God made the seeds on day three in Genesis one, In Genesis two, it doesn't mention seeds but mentions sprouting and not seeds. So, after all, YHVH did make the seeds before the plants. It is really clear at scripture4all bible.
These are 2 seperate events great confusion comes by trying say these are same events time betwixt Gen1&Gen2 is Unspecified by scripture... when Cain went east of Eden he found the ppl of Nod from Gen1. Eden was not earth for earth prior to fall was watered by a mist but Eden watered by a river. My channel has a vid explaining these accounts
In chapter 1 animals are made before humans, and humans are made in God's image. In chapter 2 animals are made to be "helpers" for adam (who was made out of mud), but no suitable helper was found so eve was made instead of out his ribs.
You're right when you say the one which needs correction is the reader. To assume texts are incorrect because one doesn't comprehend them is the height of folly.
wow thats pure christian arrogance..i completely comprehend what it says and have read the bible thropugh 4 times now and each time i comprehendmore and more that its a silly book of bronze age mythology written by men to keep men in place
In chapter 1 animals are made before humans, and humans are made in God's image. In chapter 2 animals are made to be "helpers" for adam (who was made out of mud), but no suitable helper was found so eve was made instead of out his ribs.
These are 2 seperate events great confusion comes by trying say these are same events time betwixt Gen1&Gen2 is Unspecified by scripture... when Cain went east of Eden he found the ppl of Nod from Gen1. Eden was not earth for earth prior to fall was watered by a mist but Eden watered by a river. My channel has a vid explaining these accounts
It seems like objections to Christianity exist on a 10 year cycle. About once a decade it gets brought up a bunch, refuted, then slinks off to the back of the line. Rinse repeat.
Perhaps that's true as a trend but when you realize that what you thought was true is not, you keep going until you do find what is true. Ask and you receive.
@@nevin8604 No bother. People put a lot of importance on whether they classify themselves as Christian. To me, it doesn't help explain what I mean. Maybe if I weren't it would exclude me from being privy to knowledge you have. Would you want me to covert if I weren't? I just don't understand the relevance. What I wrote, and you still didn't say what it was, I think can be understood regardless whether the person classifies himself as a Christian or not.
Thank you so much for sharing this. I was reading an article just last night that was presenting these arguments, and I knew I had seen you post a video about Genesis 1 and 2. This was very helpful!
I watched a "contradiction" video last night. I have been answering the questions for myself throughout today. I'm so happy to see this post on the same day! :)
@@vivahernando1 “4. Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.” Excerpt From The History of the Church 1.7.4 Eusebius of Caesarea
@@vivahernando1 It doesn’t matter if the lineage is through the father. Technically yes that’s how Israel as a nation track lineage is. But the two authors want to track both the mother and the fathers Lineage back to David. Now I guess technically Joseph lineage is irrelevant, because he isn’t technically the father. But still you’d have to ask the authors why one went through Joseph’s bloodline and the other one to Mary’s.
@@zacharysiple629 He is just talking about how the lineage of the father is the only one that’s traced back through a family’s genealogy. And he’s asking why does the author of the other book do the lineage to marry when it shouldn’t be. There is no answer to that because we would have to ask the author why he went through Marysville energy. But it’s clear they wanted to prove that Jesus lineage went all the way back to David. Now most likely it’s because Joseph isn’t his technical father through bloodline. So the author traces of the mothers blood line back to David. That would be my best guess would probably be correct
wild that people don't see that. The first Verse was the overall outline, the Verse 2 was the indepth information of Verse 1. Very easy, to understand, also Genesis is not the only book that does this.
The contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 were already pointed out by Jewish scholars like Philo (first century) and Ibn Ezra (11th cen.), and by Christian theologians like Augustine (4th cen.)-this wasn't all dreamed up in some German University. The Documentary Hypothesis deals with the question of authorship, not the historicity of the events described.
I heard about this controversy many years ago. Admittedly, I'd never actually read the two chapters. So, i broke out the bible with my name on it and read. Gen1 clearly read as a bullet point of what happened. Gen2 clearly read with more discriptive language. The way i see it. Gen1 says what happened. Gen2 says how it happened.
Thank you so much for clarifying this! A rampant religious cult called "Shincheonji Church of Jesus/SCJ/New Heaven, New Earth" originating from South Korea but proselytizing globally now under "free online bible classes" has been using this analogy to twist the meanings to suit their own doctrine.
If anyone hasn't read it I strongly recommend the book "The Battle for the Beginning" by Dr. Macarthur as it clearly articulates and expands on this topic in a great way. God bless!
Why are you so stuck on Genesis 1 being about the creation of the material world…?? I don’t get it.. what she is saying holds no weight.. different plants..!?!? Come on.. When you READY to know what Genesis 1 and 2 are REALLY about. Let me know.. don’t settle for the reason/excuse different plants.
@Richard Fox You are free to your opinion but Christians follow the Bible and the view you have put forward is not biblical. I will agree with you that gay people don't choose to be gay anymore than a psychopath chooses to be a psychopath. But in the same way that God requires that a psychopath not indulge a murderous desire he requires the gay person to not indulge unnatural desires of the flesh that are contrary to his design. We all have our crosses to bear; some are heavier than others.
@Richard Fox No, that's not what I did and I'm pretty sure you know it's not what I did. If I must spell the point out for you I will do so: We all have desires that are contrary to God's will. When we have these desires, we shouldn't say we are good and God's will is bad, or our way is good and the commandment is wrong. There are plenty of things we all want to do that would be violations of God's teachings. When we run up against these things, the right thing to do isn't to try to justify them, but to recognize them for what they are: the unfortunate consequence of sin entering the world.
Genesis 1 is not meant to be read literally! Like much of the bible it has a poetic nature that us moderns simply cannot wrap our minds around because we always want straight up and to the point, logical answers
Yeah. As I have begun to learn, it’s us trying to read this eastern text (Torah) with a western mind that thinks that “problems” are meant to be explained instead of realizing those are meant by the author of the text to bring us to the significant meaning of the passage.
Platinumotion, I disagree with you. Most comments on RUclips are written by people who intend to be understood and choose their words for that purpose. Why should God, who made each of us in His image, not also do likewise? He patterned us after Himself, just as He says. As for truth and logic, logic only has its reality within the bounds of truth. A baby really doesn't know that its parents are its parents, but the baby senses the truth that comes from its mother and father. In time that same person will see the logic of the truth of the parents, but will be running on truth regarding their parents far more profound than mere logic. You could call that faith, hope, and love.
@@anthonywhitney634 ancient Hebrew is not the same as English... Ancient Hebrew is not even the same as modern Hebrew, if what I say entices you, research it. If not, no point in continuing.
@@deuteriummeridian8998 you're comparing a book that was written over 3 thousand years ago to RUclips comments... This is exactly why people aren't getting the full picture
My arguments exactly, well done. I find that most who have these problems do so without the Holy Spirit in them, in other words, they aren't saved. They want to find fault. So good to see this on here. God Bless
You accept that ridiculous argument? I know you do not. You just do not have any other choice because you have to stick by the traditional view of Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2. Those aren’t legitimate water holding reasons. Genesis one and genesis two if taking literally about creation counts then yes there is a major contribution that cannot be fixed. But if you understood ancient language and you understand the style of language that genesis one is in and can recognize what it says. And you can also recognize the language of Genesis to and recognize what that says then you would know that there is no contradiction. If you want to know what Genesis chapter 1 and two is about let me know.
I've read the first 2 books of Genesis many times and never once read those verses as "contradictions". It's amazing how far the lengths people will go to discredit the Bible.
Because you either have poor reading comprehension, or you bias prevents you from seeing what is clearly there : In chapter 1 animals are made before humans, and humans are made in God's image. In chapter 2 animals are made to be "helpers" for adam (who was made out of mud), but no suitable helper was found so eve was made instead of out his ribs.
@@LiberatedMind1 I'm curious to know which verses you are mentioning. For what i know that's not what scripture says..After reading and looking for myself i can see why you thought that. In Chapter 1. You're right that Animals were created first, And yes mankind are made in the image of GOD, Meaning both male and female have power to rule over the animals. Chapter 2. You were also right about Adam needing a helper..GOD said it wasn't good for him to be alone..Due to him naming all the animals by himself he needed help..That's when GOD caused him to fall into deep sleep to create EVE.
@@LiberatedMind1 Uh, hmm, what is your point? To resort to personal animus against Keith dilutes any reasonable attempted response. See my response above.
I agree; the creation account has three telescoping phases, of increasing detail and narrowing focus: Genesis 1:1 is the most general sweeping statement. Genesis 1:2-2:4 covers events on Earth and God's interaction with those events in our history, 2:4-3:8 zooms in to the place, relationships and creation of mankind, extending to purpose in 3:8 (where it is shown as relationship broken, not confirmed).
That's some mental gymnastics, it says birds were formed in day 5 in genesis 1, and in Genesis 2 it says they were formed from earth after the man is made.
