Was Adam and Eve created on the 6th day or just 'finished' on the 6th day?


#1

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 seem as if they contradict each other, but we know they don’t. While reading Genesis 2, it seems that Man was there when plants and animals were created. Could this mean that when Genesis 1 says:

1:26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

Does this mean on on the sixth day man was ‘completed’ as an image of God? That he could have existed before but not as an image of God? I mean, in Genesis 2 it seems that God is somehow still ‘making’ man as he introduces him to plants and then to animals and so on until man discovers his wife. Which would coencide with the sixth day of Genesis 1 because it seem that man was in the image of God as male and female and all their good potential.

But on an other side, that number 6 seem to indicate an imperfection according to the christian tradition. In other words that may be man is really an image of God on the seventh day or because of the seventh day. I am confused in this area…

Does anyone know more about this? I heard Scott Hahn’s Our Father’s Plan and how he explains the meaning of number 7 but I wish I could hear more about this from him or someone else catholic.

Thanks and God bless.


#2

It is this whole seeming contradiction that shows me the folks who interpret Genesis as absolutely historically and scientifically factual are somewhat off base. The stories seem more to be showing that God created everything and everything was good etc.
You might get Scott Hahn’s book “A Father Who Keeps His Promises” and read it…it goes very deeply into the creation story in the first part of the book.


#3

Hi Nablaise,

Scholars have determined that Genesis was composed from at least two different traditional sources. That is why there are two accounts of creation with different emphasis. One does not come after the other in time, it just completes it.

Verbum


#4

nablaise,
Hello again.
Here’s my explanation for you consideration.
In Gen 1, we get a ‘God’s eye’ view of creation. Creation proceeds and plants are ‘brought forth’ before man is created. All is very good.

A detail that sticks out in this first creation narrative is the mention of seeds when the plants are brought forth. Then again, when God sums things up as very good, he tells man he has given him ‘every seed bearing plant’ and tree that has ‘seed bearing fruit’. Directly following this God says he gives the animals all the ‘green plants’ for food, however, now there is no mention of seeds with these plants.

Why all this detail regarding seeds? No mention of seeds for the animals - why? Plants are unique in the narrative regarding these added details of their seeds. We are given no such extra details about the make up or capabilities other created things, especially regarding their future propagation.

But it makes sense. Man is going to cultivate the plants using their seeds, the animal won’t cultivate so seeds aren’t mentioned for their food supply. So the summary at the end of the sixth day has everything in place for humanity to begin its agrarian existence - which was probably the living reality of the original ancient audience.

But here we leave our God’s eye view and come down to earth. This change in perspective is even emphasized by the verse 'At the time when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…'
At the beginning of Gen 1 it was ‘…made the heavens and the earth,…’ Notice the words in the phrase are reversed, Gen 1 is ‘heavens and earth’ Gen 2 is ‘earth and heavens’. A typo? I don’t think so.

So now we are in our ‘earth eye’ view, if you will, and we are going to take a closer look at the creation of man.

So the author needs to back the story up a bit, back to before man was created within the sixth day. To accomplish this the ancient author tells us we are at the time when ‘no field shrub was on (in) the earth, and no grass of the field had sprouted’. In other words, nothing has been planted and nothing is sprouting. Also, there is no man to till, because he isn’t made yet. Why mention ‘to till’ if the field shrubs just mentioned are not crops? The author is deliberately not backing up to ‘day three’ by giving us these details. The Hebrew word for field, in this verse, refers to a cultivated field the majority of its usage in the rest of the bible.

The author is backing us up to the point where everything else has been made except man. The plants are here with their seeds - the seeds just haven’t been planted yet - so they are not in the ground or sprouting.

This explanation also allows for the document hypothesis approach. If these were two divergent sources brought together some harmonizing between the two would have likely occurred.
They wouldn’t have been pasted as news clippings in a scrapbook. Possibly Gen 2:4-5 is an attempt to read smoothly from one source to the other. This is only if you adhere to the document hypothesis. If you don’t, don’t worry about it. I dismiss it most of the time.

Another interesting side note about the seeds always being intended for an agrarian purpose is that it shows man was always intended to labor for his existence. Work has always been part of the plan - sorry utopians.

Thanks for taking the time to read all that.
Hope this helped,
Peter


#5

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 seem as if they contradict each other, but we know they don’t. While reading Genesis 2, it seems that Man was there when plants and animals were created. Could this mean that when Genesis 1 says:

The oral Torah form Moses and the Patriachs had several variants, when the final version was put together during Erza or Jeremiah the Israel and Judah versions were conflicted.
But the Rabbis and comentators said that any contradiction or repetition on the Torah has a different teaching so they were never edited out.
Genesis I comes from the North Kindom and prefers to call GD ELOHIM.
Genesis 2 comes from the South Kindom and prefers to call GD YHWH.
That explains the contradictions is how the priest of the First Temple armonized the Torah.
That is why a literal reading of Genesis in not recomended.


#6

Another way, building on Tradition, is the idea that the days of Creation and the Creation itself rather point to the ages of the RE-creation of the world, that is, the Redemption of man in human history.

Hence, the days are really symbols of ages of history, each beginning with a primary manifestation of sin, followed by a redemptive action of God that draws a greater good from it, just as a day begins with darkness (“evening”) and ends with light (“morning”).

Augustine delineates these ages, so that the sixth age is the age of the Church, in which man was truly recreated in God’s Image by having been restored to the supernatural life of God in Catholic Christendom, where, for the first time since the Fall, a great multitude of man knew God once again, that is, in having been brought into the light of Christ by the Catholic Church.

