Did God make Man or Animals First?
Genesis 1:25-26
25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Genesis 2:18-19
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
(Translation and Phrasing problems)
I read a few different accounts of why in Revelation 1, it states that the animals were made first and then man, and then the very next chapter it sounds like it is saying man was created first and then the animals.
One account said that the word used in Greek was 'yastar'. He stated that in translating this word to English, they had translated it to 'Formed' in both cases. However, it would also be acceptable to translate it to 'had formed'. This would then put the making of the animals, in the second chapter, in the past tense so they may have already been formed and the sentence was just reminding us he took the animals He had formed from the dust of the earth and brought them to Adam to name.
I will be honest with you, I was not really buying this as acceptable. Not because of the translation of the word, but because of the rest of the verse. Verse 18 says God decides Adam needs a helper. As if that is why he makes the animals and then decides there is none suitable and then makes woman. So that translation choice, though I do agree that it should be "had formed", I don't believe it explains it correctly. As I looked at it, another answer formed in my mind that makes more sense.
Verse 18 says God decides Adam needs a suitable helper. Obviously God knew that none of the animals he would make for Adam would be suitable. God knows the future. This would also lean in the area of God making the animals and realizing none would do, and that would mean God made a mistake. Not acceptable. What happened here was in Chapter 2, the writer just wants to mention the animals and where they came from. The dust of the Earth. In plain English, this is how I would word the same thing....
Then God said, "It's not good for man to be alone." Out of all of the animals God had formed from the dust of the earth and brought to Adam to name, He knew none of those would be a suitable mate. So God put Adam into a deep sleep and took a rib out and... yada yada, you know the rest.
The writer was just trying to point out that there was not a suitable mate for Adam among the animals he had made, and that is why he took one of Adam's ribs.
This is not an error in the writing or a contradiction. This is just a problem with the style of how they wrote and worded things in ancient times compared to how we structure our sentences now.
Return to Bible Contradictions
Return to Christianity
Return to Religions and their Fatal Flaws
Return to One God Logic Articles
25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Genesis 2:18-19
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
(Translation and Phrasing problems)
I read a few different accounts of why in Revelation 1, it states that the animals were made first and then man, and then the very next chapter it sounds like it is saying man was created first and then the animals.
One account said that the word used in Greek was 'yastar'. He stated that in translating this word to English, they had translated it to 'Formed' in both cases. However, it would also be acceptable to translate it to 'had formed'. This would then put the making of the animals, in the second chapter, in the past tense so they may have already been formed and the sentence was just reminding us he took the animals He had formed from the dust of the earth and brought them to Adam to name.
I will be honest with you, I was not really buying this as acceptable. Not because of the translation of the word, but because of the rest of the verse. Verse 18 says God decides Adam needs a helper. As if that is why he makes the animals and then decides there is none suitable and then makes woman. So that translation choice, though I do agree that it should be "had formed", I don't believe it explains it correctly. As I looked at it, another answer formed in my mind that makes more sense.
Verse 18 says God decides Adam needs a suitable helper. Obviously God knew that none of the animals he would make for Adam would be suitable. God knows the future. This would also lean in the area of God making the animals and realizing none would do, and that would mean God made a mistake. Not acceptable. What happened here was in Chapter 2, the writer just wants to mention the animals and where they came from. The dust of the Earth. In plain English, this is how I would word the same thing....
Then God said, "It's not good for man to be alone." Out of all of the animals God had formed from the dust of the earth and brought to Adam to name, He knew none of those would be a suitable mate. So God put Adam into a deep sleep and took a rib out and... yada yada, you know the rest.
The writer was just trying to point out that there was not a suitable mate for Adam among the animals he had made, and that is why he took one of Adam's ribs.
This is not an error in the writing or a contradiction. This is just a problem with the style of how they wrote and worded things in ancient times compared to how we structure our sentences now.
Return to Bible Contradictions
Return to Christianity
Return to Religions and their Fatal Flaws
Return to One God Logic Articles