@@daniel1fullerton In other words people can have different opinions without you having to be condescending and dismissive. It doesn’t suit the salt of the earth.
I choose to believe that God doesn't make mistakes. Gen 1 says that the order of creation is thus: 1-animals, 2-man and women together. Gen 2: 1-Man, 2-animals, 3-woman. God doesn't make mistakes. Ge 1 and 2 are completely different.
It's amazing how there are answers to these tired old canards of atheists, yet they will raise this, over, and over again as if it has never been answered.
Canards of atheists? I worship the God of Abraham, and I can clearly see that these are completely unrelated texts. Forcing God into the box you've created for him isn't the only way to worship Him. Nor, I would argue, is it the correct way.
@@biblicalanarchy13 Who do you believe is the G-d of Abraham? What do you mean by that I've put G-d in a box? What do you believe is the correct way to worship G-d?
Would you respond to Dr John Walton's argumentation in his book "the lost world of Genesis one"? There is really good evidence to suggest that gen 1 is not trying to answer our scientific, material based on questions of material creation. In fact, Walton's argument is that ancient near Eastern people, the hebrews included, thought that something didn't really exist properly until its purpose and function had been assigned. This reading has much broader explanatory scope, depth, and simplicity. Dr Michael Heiser, and Dr Tim Mackie also see the material creation view of Gen 1 as missing the point entirely. Your thoughts, Mrs Childers?
What does Michael Heiser say? I mean, we see the vastness of the Universe created. Material created by the spoken word out of that which is not seen. Dirt, water, air, stars, material boundaries, sea critters, air critters, ground critters. Let's not overthink this. Read Genesis 1-3 in the plain sense of the word.
@@GodlessGubment Yeah. Basically Im never wrong! I just pick the book I like. Then I interpret it how I like. Then I say this is from God. Basically Im making myself God! and then I brag how humble I am!
If anyone wants more information, Dr. C John Collins published his research on this functional Pluperfect in Cambridge University's Tyndale Bulletin. The paper is called "THE WAYYIQTOL AS 'PLUPERFECT': WHEN AND WHY" It's a bit technical, but if you can sort through it, he gives both sides, examples of this pluperfect usage (such as in 2 Kings 7:18-19), and ultimately concludes the pluperfect is a valid conclusion for Genesis 2:19.
But why asume that genesis two is a retelling of genesis one? The text doesn't say it is so why asume that it is? In fact there some very clear indications that it's not, a toledoth between the two texts for a start and there are many other indications in the text that show its not a different retelling of genesis one
Alisa Childers, along with me, does not *assume* that Genesis Two is a "retelling of Genesis One." She concludes, on the basis of evidence, that Genesis One and Two are accounts of overlapping but somewhat distinct events with different emphases and amounts of detail. Why do you assume that this is not the case? How does the toledoth of Genesis 2:4 disprove this? What are the "many other indications"? Childers begins this video with evidence that Moses wrote both accounts. The contrary claims seem to me to be based on weak assumptions.
Genesis 1:1 speaks of previous age which holds the answers for science discoveries. Could be millions or even billions of years old. Genesis 1:2 is the Beginning of our current age of creation!!
youtube has been giving me a lot of religious videos lately, and one thing ive learned is that I can know *about* the original translation and how it was translated, without having to learn the language myself. Which is very comforting, this type of stuff solidifys my faith further and gives me a way to make arguments against false teachings.
It's very disappointing that we are thought this hypothesis at University in German Theology seminars. People who disagree, are labled as " evangelical extremists". Thank you for this Alisa!
One thing people even Christians forget, God is not limited by space and time. God created vegetation and saw that it was good does not mean at that moment in (time) as we see it was created. God not limited by time sees the beginning and the end all at one time. So he can create, see it’s good without it even being in existence in that moment we see it on the earth. Just as vegetation needs water it also needs sunlight which was not created till after.
I was just speaking with a dear Catholic friend of mine who believes that this account is purely mythological/allegorical (he still affirms the inerrancy of Scripture) and he brought up these “contradictions” of the Creation account. Thank you for the video and the insight!
Question: Genesis 1:20 God says, Let the waters bring forth...fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven(KJV). Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air(KJV). Were the birds created out of the waters or the ground?
In farming, most crops are summer season plants. They don't germinate (come up) without spring rains unless you irrigate. I think this text is saying, "It was around march 1st" but in an ancient way.
As a former adherent to materialistic evolutionary, an atheist, after my conversion to Biblical Theism, I never viewed Genesis 1 and 2 as contradictory. Nor do I have an issue that Genesis is primarily an historical account. Trust it.
My favorite teaching is that both Genesis 1 and 2 describe Creation, but Gen1 is energetic and collective. Gen2 is fleshed out and individual. Gen1 is the big picture synopsis; Gen2 is the attention to details, particularly humans and “the weeds.”
The thing that seems to be overlooked here is that the Genesis chapters and verses only came into existence in the fourteenth century within the Wycliffe Bible in 1382. Without the chapters, it does easily combine as one detailed story. Reading the narrative of Genesis without the idea that the subject was being changed because it was a new chapter makes it flow as it should. Chapter 1 and chapter 2, etc, are not separate accounts. Instead of reading a story with an overview followed by a recap where details start to emerge, people try to make each chapter and verse stand on its own. It's not unusual for a writer to do this type of added detail as a follow up to the initial introduction account. Since the Bible is the most analyzed book in history, it is not surprising that people want to jump to conclusions about what it says. Alisa approached it with grace and sensibility in her explanation that God's book stands when opinions fail.
Just Subscribed now. And just ordered a Aramic translation. I have a 1816 bible with Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocryha, Concordance, and Psalms
Love Alisa, but Gen 2:5 says "NO plant of the filed had yet sprouted", yet she is arguing at 4:51 and following that there WERE certain plants of the field that had yet sprouted. Doesn't that seem like contradicting the plain reading of Gen 2:5?
It was written by man, accurate or not as to how things transpired. I had my own questions on some things that did not appear correct. But after all is said and done, I return to the first verse…, “In the beginning, God…”
The Herald, thank you for this. No man or woman existed during the time when God was creating. All we have is God giving an account of His works to whoever took dictation (as it were), with Him calling the shots on His play by play and the styles He wanted to use as suitef His purposes and pleasure. I had not thought that to think that it's all true and real even though it doesn't make perfect sense to me. Again, thanks for the reminder as to who's story and account this is. Blessings.
@@deuteriummeridian8998 Well Thank You for that DM. I’m glad there are other good souls like yours that see these matters in a sensical way. God bless your days my friend.
Genesis telescopes in to the fellowship of God and man: starts with the general picture in the first verse of ch 1, deals with the creation of the earth, segues to mankind, the one in God's image, to show his imageness at work in the creation in which he reflects God. This would only be a problem to those who think the chapter and verse divisions are inspired, rather than being merely an orienting reference system.
Yes, this WHOLE clarification which is a one sided idea could very well be the problem. Moses supposedly wrote the first five books of the Torah, and ultimately the Bible. But Moses never records an encounter with a Satan in the wilderness. The fact that Genesis 1&2 CAN be extrapolated from each other may be pointing to the idea that Moses, and or other authors wrote stories from God, but also intertwined stories from one or more Satans into the Torah and ultimately the Bible.
You are right, and this is what stated in Clementine Homilies 2 and 3, where Peter said the scriptures were changed, and now contain falsehoods. Peter also said Yeshua taught them to "be prudent money-changers" to be able to discern the truth from the falsehoods
@@wserthmar8908 thank you for this information. I have read some of the homilies, and am excited to read the rest. I don’t see any reason why all this stuff would be so confusing, unless it were mixed with false information. And the people who say it isn’t confusing just seem disingenuous. I’m gonna catch up on the Clementine Homilies. Thanks😊
God's glory always!!! I was looking for a creation sermon I hadn't yet seen, and kept coming back to this. This lesson is educational and illuminating. Further, study it will add beautifully to my growing apologetics arsenal. Blessings in Christ to your ministry!!! 🙏 ✝️ 🙌
2:05 Yeah, but we're not talking about mere human authorship with human styles. The whole thing is supposed to be a clear and direct message from God, right?
Not skeptics. Scholars. People who are highly educated in Hebrew and have spent years if not a lifetime studying the Hebrew scriptures. Why would an author change styles between chapters? On first glance it reads like vegetation was created in different orders... but that can't be right, why? "Because the one who needs correcting is always me; not the Bible." If one puts in the effort and energy any contradiction can be resolved, is this really how one determines truth?
The most important part of the Creation story is the Fall because correcting our faults is what we are here to do, to return home to God. That is the part of the creation parable that Jesus addresses with the parable of the Prodigal Son. In Genesis, Adam and Eve listen to the wrong teacher and God punishes them by throwing them out of the Garden to work hard by the sweat of their brow and suffer through child labor pains and at the end of life, die instead of live forever. Jesus changed this by saying that we, as prodigal sons, left God because we wanted to listen to the world instead of to God. In doing so, we made all of our own suffering and when we finally have had enough of that, we return to our Father, who allows us, with open arms, back in the kingdom of His inheritance to listen to Him instead of the world, and Jesus says with this we find our connection to God as being easy with light burden.
