We emailed our questions in advance to make good use of our discipleship resource pastor's time and give him an opportunity to prepare. But one question was asked toward the end of the evening that we did not get a chance to look into together very deeply. The question is, knowing that scripture is the inerrant word of God, how do you reconcile Genesis 1 and 2's timelines of the creation of plants, animals, and man? This question is not a vital part of the core theology of Christianity, but God did not create us to turn our heads the other way to questions and pretend that faith is to not think. As our pastor reminds us so often, it is good to think, to question, to wrestle. God sanctifies us through these things. At the end of the day, there will still be mysteries. Not all things are for us to know at present (see 1 Cor. 13:12).
I really enjoyed the time we spent digging into the Word together working through questions, so I decided to work through this one on my own. I am posting my study here in case anyone else has wondered about this or has had someone point these texts out to them as contradicting each other. I figure it's better to share in hopes of building up and encouraging the body than hoarding learnings and risking getting puffed up. Afterall, isn't that what God gave us our personalities, gifts, and abilities for - to glorify Him? Plus, it gives others a chance to review my study and gently point out if there are any flaws. I would love feedback! Please note that the ESV was used for my study as exact wording differs per version, and my study tools were my Bible, Blueletter Bible, and Strong's Concordance. Here goes!
The Issue:
- Genesis 1 can seem to convey that vegetation was created on day three, birds on day five, and beasts of land and man on day six.
- Genesis 2 can seem to convey that man was created before shrubs, small plants, birds, and beasts of land, inferring that he would have to have been created on or before day three.
- Different Hebrew words are used in Genesis 1 than Genesis 2 in regard to plant life. The word 'vegetation' in Genesis 1 is the Hebrew word 'deshe' which means "tender grass, first sprouts of the earth" which is different than grass ripe for mowing and more mature herbage already in seed. 'Bush' in Genesis 2 is the Hebrew word 'siyach' which means "a shoot (as if uttered or put forth), i.e. (generally) shrubbery;--bush, plant, shrub. So Genesis 2:5 could mean that no plant life that was the result of cultivation by man existed before man was formed, though beginning plant life did already exist.
- There is also a distinction in place. Genesis 1 refers to vegetation on the earth 'erets'. I believe this is referring to the earth at large as it is the same word used in Genesis 1:1 where it says that God created the heavens and earth. Genesis 2 specifically states that what does not exist yet are bushes and small plants specifically of the field. The Hebrew word for 'field' is 'sadeh' which is used in the Bible as a cultivated field, home of wild beasts, plain (as opposed to mountain), and land (as opposed to sea). It is possible that this designation of field used in Genesis 2 refers specifically to a cultivated field. I believe this is a possibility due to reading Genesis 2:15 where man is then placed in the garden that God created after man to cultivate it and due to the curse on man and the land found in Genesis 3.
- Genesis 1:26 does specify a timeline with the word, 'then'. So God made man in His image after the creation of the birds of the air and beasts of the field.
- Genesis 2:19 does not specify an exact timeline; it merely states that at some point God had made every beast of the field and birds of the air. It never says that He created them after man, so I would be careful in making that inference. Being a sequential person, I struggled with the word 'So' at the beginning of the verse, but if you're like me, remember that so is not a time indicator it's an indicator of a causal relationship. Meaning that because God deemed that it was not good for man to be alone, He brought all the beasts and birds that He had created at some point in time. 'So' does not indicate time.
- The phrase 'to make' in Genesis 1:26 is from the Hebrew word 'asah' which in its broadest sense and widest application aside from the literal 'to do' or 'to make' can also mean to accomplish, advance, appoint, bestow, etc. Which means it's possible that Genesis 1:26 is not necessarily referring to the creation/formation of man but to the appointing of the image of God in man occurring on that sixth day with man having already been created earlier.
- I am not God and do not pretend to know His mind fully - I only know what He has revealed to me and to the extent that He has revealed it to me. So I confess that I don't know with certainty whether man was created on day three or six. Also, I am no Hebrew scholar.
- It is clear that these passages can easily (and without stretching anything) be reconciled with each other so that there is no conflict between them whether one thinks creation of man occurred on day three or six. That is the important thing - that scripture is indeed inerrant.
- I personally lean more toward man being created on day six due to the observations from the text I made above. While 'asah' can mean appointing or accomplishing as well as physically making something, I personally think that the word 'made' is used consistently throughout the first chapter of Genesis in terms of physical creation. Granted the case referring to men is differentiated from the rest, because it is in the present tense as 'make' rather than the past tense 'made', I still believe it is in regard to physical creation. But this is just my personal leaning. As it is not vital to the faith to know, I simply conclude that I lean this way in belief but openly admit that I could be wrong in that; however, even if I am wrong, scripture still holds up as inerrant. :)