The other Creation story, in which man is present in the beginning, is simply expressing a different reality, that even in the FIRST day (and not merely the SIXTH), God is beginning to recreate man in His Image, for already in the first day, which was the Fall and then the Flood, through that very Flood, God cleansed the earth of sin, and through this mighty and merciful act of Intervention, He was already beginning the Redemption of man.

Hence, there is no contradiction, simply different ways of looking at the Redemption of man in history.

Hope this helps.

I have an article if you requrie elaboration.


#7

Thank you all,

Yes, it seems that man was there from the beginning. There is a quote from St. Augustine I read somewhere: “what was God doing before Creation? Nothing, he did not have the time”. It reminds me of the song “This is the day the Lord has made, let us rejoice…”. May be the creation account are not about a timeline. They are more about the meaning of life about what is going on in life. About the structure of things from their foundation (beginning). About how things are meant to be, and how they are and why?

Those six days of creation/ages of the world seem to correspond to the six covenants that Scott Hahn explains.

Thanks for the interesting explanation PeterK,

I don’t know where to start to ask you more. Let’s start on this:

The author is backing us up to the point where everything else has been made except man. The plants are here with their seeds - the seeds just haven’t been planted yet - so they are not in the ground or sprouting.

Could you explain a little more what you mean. For example, where are the plants if they are not planted yet?

This makes Gen 2. really interesting. First it says:
2:5 And every plant of the field before it spring up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.

and later says:

2:9 And the Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees, fair to behold, and pleasant to eat of: the tree of life also in the midst of paradise: and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Are for example the tree spoken of in Gen first chapters the realy material trees or some sort of spiritual trees? Or both and they are related to each other?

Why is the fig tree used in a very speciall way in all Sacred Scripture for example?

Thanks

Alain


#8

Thanks for this. I din’t know this. I think it is important to consider. Actually do you know when precisely the two stories where written and where?

Thanks


#9

Thanks for this. I din’t know this. I think it is important to consider. Actually do you know when precisely the two stories where written and where?

There is no consuensus among scholars of when.
Genesis is divided in three parts.
The Primeval Tale 1 to 11.
The Patriarchal Oral History 12 to 37
Josue History.

The Patriarchal story is very old and might have started from oral history somewere in 18 BC. Plus the early draft of the Mosaic Torah was recorded mostly by oral tradition but some things, like the basic Mosaic laws might have been written down.
Of course the two Jewish kindoms recorded two versions.
The Elohist (E) in the north and the Yahvist (J) in the south. Some say in the 700s to 900s BC.
Some other things mights have been added during the reforms by the prophests (Jeremiah, Erza and others) and the priests of the Temple § and (D).
The six days scenario of the creation story was most likely added by the Temple priests or the prophets later. And was a allegorical explanation of GOD’s covenant with humans and with Israel. They also give a convenatalist explanation to the Sabbath and the feasts.
That theory is know as the DOCUMENTAL HYPHOTESIS and is well know and accepted by mainstream protestant and CC biblical scholars.
If fact Catholic Study Bibles in Spanish use that in the footnotes. I guess the NAB, the Ignatius and the New Jerusalem Bible might use them too in English.


#10

I have never been the religous type of person, But decided to read the book of Genesis as a starter and when i got to Genesis 1:26 to 1:28 i wondered if it is possible that scholars are themselfs misinterpriting this part:-
28 “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”.
Because later on in Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
In G:28 ^^ he tells man and women to be fruitful and multiply, As to telling Adam in G:2-15 “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it”.
Is it possible that God made man (Not adam) to Cultivate the earth. But made adam to cultivate only eden??


#11

Neanderthal was said to have co-existed alongside man so as much as we turn to the bible to look for this answer, maybe its been there all along…I’m not saying we evolved from Neanderthal but was created together…Maybe??:confused:


#12

Maybe… I mean just maybe… The story of adam and eve were written by men who didn’t really know (like many before them) how the world was created but gave it a guess how they saw it?

Then there is no contradiction because it’s just a story…

Of course i have no evidence to support an alterier idea, nothing like fossil records, or observations through telescopes or anything like that… no nothing at all… just a hunch i’d call it…


#13

I know a lot of Protestants that will deny the 2 accounts with differing emphasis. And if the events are actually chronological they seem to short curcuit on the idea that Adam and Eve were created after the Day of Rest and that Adam and Eve were not exactly the First Man and the First Woman considering God created mankind on Day 6.


#14

you, it is actually this, you *******: they weren’t ****ing talking about what the ******* fundamenatlists think they were, which is science. They were talking about the ages of salvation history, and not the literal creation.

If people could get this through their ******* heads, all of this ******** that is useless discussoin would avoided in the first place.

In one sense, God remade man in his image in the sixth great day, pagaRome to Catholic Christendom,

and in another great sense, God already began to recreate man in His image already in the beginning with the Floood.

That, in short, you aholes, is why man appears at different times in differenst stories


#15

:shrug: :eek: So whats the need for the nasty responses???
I seriously think you wanna rethink your religion!!!
Cursing people isnt very nice:thumbsup:


#16

Cursing? I think he was trying to prove a point, and you made that point.


#17

Learn to read peter… "That, in short, you aholes, is why man appears at different times in differenst stories"
I’m pretty sure that all the ******** was cursing words too!!:wink:


#18

exactly what was the point?


#19

Could you maybe be a bit more concise i really don’t get what your on about.


#20

I understand as well. White Knight read on the surface that Spauline was cursing. A presupposition on White Knight’s part. It is White Knights preassumption that some words behind an asterisk indicates a curse word. That is direct evidence of preassumption and presuppositioning. It could mean something else entirely. The Naive Mind can only comprehend what some one has told that person what an asterisk means or what a person has learned. In computer syntax, the asterisk is a wild card character. It can be anything. White Knights only understanding is that of a curse word. White Knights understanding of Genesis is also limited in the same manner.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.