They are not only obviously different authors, but whoever wrote the first creation account also wrote the second flood account. They are parts of what is called a creation-myth, followed by a mono-myth. Those who interpret them as they should be will recognize they have updated information for the few chosen. Those who read them as historical are metaphorically refereed to as those who carry the ark, and not see inside. Standing outside the narrow gate.
According to Genesis 2:4 there were 2 separate creations. There was a mankind also created in the heavens. Which is the actual generation that Elohim made in their likeness and image. So many ppl overlook that important piece of the puzzle. Which means that God NEVER gave dominion to Adam and Eve; they were just slaves. He gave dominion to the first generation made in the heavens.. Please tell me your opinion on this comment.
In Genesis 1 we read, after it says that male and female are created, that God told the humans that they could eat any fruit. However, in Genesis 2 we read that God told Adam, before Eve was created, that he could not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Thus, if these are discussing the same creation event, God's allowance to eat every fruit follows his command to not eat one fruit, thus overriding it. Clearly that isn't the case. These stories are obviously unrelated. Furthermore, the phrase "these are the generations of..." is used repeatedly in Genesis, but always to go forward in time, never backwards. It's not that these accounts are contradictory. It's that man's insistence that these be read as scientific or historical texts causes them to appear to be contradictory. Genesis 1 is clearly a polemical response to the Enuma Elish, and is a masterpiece in literary criticism. The literal/historical view you impose on it robs it of that beauty and turns it into a flawed document. It's not the text that is the problem, it's these narrows views that get imposed on it that hurts the Bible.
Which was created first, the plants on Earth or the Sun? According to Genesis 1 it was the plants, but according to Genesis 2 it was the Sun. This is not the same thing! Also, in Gen 1, God is El, the most high, but in Gen 2 he is Yahweh, a regional god.
You dont necessarily have to view it as absolute history. I personally like to view them as symbolism. Especially when you consider that one was believed to have been written before the Babylon exile and one was written after, and you can tell which is which by the way the authors depict God in the story. For example the one written in Banylon has literary references to the Enuma Elish (A Babylonian creation story), which might be why it focuses more on how God created everything in the universe, and "debunking" Peaganism, for a lack of better words.
They are actually the same story. After ADAM was made , God created each kind of animal before ADAMS eyes and brought them each before him to be named. The naming of the animals was a separate event, that also happened in the garden. Read it carefully and you will see. God did this so Adam would know who the maker was, and established a relationship between him, and the animals.
In the ancient world, the act of naming something was also a symbol of dominion. It was another way of giving man dominion over creation as its steward.
@Eightball Wizard Regarding the naming, in the ancient world the act of naming something indicated dominion over that thing. According to Genesis 1:26, one reason God made man was "so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Giving Adam naming rights over the creatures seems to be God certifying man's dominion and stewardship over creation.
@Eightball Wizard In the first statement I was quoting the Bible. In the second I was explaining what scholars have said about the symbolism of the act of naming in ancient near-Eastern cultures. This was to answer your question, "Why did he even need to name anything?" If you didn't want an answer, why ask the question?
1 is in chronological order. This is why it says 1 day,2 day etc. This is not mentioned in Gen.2. he's rehashing what he done but not in chronological order and in HIS time which is like ONE DAY. And he obviously FORMED images in ground of animals to see what Adam would call them
The Very reason FOR the “scriptures “ is to INFORM you, that you ARE fallen, and HOW you can be redeemed, If you do not know who Yehoshua is, you’ll be lost forever, unless you turn BACK to Him.
When I went through United Methodist confirmation in 1975, the pastor explained that Creationism comes out of Chapter 2. But, Chapter 1 lines up somewhat with the order in which creatures appear according to Evolution and other scientific theories. The pastor told us that we should ignore Chapter 2, because the UMC accepts science.
I grew up attending the UMC but I never heard that before. I am glad I started attended another church then. If evolution explains our origin, what need for God is there?
@@johnsmit5999 According to the minister, God orchestrated evolution. Unknowingly, he came up with intelligent design in 1975. I attended a lecture given by Victor Weisskopf, who had been the chair of the physics department at MIT. The lecture was on the big bang theory. At the start of Q&A, he said he would answer the cause of the bang. He wrote on the chalkboard, "GOD." He explained that as a believer, he had to bring God into the equation at some point. Every theory about the cause of the bang had at least one flaw that could not be resolved to his satisfaction. While Prof. Weisskopf could not prove his belief, he said no one could disprove it.
@@kentfrederick8929 I am glad there are some scientists who stand for God. They seem to be in the minority in collegiate settings. I've been listening to physicist Brian Miller with the Discovery Institute. He distinguishes micro-evolution and macro-evolution. He specializes in studying the origin of life. I don't know how he would explain Genesis in light of his studies.
Genesis 2-18 "The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” So man was made before the animals, so there were two creation events, when you take the bible literally!
GOD did rest on the 7th day, it says GOD REST"ED" on the 7th day... Servents and masters is what is being played out thru out the whole bible, GOD comes down and shows us the PINNACLE of what's perfect❤
Actually Elohim more accurately Alahim is a term not a name, It's Hebrew for "mighty one," or a "ruler, judge," or someone with power or strength. In most places of Scripture, it refers to The Most High Yahuah Alahiym. Yahusha (The Brought Forth Son) meets these same characteristics, otherwise Yahusha in His Own right is Alahim aka a Mighty One!
I completely understand the translation issue. What always gets me thinking about in this passage is an all knowing God that knows everything from the beginning of time to the end let’s Adam search for a mate (or even presents them to him for approval) among the animals supposedly knowing full well that he would eventually need a female version of himself as a compatible mate. That is what seems contradictory to me. I’m not trying to be facetious but either God is all knowing or he isn’t? I am one of those very unfortunate people that think that’s it’s ridiculous that Noah fit all of the animals on an ark (no matter how big). I was raised religious and still am, but my life would have been so much easier if I could have just blindly believed it like 95% of the other kids in the church. P.S. And where the heck did Cain’s wife come from??! Lol!
I dont agree with the explanation about the plants created on day 3, and then specific plants for man created later as described in Gen 2. That explanation is not coherent with creation. Why could God not create plants that man needed on the 3rd day? I think what Genesis 2 is saying is, that the plants that needed to be tended and taken care of were taken care of by the mist and by God himself. There was no need for rain or for man to take care of them. I think for me that is more consistent and that agrees more closely with the account in Genesis 1. In any case I agree with the core conclusion, that Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1.
In order to understand the Bible the first thing is to know the original language in which it is written. The secret to understanding Genesis 1 and 2, are the words, that must be understood within their context. Some of the Key words to know in that Hebraic meaning: Beginning Create-Bara Make-Asah Elohim Yahweh Secondly, since this book is alive, to understand its mysteries contained in Genesis 1 and 2, The Spirit of the Lord must open our eyes. Another secret is in the phrase IN THE DAY, first found in Genesis 2:4. The reference is inside the day. That is also comparable to a day is as a 1000 years, used both literally 2 Peter 3:8 and metaphorically found in and psalms 90:4. To be more specific, God told Adam, “In the day that you eat it you will surely die, found in the “second account” of Genesis 2, verse 17. Did Adam Die, the answer is yes, immediately disconnected from God in the realm of His soul, and physically living a total of 930 years which is short of 1000 years.
I like the theory that they're talking about 2 different creations: one where the God and the "divine council" (Elohim) participated in creation, and another more personal creation by YHWY Himself where he creates Adam/Eve. This could be why there were people obviously outside the garden.
If there's two creations, then not everyone would fall under the sin of Adam n therefore no need for the Second Adam (Jesus). There was only one creation.
Hi, Christopher. With respect, it is always misleading to insert our speculations and theories. We must stick to the Revealed Word, otherwise we end up far away.
@Eightball Wizard Lol, well it's kinda like science. Usin the "evilution theory" to lure gullible people away from God. Granted evilution isn't science 🤣🤣🤣
@Eightball Wizard Perhaps we should humble ourselves before our Creator and ask Him to show us the true context - then all apparent contradictions will be resolved, to our intellectual satisfaction too. But sadly, our rebellious nature urges us to jump to erroneous and premature conclusions, to our own detriment. It is not those who believe God that are gullible!
@Eightball Wizard They SHOULDN'T. It's not compatible with Scripture. Accordin to evilution, things came to be by death. Death didn't occur til AFTER the Fall n was part of the curse. If death occurs before sin, then why did Jesus suffer n die on the cross to save us from sin n death? So that's biblically incompatible with evilution "theory" n undermines the Gospel to the point of blasphemy. There's so much more as well. On day six of creation, God looked at everything n saw that it was very good (Genesis 1:26). What would be very good bout death? Aside from Scripture, evilution is scientifically impossible. Look up biogenesis, the laws of thermodynamics, entropy, irreducible complexity, on n on. Mutations have NEVER provided a gain of information, only a loss of n is harmful, not helpful. Evilution claims mutations are what drives it. So those believers are VERY COMPROMISED in their faith.
