings into question views of inspiration

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

Press, 1998), 114.

6 John Yeo, “The Inerrancy and Historicity of Genesis 1-3.”

www.theologicalmatters.com 1/27/2014.
7 Enns, Introduction, xix.

To begin, one must explain whether the two texts in question (Genesis

1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25) should be viewed as separate narratives or one narrative.

Did the author intend them to be viewed as one document? There is certainly

lack of agreement among scholars. Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer

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

as to say that the two narratives cannot be harmonized.9 Although lack of

harmony is different than direct contradiction, it certainly leans in the same

direction.

According to the article “Israel’s Two Creation Stories,” written by Peter

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

significant differences between the two narratives.

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.

differences be resolved by acknowledging that the scope and purpose of the

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

distinct because of their many differences.

Since the first and second areas are intricately connected (days and order

of creation), they will be examined together. In Genesis one, creation is spread

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

garden, then animals and birds, and finally the woman.

A simple reading of chapter two suggests that at least some animals and

plants are created after the creation of man.

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

1:11. A legitimate explanation could be that vegetation described in chapter two

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

six literal days.

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.

Some translations, in an attempt to harmonize chapter one with chapter two,

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

appears to contradict the explanation by traditionalists that either these animals

had been previously created and just brought before Adam or that they were a

special new creation for the garden alone.

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

hermeneutics. If chapter two is a continuation of chapter one, the details given in

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

to contradict what was previously presented in chapter one.

 9

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

process is completed and the man recognizes that there is no compatible,

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

has a distinctly different linguistic style than chapter two. It is a beautifully

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

Scripture. The second narrative is a more story-like rendering of creation. It is

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.

Another apparent difference in style is seen in how God is presented as

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,

perspective, and purpose have changed. There is a storyline with interaction

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

converses with man. He is sympathetic to man’s loneliness, and after

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

interchangeably. Wellhausen and others that hold to the documentary hypothesis

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

years because of similar usage elsewhere in the book of Genesis.13

Regardless of which language is used to read the text, it is obvious that

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

to communicate a different message. The narratives are written in different styles

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

Pentateuch either drew from multiple sources or synthesized different sources to

communicate a specific message about God and creation. The stylistic

differences between the narratives have been proven over and over again to be

just that…differences not contradictions. One would anticipate different writing

styles when communicating different messages. As Sailhammer writes,

“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

completely match so as to remove the possibility of apparent or real

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

communicate something important or because the author/editor did not see a

contradiction between the two narratives. Regardless of the reason why, one

would seriously demean the intelligence of the author when one makes

superficial judgments based on simple differences like style. The stylistic

14 J. H. Sailhamer, Genesis. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Edited by F. E.

Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1990), 31.

 13

differences between these two narratives do demonstrate that there could

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

be understood as a structured, teaching tool that encompasses the creation of

the entire universe instead of demanding it to be a literal, scientific explanation of

all creation, we are freed from either glossing over the contradictions or reducing

our high view of Scripture.

Why should we not view the Genesis one narrative as a literal six days

that explain a scientific approach to creation? There are a number of good

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

function is habitation by humanity. One cannot force our English definition of

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

Testament. The emphasis is on the power of God, demonstrated by His speaking

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

to force Scripture to conform with science, mainly because science is in a

constant state of flux.

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

audience was not interested in answering the questions that modern

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

perspective of its original audience. There are explanations provided by various

young earth creationists for many of the items mentioned above, but the

explanations seem to always fly in the face of logic and consistent

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

the simplistic explanations.

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

purposeless.19 There is definitely a contrast between the earth at the beginning of

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

pre-existent earth as source material for His “good” creation as suggested by

Waltke,20 or as Walton suggests God gives purpose (function) to a world that is

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

adherence to a literal six days of creation is not justifiable.

19 Waltke, Sailhamer, and Walton have similar definitions. See resources in the

bibliography.
20 Bruce Waltke, Creation and Chaos (Portland: Western Conservative Baptist

Seminary, 1974), 50.

21 Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 28.
22 Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 82.

 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

together, then this verse creates a problem. As previously mentioned, if in

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.

This interpretation actually creates more problems than it solves because

the phrase, “This is the account (‫ )תּוֹלֵדוֹת‬of….” is an introductory clause that is

used eleven times throughout the book of Genesis. As Hamilton points out in his

commentary on Genesis, all other uses of this phrase serve as an introduction

not a conclusion.24 It is strenuous at best to force the text to read backward in

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

Elohim to Yahweh Elohim because of the relational emphasis that begins in

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

one true God of the universe with the God of Judaism.

By recognizing that the first narrative is distinct from the second, the

tension to explain the apparent contradictions is removed. This remedies 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

day three in the first narrative?

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

the first narrative?

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

explanation for each of these questions. Instead it provides plenty of good

reasons to not force explanations on the text that go against its straightforward

reading.
 19

In conclusion, there are three takeaways that I have found in my research.

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

humanity through various natural phenomena. As Sailhamer writes, “It is not

difficult to detect a polemic against idolatry behind the words of this verse (1:1).

By identifying God as the Creator, the author introduces a crucial distinction

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.

Even assigning days to this creation narrative is evidence of the emphasis on

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

how humanity came into being.

 21

Bibliography

Adar, Zvi. The Book of Genesis: An Introduction to the Biblical World. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1990.

Archer, Gleason Leonard. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd. ed.

Chicago: Moody Press, 1998.

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.

Batten, Don. “Genesis Contradictions?” www.creation.com Accessed 9/5/16.

Briggs, Richard S., and Lohr, Joel N. A Theological Introduction to the

Pentateuch: Interpreting the Torah as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids:
Baker Press, 2012.

Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and

Preaching, edited by James Luther Mays. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Enns, Peter. “Israel’s Two Creation Stories.” www.biologos.com 5/4/2010.

Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say
About Human Origins. Grand Rapids: Bazos Press, 2012.

Hamilton, Victor P. Genesis 1-17. New International Commentary of the Old

Testament, edited by R.K. Harrison and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1990.

Leibowitz, Nehama. New Studies in Bereshit Genesis. Translated by Aryeh

Newman. Jersualem: Haomanim Press, 1995.

Luzzatto, S. D. The Book of Genesis. Translated by Daniel A. Klein. Jerusalem:

Jason Aronson Inc, 1998.

Reyburn, Willliam D., and Fry, Euan McG. A Handbook on Genesis. New York:
United Bible Societies, 1997.

Rooker, Mark F. “Genesis 1:1-3: Creation or Re-Creation?” Bibliotheca Sacra

140, 1992; 411-428.

Sailhamer, J.H. Genesis. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by F.E.

Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

Sailhamer, John H. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition,

and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.
 22

Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1992.

Stambaugh, James. “Star Formation and Genesis 1”. www.icr.org 1994.

Waltke, Bruce K. Creation and Chaos. Portland: Western Conservative Baptist

Seminary, 1974.

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.

Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary, edited by David

A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Yeo, John. “The Inerrancy and Historicity of Genesis 1-3.”

www.theologicalmatters.com 1/27/2014.