There is a great book entitled " Genesis Misunderstood: The 7 Day Theory" that wonderfully explains the difference between the two chapters. Genesis 1 is not about creation at all.
@ 3:27.. Peter and Paul don’t attribute Moses as the author.. they referred o Moses SAYING IT.. not writing it.. it’s like if I write a book and I quote someone else in the book. That does not mean that the person I quoted wrote the book. Come on today’s Christianity you are really dropping the ball on this one. If you want to know when they were written. Genesis gives a little hint as to the time frame of when at least Genesis was written. But it does not say who wrote. Yes God told Moses to write things down. But that does not mean that he wrote the first five books. It just means that the author or authors drew from what Moses wrote. Why does today’s Christianity want Moses to be the author of the first five books? Is beyond me. I think it’s because they can’t put down their superstitious thought and Waze and they are too blind from indoctrination to really take a look at anything else.
I Corinthians 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about? Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." John 5:46-47 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"
@@johnsmit5999 I don’t get why you posting this..?? This doesn’t prove that Moses wrote the 1st 5 books.. No doubt Moses said this words.. but that doesn’t mean Moses wrote those books. Here is the verse that puts Genesis out of Moses time. Genesis 12:6 Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh.fn And the Canaanites were then in the land. What’s being said here..?? Let’s break it down.. Abraham is passing through the land to the place of shechem as far as this trees and that place he was passing the canaanites use to be in that land… when this book was penned the canaanites WERENT. In that land then.. when Moses was alive the canaanites WERE in the land then… so.. at what point in history where the Canaanites NOT in that land that Abraham passed through. ? We know that David eventually got rid of them.. so at the very least. Sometime in the King David kingship.. NOT during Moses lifetime.. and the rest of the 5 books probably after David as well.. I hope this helps you..
Long story short - you can absolutely reconcile any contradiction in the Bible if you start with your conclusion and work backwards. This is what apologetics is all about.
great work as always..i was actually going over another cultist group that looks at Gen.1 and Gen.2 in a chronological perspective that they claim that before Adam and Eve was a "first couple"..it was pure heresy..they call themselves OHC/Ophirian Heritage Conservatory..
One rule is let it explain itself n Genesis 1 already said he formed the animals before man. And not good man be alone?Genesis 1 also indicates this as a previous thought before making man. God wanted to simply surprise Adam with a greeting of many creatures. Thank you . Good vid
The scripture refers to Moses as the author. Undeniable. I believe he simply dictated to different scribes. Therefore, the writing style is different. What's difficult about that.
Many claim the Bible contradicts but i beg to differ. God's word does not and cannot contradict. If you run into a seeming contradiction, dig deeper into the context of the passages or chapter.
Would you help me understand this difference between the way Jesus sees the Fall and Genesis? and maybe the difference between returning to God because we change our minds, metanoia, instead of needing Jesus to die for us? The most important part of the Creation story is the Fall because correcting our faults is what we are here to do, to return home to God. That is the part of the creation parable that Jesus addresses with the parable of the Prodigal Son. In Genesis, Adam and Eve listen to the wrong teacher and God punishes them by throwing them out of the Garden to work hard by the sweat of their brow and suffer through child labor pains and at the end of life, die instead of live forever. Jesus changed this by saying that we, as prodigal sons, left God because we wanted to listen to the world instead of to God. In doing so, we made all of our own suffering and when we finally have had enough of that, we return to our Father, who allows us, with open arms, back in the kingdom of His inheritance to listen to Him instead of the world, and Jesus says with this we find our connection to God as being easy with light burden.
Everything in this world is up for interpretation. That's the nature of the beast. We see the world we believe in that exists. If you think you just have to go deeper to get the meaning and deny all contradiction, then you will get what you set out to do. Ask and you receive. You can do that of God or the world. The Bible is in the world no matter how much you think it is God.
@Eightball Wizard How about science? People see what they want to see. Lots of people are sold on the idea that the earth is warming up and it's caused by increased carbon dioxide build up by man. But from 1942 to 1979 the temperature of the earth trended downward. People speculated that we were going into another ice age then. Did man make less carbon dioxide then? People see what they want to see to fit their belief system.
@Eightball Wizard Explain why an omniscient deity would even allow a "seeming contradiction" to happen, ...We have imaginations separate from God's truth.
@Eightball Wizard REally? If you don't believe in the CDC's ideas of vaccinations you can lose your job if you don't get one. With religion, the conditions have to do with the next life generally, not this one. You don't even have to believe in the next life.
What would be a good Hebrew / Greek English translation. Unfortunately, all my bibles refer to all the different names of God as God or lord God rather then there actually names .
Alisa, thank you for this video! There is an excellent video called Patterns of Evidence, The Moses Controversy which does a good job defending Moses' authorship of the first 5 books of the Bible.
Well then let's get you corrected! The first chapter is not a separate account, but an overview, a introduction to the text, it states this. The second chapter is in fact the beginning of the text, in which the six days play out. You'll notice that the beginning starts with the seventh day, let me remind you, one day to God is like a thousand years to man. At some point within the sixth day the saints are caught up in the rapture, completing the heavens and the earth and the whole host of them. At that point the one true God and his saints will make judgement, and then rest. Then the one and only will say to his saints, let us make man in our likeness and our image. This story will continue for eternity, for that which is has already been, and that which is to be, has been before, there is nothing new under the sun.
I believe Elohim stands for what God really is. He is so much more than we think He is. We think of God as good, He is better. So the plural word Elohim is just an attempt to show His transcendence, His omniscience. Whatever we think He is, He is much more and then much more.
Elohim is actually just a generic term for anyone who is a disembodied spirit. If it wasn't, then Samuel the prophet is the same as God, which is of course nonsense. Samuel is described as an elohim when the medium of endor calls him forth from beyond the grave for king Saul. There is no way that the Bible would be affirming the same ontological status to a dead human.
I am a Christian I love and i respect you but i don't know how do you consider this as a good respond !! since back the church father's they talked about the two different accounts of Genesis 1_2 Agustin for example ...
Brothers, our goal should be to properly understand what the Bible says. Not to force our understanding upon the Biblic text. This looks to me as an oversimplification. By the way if we go "literally" then Genesis 1 and 2 have much bigger problems than these. Also, the argument about different types of vegetation is just not right. It saddens me to see such a poor understanding and reasoning repeatedly used with apologetic intentions. I support the intention, but since we are talking about God's Word, please, let's adhere to it.
"When you come across an apparent contradiction in the Bible, keep digging. You're on the verge of a great discovery." Chuck Missler
When you come across an apparent contradiction in the bible, keep trying, you'll harmonize it... Well more like cacophanize it.
Amen
God made the seeds on day three in Genesis one, In Genesis two, it doesn't mention seeds but mentions sprouting and not seeds. So, after all, YHVH did make the seeds before the plants. It is really clear at scripture4all bible.
These are 2 seperate events great confusion comes by trying say these are same events time betwixt Gen1&Gen2 is Unspecified by scripture... when Cain went east of Eden he found the ppl of Nod from Gen1. Eden was not earth for earth prior to fall was watered by a mist but Eden watered by a river. My channel has a vid explaining these accounts
The contradictions are not apparent, they are real.
Great topic Alisa. I really enjoy your content. It’s a valuable addition to the Christian community!
In chapter 1 animals are made before humans, and humans are made in God's image.
In chapter 2 animals are made to be "helpers" for adam (who was made out of mud), but no suitable helper was found so eve was made instead of out his ribs.
@@LiberatedMind1 Aren't those two sub-events of creation? First the creation week. And then day six creation in the garden of Eden.
You're right when you say the one which needs correction is the reader. To assume texts are incorrect because one doesn't comprehend them is the height of folly.
wow thats pure christian arrogance..i completely comprehend what it says and have read the bible thropugh 4 times now and each time i comprehendmore and more that its a silly book of bronze age mythology written by men to keep men in place
@@iampostal If you say so.
In chapter 1 animals are made before humans, and humans are made in God's image.
In chapter 2 animals are made to be "helpers" for adam (who was made out of mud), but no suitable helper was found so eve was made instead of out his ribs.
These are 2 seperate events great confusion comes by trying say these are same events time betwixt Gen1&Gen2 is Unspecified by scripture... when Cain went east of Eden he found the ppl of Nod from Gen1. Eden was not earth for earth prior to fall was watered by a mist but Eden watered by a river. My channel has a vid explaining these accounts
???!
It seems like objections to Christianity exist on a 10 year cycle. About once a decade it gets brought up a bunch, refuted, then slinks off to the back of the line. Rinse repeat.
Perhaps that's true as a trend but when you realize that what you thought was true is not, you keep going until you do find what is true. Ask and you receive.
@@robertdouglas8895 are you a Christian? You comment was confusing, that's why i asked.
@@nevin8604 What are you confused about? How I am labeled will not help you understand it.
@@robertdouglas8895 apologies if it bothered you. I didn't asked it to label you, but because you quoted from Bible.
@@nevin8604 No bother. People put a lot of importance on whether they classify themselves as Christian. To me, it doesn't help explain what I mean. Maybe if I weren't it would exclude me from being privy to knowledge you have. Would you want me to covert if I weren't? I just don't understand the relevance. What I wrote, and you still didn't say what it was, I think can be understood regardless whether the person classifies himself as a Christian or not.
Sometimes I question whether we need these conversations but after seeing the video, that was a great response to the skepticism.
I finished Another Gospel yesterday. Alisa has become an important apologist. Thank you Alisa! Pace e Bene.
Reading her book now & it is very helpful resource! 😎👍
Thank you so much for sharing this. I was reading an article just last night that was presenting these arguments, and I knew I had seen you post a video about Genesis 1 and 2. This was very helpful!
The book The Epic of Eden is an incredible resource for understanding Genesis. It's a must-read!
Best way is to trust God n fast n pray
I watched a "contradiction" video last night. I have been answering the questions for myself throughout today. I'm so happy to see this post on the same day! :)
Answer Jesus’ two genealogies …… And Numbers clearly states the lineage is through the father before you use the “It was Mary’s line” argument
@@vivahernando1 Where in Numbers are you referring to?
@@vivahernando1 “4. Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.”
Excerpt From
The History of the Church 1.7.4
Eusebius of Caesarea
@@vivahernando1
It doesn’t matter if the lineage is through the father. Technically yes that’s how Israel as a nation track lineage is. But the two authors want to track both the mother and the fathers Lineage back to David. Now I guess technically Joseph lineage is irrelevant, because he isn’t technically the father. But still you’d have to ask the authors why one went through Joseph’s bloodline and the other one to Mary’s.
@@zacharysiple629
He is just talking about how the lineage of the father is the only one that’s traced back through a family’s genealogy. And he’s asking why does the author of the other book do the lineage to marry when it shouldn’t be. There is no answer to that because we would have to ask the author why he went through Marysville energy. But it’s clear they wanted to prove that Jesus lineage went all the way back to David. Now most likely it’s because Joseph isn’t his technical father through bloodline. So the author traces of the mothers blood line back to David. That would be my best guess would probably be correct
It should be apparent to anyone even slightly educated in grammar that this is a literary device designed for giving more information to the reader...
wild that people don't see that. The first Verse was the overall outline, the Verse 2 was the indepth information of Verse 1. Very easy, to understand, also Genesis is not the only book that does this.
@@bananaman5554 Yes. I first recognized this when reading Revelation: Not every verse or passage is sequential; oftentimes they are concurrent.
If you can read Hebrew, Adam's name is actually a really funny pun
The contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 were already pointed out by Jewish scholars like Philo (first century) and Ibn Ezra (11th cen.), and by Christian theologians like Augustine (4th cen.)-this wasn't all dreamed up in some German University.
The Documentary Hypothesis deals with the question of authorship, not the historicity of the events described.
Rejecting Gen 1.1 is rejecting The whole Book .
We reject the whole book
@@GodlessGubment who we?
@@GodlessGubment christ save you
@@heftymagic4814 mary poppins save you
@@GodlessGubment 😂
I heard about this controversy many years ago. Admittedly, I'd never actually read the two chapters.
So, i broke out the bible with my name on it and read.
Gen1 clearly read as a bullet point of what happened.
Gen2 clearly read with more discriptive language.
The way i see it.
Gen1 says what happened.
Gen2 says how it happened.
Thank you so much for clarifying this! A rampant religious cult called "Shincheonji Church of Jesus/SCJ/New Heaven, New Earth" originating from South Korea but proselytizing globally now under "free online bible classes" has been using this analogy to twist the meanings to suit their own doctrine.
The last two sentences of this video are the most important. If you missed them go back and watch it again!
If anyone hasn't read it I strongly recommend the book "The Battle for the Beginning" by Dr. Macarthur as it clearly articulates and expands on this topic in a great way. God bless!
Why are you so stuck on Genesis 1 being about the creation of the material world…??
I don’t get it.. what she is saying holds no weight.. different plants..!?!? Come on..
When you READY to know what Genesis 1 and 2 are REALLY about. Let me know.. don’t settle for the reason/excuse different plants.
Christophobe
@Richard Fox homophobic implies that he’s scared of gays. Lol.. wrong word..
he doesn’t agree with the choice.
@Richard Fox You are free to your opinion but Christians follow the Bible and the view you have put forward is not biblical. I will agree with you that gay people don't choose to be gay anymore than a psychopath chooses to be a psychopath. But in the same way that God requires that a psychopath not indulge a murderous desire he requires the gay person to not indulge unnatural desires of the flesh that are contrary to his design. We all have our crosses to bear; some are heavier than others.
@Richard Fox No, that's not what I did and I'm pretty sure you know it's not what I did. If I must spell the point out for you I will do so: We all have desires that are contrary to God's will. When we have these desires, we shouldn't say we are good and God's will is bad, or our way is good and the commandment is wrong. There are plenty of things we all want to do that would be violations of God's teachings. When we run up against these things, the right thing to do isn't to try to justify them, but to recognize them for what they are: the unfortunate consequence of sin entering the world.
This is the best explanation I’ve heard for what on the surface seems like contradictions.
Genesis 1 is not meant to be read literally! Like much of the bible it has a poetic nature that us moderns simply cannot wrap our minds around because we always want straight up and to the point, logical answers
Yeah. As I have begun to learn, it’s us trying to read this eastern text (Torah) with a western mind that thinks that “problems” are meant to be explained instead of realizing those are meant by the author of the text to bring us to the significant meaning of the passage.
You're saying this is Hebrew poetry - what literary devices indicate this to you?
Platinumotion, I disagree with you. Most comments on RUclips are written by people who intend to be understood and choose their words for that purpose. Why should God, who made each of us in His image, not also do likewise? He patterned us after Himself, just as He says. As for truth and logic, logic only has its reality within the bounds of truth. A baby really doesn't know that its parents are its parents, but the baby senses the truth that comes from its mother and father. In time that same person will see the logic of the truth of the parents, but will be running on truth regarding their parents far more profound than mere logic. You could call that faith, hope, and love.
@@anthonywhitney634 ancient Hebrew is not the same as English... Ancient Hebrew is not even the same as modern Hebrew, if what I say entices you, research it. If not, no point in continuing.
@@deuteriummeridian8998 you're comparing a book that was written over 3 thousand years ago to RUclips comments... This is exactly why people aren't getting the full picture
I always thought it was obvious that Genesis 1 was a large scale view and and Genesis 2 was zoomed in more detail view of day 6.
My arguments exactly, well done. I find that most who have these problems do so without the Holy Spirit in them, in other words, they aren't saved. They want to find fault. So good to see this on here. God Bless
You accept that ridiculous argument? I know you do not. You just do not have any other choice because you have to stick by the traditional view of Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2. Those aren’t legitimate water holding reasons. Genesis one and genesis two if taking literally about creation counts then yes there is a major contribution that cannot be fixed. But if you understood ancient language and you understand the style of language that genesis one is in and can recognize what it says. And you can also recognize the language of Genesis to and recognize what that says then you would know that there is no contradiction. If you want to know what Genesis chapter 1 and two is about let me know.
@@TRUMP-2024-STF Pray tell
I've read the first 2 books of Genesis many times and never once read those verses as "contradictions". It's amazing how far the lengths people will go to discredit the Bible.
Because you either have poor reading comprehension, or you bias prevents you from seeing what is clearly there :
In chapter 1 animals are made before humans, and humans are made in God's image.
In chapter 2 animals are made to be "helpers" for adam (who was made out of mud), but no suitable helper was found so eve was made instead of out his ribs.
@@LiberatedMind1 I'm curious to know which verses you are mentioning. For what i know that's not what scripture says..After reading and looking for myself i can see why you thought that.
In Chapter 1. You're right that Animals were created first, And yes mankind are made in the image of GOD, Meaning both male and female have power to rule over the animals.
Chapter 2. You were also right about Adam needing a helper..GOD said it wasn't good for him to be alone..Due to him naming all the animals by himself he needed help..That's when GOD caused him to fall into deep sleep to create EVE.
@@LiberatedMind1 Uh, hmm, what is your point? To resort to personal animus against Keith dilutes any reasonable attempted response. See my response above.
I agree; the creation account has three telescoping phases, of increasing detail and narrowing focus: Genesis 1:1 is the most general sweeping statement. Genesis 1:2-2:4 covers events on Earth and God's interaction with those events in our history, 2:4-3:8 zooms in to the place, relationships and creation of mankind, extending to purpose in 3:8 (where it is shown as relationship broken, not confirmed).
@@dagwould Genesis 2 has a different order and differing details of creation that clash with Genesis 1.
That's some mental gymnastics, it says birds were formed in day 5 in genesis 1, and in Genesis 2 it says they were formed from earth after the man is made.
Another clarifying perspective: The book of Genesis isn't as much about the HOW of creation as it is about the WHO of creation.
in other words you havent read the bible
@@daniel1fullerton In other words people can have different opinions without you having to be condescending and dismissive. It doesn’t suit the salt of the earth.
@@ManoverSuperman another irrelevant response, thank you
Yes it does
@@daniel1fullerton your ignorant
Creation sequence
Genesis 1 plants, then animals, then man
Genesis 2 man, then plants, then animals
Your mental gymnastics deserves gold🏅
I choose to believe that God doesn't make mistakes. Gen 1 says that the order of creation is thus: 1-animals, 2-man and women together.
Gen 2: 1-Man, 2-animals, 3-woman.
God doesn't make mistakes.
Ge 1 and 2 are completely different.
It's amazing how there are answers to these tired old canards of atheists, yet they will raise this, over, and over again as if it has never been answered.
Canards of atheists? I worship the God of Abraham, and I can clearly see that these are completely unrelated texts. Forcing God into the box you've created for him isn't the only way to worship Him. Nor, I would argue, is it the correct way.
@@biblicalanarchy13 Who do you believe is the G-d of Abraham?
What do you mean by that I've put G-d in a box?
What do you believe is the correct way to worship G-d?
Would you respond to Dr John Walton's argumentation in his book "the lost world of Genesis one"?
There is really good evidence to suggest that gen 1 is not trying to answer our scientific, material based on questions of material creation.
In fact, Walton's argument is that ancient near Eastern people, the hebrews included, thought that something didn't really exist properly until its purpose and function had been assigned.
This reading has much broader explanatory scope, depth, and simplicity.
Dr Michael Heiser, and Dr Tim Mackie also see the material creation view of Gen 1 as missing the point entirely.
Your thoughts, Mrs Childers?
What does Michael Heiser say? I mean, we see the vastness of the Universe created. Material created by the spoken word out of that which is not seen. Dirt, water, air, stars, material boundaries, sea critters, air critters, ground critters. Let's not overthink this. Read Genesis 1-3 in the plain sense of the word.
Heard this from atheist Methodist church Sunday school teacher. My aunt.
These people have no literary knowledge.
Your aunt is an atheist but attends a church and teaches Sunday school? She must be extremely messed up.
When you begin with the premise that the book CAN'T be wrong, it turns out the book is NEVER wrong.
But the Bible is NEVER wrong so the Bible is NEVER wrong.
So the Bible is NEVER wrong.
@@ndjarnag you have achieved enlightenment of the Christian variety
@@GodlessGubment Yeah. Basically Im never wrong! I just pick the book I like. Then I interpret it how I like. Then I say this is from God. Basically Im making myself God! and then I brag how humble I am!
@@ndjarnag you will have many worshipers
If anyone wants more information, Dr. C John Collins published his research on this functional Pluperfect in Cambridge University's Tyndale Bulletin. The paper is called "THE WAYYIQTOL AS 'PLUPERFECT': WHEN AND WHY"
It's a bit technical, but if you can sort through it, he gives both sides, examples of this pluperfect usage (such as in 2 Kings 7:18-19), and ultimately concludes the pluperfect is a valid conclusion for Genesis 2:19.
But why asume that genesis two is a retelling of genesis one? The text doesn't say it is so why asume that it is? In fact there some very clear indications that it's not, a toledoth between the two texts for a start and there are many other indications in the text that show its not a different retelling of genesis one
Alisa Childers, along with me, does not *assume* that Genesis Two is a "retelling of Genesis One." She concludes, on the basis of evidence, that Genesis One and Two are accounts of overlapping but somewhat distinct events with different emphases and amounts of detail. Why do you assume that this is not the case? How does the toledoth of Genesis 2:4 disprove this? What are the "many other indications"? Childers begins this video with evidence that Moses wrote both accounts. The contrary claims seem to me to be based on weak assumptions.
Genesis 1:1 speaks of previous age which holds the answers for science discoveries. Could be millions or even billions of years old. Genesis 1:2 is the Beginning of our current age of creation!!
youtube has been giving me a lot of religious videos lately, and one thing ive learned is that I can know *about* the original translation and how it was translated, without having to learn the language myself. Which is very comforting, this type of stuff solidifys my faith further and gives me a way to make arguments against false teachings.
Your videos are always so clear and helpful.. !!
It's very disappointing that we are thought this hypothesis at University in German Theology seminars. People who disagree, are labled as " evangelical extremists". Thank you for this Alisa!
One thing people even Christians forget, God is not limited by space and time. God created vegetation and saw that it was good does not mean at that moment in (time) as we see it was created. God not limited by time sees the beginning and the end all at one time. So he can create, see it’s good without it even being in existence in that moment we see it on the earth.
Just as vegetation needs water it also needs sunlight which was not created till after.
I was just speaking with a dear Catholic friend of mine who believes that this account is purely mythological/allegorical (he still affirms the inerrancy of Scripture) and he brought up these “contradictions” of the Creation account. Thank you for the video and the insight!
Question: Genesis 1:20 God says, Let the waters bring forth...fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven(KJV). Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air(KJV). Were the birds created out of the waters or the ground?
In farming, most crops are summer season plants. They don't germinate (come up) without spring rains unless you irrigate. I think this text is saying, "It was around march 1st" but in an ancient way.
As a former adherent to materialistic evolutionary, an atheist, after my conversion to Biblical Theism, I never viewed Genesis 1 and 2 as contradictory.
Nor do I have an issue that Genesis is primarily an historical account. Trust it.
My favorite teaching is that both Genesis 1 and 2 describe Creation, but Gen1 is energetic and collective. Gen2 is fleshed out and individual. Gen1 is the big picture synopsis; Gen2 is the attention to details, particularly humans and “the weeds.”
I just feel like genesis 1 was written at a slightly earlier time or it was meant to be a separate document
The thing that seems to be overlooked here is that the Genesis chapters and verses only came into existence in the fourteenth century within the Wycliffe Bible in 1382. Without the chapters, it does easily combine as one detailed story. Reading the narrative of Genesis without the idea that the subject was being changed because it was a new chapter makes it flow as it should. Chapter 1 and chapter 2, etc, are not separate accounts. Instead of reading a story with an overview followed by a recap where details start to emerge, people try to make each chapter and verse stand on its own. It's not unusual for a writer to do this type of added detail as a follow up to the initial introduction account. Since the Bible is the most analyzed book in history, it is not surprising that people want to jump to conclusions about what it says. Alisa approached it with grace and sensibility in her explanation that God's book stands when opinions fail.
Just Subscribed now. And just ordered a Aramic translation. I have a 1816 bible with Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocryha, Concordance, and Psalms
Love Alisa, but Gen 2:5 says "NO plant of the filed had yet sprouted", yet she is arguing at 4:51 and following that there WERE certain plants of the field that had yet sprouted. Doesn't that seem like contradicting the plain reading of Gen 2:5?
It was written by man, accurate or not as to how things transpired. I had my own questions on some things that did not appear correct. But after all is said and done, I return to the first verse…, “In the beginning, God…”
Interestingly enough there is a very awesome book by that title. Worth a read.
The Herald, thank you for this. No man or woman existed during the time when God was creating. All we have is God giving an account of His works to whoever took dictation (as it were), with Him calling the shots on His play by play and the styles He wanted to use as suitef His purposes and pleasure. I had not thought that to think that it's all true and real even though it doesn't make perfect sense to me. Again, thanks for the reminder as to who's story and account this is. Blessings.
@@deuteriummeridian8998 Well Thank You for that DM. I’m glad there are other good souls like yours that see these matters in a sensical way. God bless your days my friend.
Genesis telescopes in to the fellowship of God and man: starts with the general picture in the first verse of ch 1, deals with the creation of the earth, segues to mankind, the one in God's image, to show his imageness at work in the creation in which he reflects God.
This would only be a problem to those who think the chapter and verse divisions are inspired, rather than being merely an orienting reference system.
So what are those specific for man plants that can’t grown without man?
Yes, this WHOLE clarification which is a one sided idea could very well be the problem. Moses supposedly wrote the first five books of the Torah, and ultimately the Bible. But Moses never records an encounter with a Satan in the wilderness. The fact that Genesis 1&2 CAN be extrapolated from each other may be pointing to the idea that Moses, and or other authors wrote stories from God, but also intertwined stories from one or more Satans into the Torah and ultimately the Bible.
You are right, and this is what stated in Clementine Homilies 2 and 3, where Peter said the scriptures were changed, and now contain falsehoods. Peter also said Yeshua taught them to "be prudent money-changers" to be able to discern the truth from the falsehoods
@@wserthmar8908 thank you for this information. I have read some of the homilies, and am excited to read the rest. I don’t see any reason why all this stuff would be so confusing, unless it were mixed with false information. And the people who say it isn’t confusing just seem disingenuous. I’m gonna catch up on the Clementine Homilies. Thanks😊
Well presented and clear, great job!
God's glory always!!! I was looking for a creation sermon I hadn't yet seen, and kept coming back to this.
This lesson is educational and illuminating. Further, study it will add beautifully to my growing apologetics arsenal.
Blessings in Christ to your ministry!!!
🙏 ✝️ 🙌
2:05 Yeah, but we're not talking about mere human authorship with human styles. The whole thing is supposed to be a clear and direct message from God, right?
This was SUPERB! I subscribed.
Not skeptics. Scholars. People who are highly educated in Hebrew and have spent years if not a lifetime studying the Hebrew scriptures. Why would an author change styles between chapters? On first glance it reads like vegetation was created in different orders... but that can't be right, why? "Because the one who needs correcting is always me; not the Bible." If one puts in the effort and energy any contradiction can be resolved, is this really how one determines truth?
Very well explained. Thank you
The most important part of the Creation story is the Fall because correcting our faults is what we are here to do, to return home to God. That is the part of the creation parable that Jesus addresses with the parable of the Prodigal Son.
In Genesis, Adam and Eve listen to the wrong teacher and God punishes them by throwing them out of the Garden to work hard by the sweat of their brow and suffer through child labor pains and at the end of life, die instead of live forever.
Jesus changed this by saying that we, as prodigal sons, left God because we wanted to listen to the world instead of to God. In doing so, we made all of our own suffering and when we finally have had enough of that, we return to our Father, who allows us, with open arms, back in the kingdom of His inheritance to listen to Him instead of the world, and Jesus says with this we find our connection to God as being easy with light burden.
Can someone explain how in genesis 1 god started creating animal on the 5th day but in genesis 2 he created man before all animal of the earth?
They are not only obviously different authors, but whoever wrote the first creation account also wrote the second flood account. They are parts of what is called a creation-myth, followed by a mono-myth. Those who interpret them as they should be will recognize they have updated information for the few chosen. Those who read them as historical are metaphorically refereed to as those who carry the ark, and not see inside. Standing outside the narrow gate.
The two accounts have different authors. The first account is likely from the priestly source, which is later than other major sources in the Bible
Yes I’ve learned that the Bible does not contradict and always it’s me or others understanding of it.
According to Genesis 2:4 there were 2 separate creations. There was a mankind also created in the heavens. Which is the actual generation that Elohim made in their likeness and image. So many ppl overlook that important piece of the puzzle. Which means that God NEVER gave dominion to Adam and Eve; they were just slaves. He gave dominion to the first generation made in the heavens.. Please tell me your opinion on this comment.
In Genesis 1 we read, after it says that male and female are created, that God told the humans that they could eat any fruit. However, in Genesis 2 we read that God told Adam, before Eve was created, that he could not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Thus, if these are discussing the same creation event, God's allowance to eat every fruit follows his command to not eat one fruit, thus overriding it. Clearly that isn't the case. These stories are obviously unrelated.
Furthermore, the phrase "these are the generations of..." is used repeatedly in Genesis, but always to go forward in time, never backwards.
It's not that these accounts are contradictory. It's that man's insistence that these be read as scientific or historical texts causes them to appear to be contradictory. Genesis 1 is clearly a polemical response to the Enuma Elish, and is a masterpiece in literary criticism. The literal/historical view you impose on it robs it of that beauty and turns it into a flawed document. It's not the text that is the problem, it's these narrows views that get imposed on it that hurts the Bible.
Which was created first, the plants on Earth or the Sun? According to Genesis 1 it was the plants, but according to Genesis 2 it was the Sun. This is not the same thing!
Also, in Gen 1, God is El, the most high, but in Gen 2 he is Yahweh, a regional god.
You dont necessarily have to view it as absolute history.
I personally like to view them as symbolism. Especially when you consider that one was believed to have been written before the Babylon exile and one was written after, and you can tell which is which by the way the authors depict God in the story.
For example the one written in Banylon has literary references to the Enuma Elish (A Babylonian creation story), which might be why it focuses more on how God created everything in the universe, and "debunking" Peaganism, for a lack of better words.
They are actually the same story. After ADAM was made , God created each kind of animal before ADAMS eyes and brought them each before him to be named. The naming of the animals was a separate event, that also happened in the garden. Read it carefully and you will see. God did this so Adam would know who the maker was, and established a relationship between him, and the animals.
In the ancient world, the act of naming something was also a symbol of dominion. It was another way of giving man dominion over creation as its steward.
@Eightball Wizard Regarding the naming, in the ancient world the act of naming something indicated dominion over that thing. According to Genesis 1:26, one reason God made man was "so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Giving Adam naming rights over the creatures seems to be God certifying man's dominion and stewardship over creation.
@Eightball Wizard In the first statement I was quoting the Bible. In the second I was explaining what scholars have said about the symbolism of the act of naming in ancient near-Eastern cultures. This was to answer your question, "Why did he even need to name anything?" If you didn't want an answer, why ask the question?
1 is in chronological order. This is why it says 1 day,2 day etc. This is not mentioned in Gen.2. he's rehashing what he done but not in chronological order and in HIS time which is like ONE DAY. And he obviously FORMED images in ground of animals to see what Adam would call them
The Very reason FOR the “scriptures “ is to INFORM you, that you ARE fallen, and HOW you can be redeemed,
If you do not know who Yehoshua is, you’ll be lost forever, unless you turn BACK to Him.
When I went through United Methodist confirmation in 1975, the pastor explained that Creationism comes out of Chapter 2. But, Chapter 1 lines up somewhat with the order in which creatures appear according to Evolution and other scientific theories.
The pastor told us that we should ignore Chapter 2, because the UMC accepts science.
I grew up attending the UMC but I never heard that before. I am glad I started attended another church then. If evolution explains our origin, what need for God is there?
@@johnsmit5999 According to the minister, God orchestrated evolution. Unknowingly, he came up with intelligent design in 1975.
I attended a lecture given by Victor Weisskopf, who had been the chair of the physics department at MIT. The lecture was on the big bang theory. At the start of Q&A, he said he would answer the cause of the bang.
He wrote on the chalkboard, "GOD." He explained that as a believer, he had to bring God into the equation at some point. Every theory about the cause of the bang had at least one flaw that could not be resolved to his satisfaction.
While Prof. Weisskopf could not prove his belief, he said no one could disprove it.
@@kentfrederick8929 I am glad there are some scientists who stand for God. They seem to be in the minority in collegiate settings. I've been listening to physicist Brian Miller with the Discovery Institute. He distinguishes micro-evolution and macro-evolution. He specializes in studying the origin of life. I don't know how he would explain Genesis in light of his studies.
It is disappointing to see the word gymnastics to try and explain obvious contradictions. One reason why I left Christianity.
Genesis 2-18 "The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
So man was made before the animals, so there were two creation events, when you take the bible literally!
Very helpful video. So blessed by it. Thank you.
She didn’t mention Marduk nor the fact that the Hebrews were in captivity at the time an started to convert to the god of the oppressive
GOD did rest on the 7th day, it says GOD REST"ED" on the 7th day... Servents and masters is what is being played out thru out the whole bible, GOD comes down and shows us the PINNACLE of what's perfect❤
It’s you , you have to have the spirit of the lord so you can understand, be humble and summit to the lord
Actually Elohim more accurately Alahim is a term not a name, It's Hebrew for "mighty one," or a "ruler, judge," or someone with power or strength. In most places of Scripture, it refers to The Most High Yahuah Alahiym. Yahusha (The Brought Forth Son) meets these same characteristics, otherwise Yahusha in His Own right is Alahim aka a Mighty One!
praise the Lord and God bless you
I completely understand the translation issue. What always gets me thinking about in this passage is an all knowing God that knows everything from the beginning of time to the end let’s Adam search for a mate (or even presents them to him for approval) among the animals supposedly knowing full well that he would eventually need a female version of himself as a compatible mate. That is what seems contradictory to me. I’m not trying to be facetious but either God is all knowing or he isn’t? I am one of those very unfortunate people that think that’s it’s ridiculous that Noah fit all of the animals on an ark (no matter how big). I was raised religious and still am, but my life would have been so much easier if I could have just blindly believed it like 95% of the other kids in the church.
P.S. And where the heck did Cain’s wife come from??! Lol!
Im confused man first or not. Chapter 1 or 2?
I dont agree with the explanation about the plants created on day 3, and then specific plants for man created later as described in Gen 2. That explanation is not coherent with creation. Why could God not create plants that man needed on the 3rd day? I think what Genesis 2 is saying is, that the plants that needed to be tended and taken care of were taken care of by the mist and by God himself. There was no need for rain or for man to take care of them. I think for me that is more consistent and that agrees more closely with the account in Genesis 1. In any case I agree with the core conclusion, that Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1.
Genesis 2 isn't about day 6, it says the animals were created after the humans
In order to understand the Bible the first thing is to know the original language in which it is written.
The secret to understanding Genesis 1 and 2, are the words, that must be understood within their context. Some of the Key words to know in that Hebraic meaning:
Beginning
Create-Bara
Make-Asah
Elohim
Yahweh
Secondly, since this book is alive, to understand its mysteries contained in Genesis 1 and 2, The Spirit of the Lord must open our eyes.
Another secret is in the phrase IN THE DAY, first found in Genesis 2:4. The reference is inside the day. That is also comparable to a day is as a 1000 years, used both literally 2 Peter 3:8 and metaphorically found in and psalms 90:4.
To be more specific, God told Adam, “In the day that you eat it you will surely die, found in the “second account” of Genesis 2, verse 17.
Did Adam Die, the answer is yes, immediately disconnected from God in the realm of His soul, and physically living a total of 930 years which is short of 1000 years.
I like the theory that they're talking about 2 different creations: one where the God and the "divine council" (Elohim) participated in creation, and another more personal creation by YHWY Himself where he creates Adam/Eve. This could be why there were people obviously outside the garden.
If there's two creations, then not everyone would fall under the sin of Adam n therefore no need for the Second Adam (Jesus). There was only one creation.
Hi, Christopher.
With respect, it is always misleading to insert our speculations and theories. We must stick to the Revealed Word, otherwise we end up far away.
@Eightball Wizard Lol, well it's kinda like science. Usin the "evilution theory" to lure gullible people away from God. Granted evilution isn't science 🤣🤣🤣
@Eightball Wizard
Perhaps we should humble ourselves before our Creator and ask Him to show us the true context - then all apparent contradictions will be resolved, to our intellectual satisfaction too.
But sadly, our rebellious nature urges us to jump to erroneous and premature conclusions, to our own detriment.
It is not those who believe God that are gullible!
@Eightball Wizard They SHOULDN'T. It's not compatible with Scripture. Accordin to evilution, things came to be by death. Death didn't occur til AFTER the Fall n was part of the curse. If death occurs before sin, then why did Jesus suffer n die on the cross to save us from sin n death? So that's biblically incompatible with evilution "theory" n undermines the Gospel to the point of blasphemy. There's so much more as well. On day six of creation, God looked at everything n saw that it was very good (Genesis 1:26). What would be very good bout death? Aside from Scripture, evilution is scientifically impossible. Look up biogenesis, the laws of thermodynamics, entropy, irreducible complexity, on n on. Mutations have NEVER provided a gain of information, only a loss of n is harmful, not helpful. Evilution claims mutations are what drives it. So those believers are VERY COMPROMISED in their faith.
There is a great book entitled " Genesis Misunderstood: The 7 Day Theory" that wonderfully explains the difference between the two chapters. Genesis 1 is not about creation at all.
Excellent video! The one that needs corrected is me not the Bible is so true! I have come to that conclusion time and time again!
Interested to discover what role oral tradition played in your identification of a single author.
@ 3:27.. Peter and Paul don’t attribute Moses as the author.. they referred o Moses SAYING IT.. not writing it.. it’s like if I write a book and I quote someone else in the book. That does not mean that the person I quoted wrote the book. Come on today’s Christianity you are really dropping the ball on this one. If you want to know when they were written. Genesis gives a little hint as to the time frame of when at least Genesis was written. But it does not say who wrote. Yes God told Moses to write things down. But that does not mean that he wrote the first five books. It just means that the author or authors drew from what Moses wrote. Why does today’s Christianity want Moses to be the author of the first five books? Is beyond me. I think it’s because they can’t put down their superstitious thought and Waze and they are too blind from indoctrination to really take a look at anything else.
I Corinthians 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about?
Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."
John 5:46-47 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"
@@johnsmit5999
I don’t get why you posting this..??
This doesn’t prove that Moses wrote the 1st 5 books.. No doubt Moses said this words.. but that doesn’t mean Moses wrote those books.
Here is the verse that puts Genesis out of Moses time.
Genesis 12:6 Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh.fn And the Canaanites were then in the land.
What’s being said here..?? Let’s break it down..
Abraham is passing through the land to the place of shechem as far as this trees and that place he was passing the canaanites use to be in that land… when this book was penned the canaanites WERENT. In that land then.. when Moses was alive the canaanites WERE in the land then… so.. at what point in history where the Canaanites NOT in that land that Abraham passed through. ? We know that David eventually got rid of them.. so at the very least. Sometime in the King David kingship..
NOT during Moses lifetime..
and the rest of the 5 books probably after David as well..
I hope this helps you..
Long story short - you can absolutely reconcile any contradiction in the Bible if you start with your conclusion and work backwards. This is what apologetics is all about.
great work as always..i was actually going over another cultist group that looks at Gen.1 and Gen.2 in a chronological perspective that they claim that before Adam and Eve was a "first couple"..it was pure heresy..they call themselves OHC/Ophirian Heritage Conservatory..
You didn’t even touch on the fact that Elohim and yhwh are two different Gods not a different name
One rule is let it explain itself n Genesis 1 already said he formed the animals before man. And not good man be alone?Genesis 1 also indicates this as a previous thought before making man. God wanted to simply surprise Adam with a greeting of many creatures. Thank you . Good vid
The scripture refers to Moses as the author. Undeniable. I believe he simply dictated to different scribes. Therefore, the writing style is different. What's difficult about that.
Many claim the Bible contradicts but i beg to differ. God's word does not and cannot contradict. If you run into a seeming contradiction, dig deeper into the context of the passages or chapter.
Would you help me understand this difference between the way Jesus sees the Fall and Genesis? and maybe the difference between returning to God because we change our minds, metanoia, instead of needing Jesus to die for us?
The most important part of the Creation story is the Fall because correcting our faults is what we are here to do, to return home to God. That is the part of the creation parable that Jesus addresses with the parable of the Prodigal Son.
In Genesis, Adam and Eve listen to the wrong teacher and God punishes them by throwing them out of the Garden to work hard by the sweat of their brow and suffer through child labor pains and at the end of life, die instead of live forever.
Jesus changed this by saying that we, as prodigal sons, left God because we wanted to listen to the world instead of to God. In doing so, we made all of our own suffering and when we finally have had enough of that, we return to our Father, who allows us, with open arms, back in the kingdom of His inheritance to listen to Him instead of the world, and Jesus says with this we find our connection to God as being easy with light burden.
Everything in this world is up for interpretation. That's the nature of the beast. We see the world we believe in that exists. If you think you just have to go deeper to get the meaning and deny all contradiction, then you will get what you set out to do. Ask and you receive. You can do that of God or the world. The Bible is in the world no matter how much you think it is God.
@Eightball Wizard How about science? People see what they want to see. Lots of people are sold on the idea that the earth is warming up and it's caused by increased carbon dioxide build up by man. But from 1942 to 1979 the temperature of the earth trended downward. People speculated that we were going into another ice age then. Did man make less carbon dioxide then? People see what they want to see to fit their belief system.
@Eightball Wizard
Explain why an omniscient deity would even allow a "seeming contradiction" to happen, ...We have imaginations separate from God's truth.
@Eightball Wizard REally? If you don't believe in the CDC's ideas of vaccinations you can lose your job if you don't get one. With religion, the conditions have to do with the next life generally, not this one. You don't even have to believe in the next life.
What would be a good Hebrew / Greek English translation. Unfortunately, all my bibles refer to all the different names of God as God or lord God rather then there actually names .
Alisa, thank you for this video! There is an excellent video called Patterns of Evidence, The Moses Controversy which does a good job defending Moses' authorship of the first 5 books of the Bible.
Well then let's get you corrected! The first chapter is not a separate account, but an overview, a introduction to the text, it states this. The second chapter is in fact the beginning of the text, in which the six days play out. You'll notice that the beginning starts with the seventh day, let me remind you, one day to God is like a thousand years to man. At some point within the sixth day the saints are caught up in the rapture, completing the heavens and the earth and the whole host of them. At that point the one true God and his saints will make judgement, and then rest. Then the one and only will say to his saints, let us make man in our likeness and our image. This story will continue for eternity, for that which is has already been, and that which is to be, has been before, there is nothing new under the sun.
I believe Elohim stands for what God really is. He is so much more than we think He is. We think of God as good, He is better. So the plural word Elohim is just an attempt to show His transcendence, His omniscience. Whatever we think He is, He is much more and then much more.
Elohim is actually just a generic term for anyone who is a disembodied spirit.
If it wasn't, then Samuel the prophet is the same as God, which is of course nonsense.
Samuel is described as an elohim when the medium of endor calls him forth from beyond the grave for king Saul. There is no way that the Bible would be affirming the same ontological status to a dead human.
Genesis 1 and 2 cannot refer to the same events because Gen 2 comes after the sixth day.
Thanks for clarifying!
I am a Christian I love and i respect you but i don't know how do you consider this as a good respond !! since back the church father's they talked about the two different accounts of Genesis 1_2 Agustin for example ...
Brothers, our goal should be to properly understand what the Bible says. Not to force our understanding upon the Biblic text. This looks to me as an oversimplification. By the way if we go "literally" then Genesis 1 and 2 have much bigger problems than these. Also, the argument about different types of vegetation is just not right. It saddens me to see such a poor understanding and reasoning repeatedly used with apologetic intentions. I support the intention, but since we are talking about God's Word, please, let's adhere to it.
Helpful video. Thank you!