Genesis 1 vs. 2

            One of the most cited "contradictions" in the Bible is the supposed difference between Genesis 

chapter one and Genesis chapter two. This is repeated by theistic evolutionists (and Old Earth 

Creationists) as evidence against a literal Genesis and non-Christians as evidence against Christianity. 

But enough of that. In this particular post, I will go over one of the few specific "contradictions" in 

Genesis one and two. What is this contradiction?

            Genesis 1:25 states, "And God made the beast of the earth… and cattle… and every thing (else, 

basically, that dwells on dry land)…". Then, later in 1:27, Moses writes, "So God created man in his 

own image." Because Genesis is literal history, how are we to read this? Well, that means land animals 

came before man. Okay, no big deal.

            In Genesis 2:19, Moses writes, "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of 

the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam…". Moses makes it seem like Adam 

had already been created before the land animals.

            This is an alleged contradiction because the two chapters seem like they are giving two different 

accounts. Did animals come before humans, or after?  Non-Christians like it because they can say, 

"See? We can't trust the Bible." Theistic evolutions (and OECs) are fine with it because they can say to 

their Creationist brothers and sisters, "See? There is absolutely no problem if you take the beginning of 

Genesis symbolically. You can just say that Moses wasn't being chronologically literal. He was just 

weaving a beautiful story (and on and on)."

            For this example, you can take two routes:

1) Explain how certain translations nail it by using a certain word.

2) Explain what the verse doesn't say.

            1) Certain translations do away with any and all potential problems by the way they interpret the 

word "formed" (in Genesis 2:19). The Hebrew word for "formed" is yatsar. And, as with any 

language, there are different forms. Some translations use the "perfect" form, and they get "formed." 

These translations translate it using the "pluperfect" form, and they get "had formed." Why does this 

matter? Well, if God "had (already) formed" the animals, than it is perfectly acceptable for Adam to be 

created and mentioned in the verse, too. Because by verse 19 both had been created. Do I know 

Hebrew? No, I got this answer from here. Good ole' Answers in Genesis.

            2) Verse 2:19 never says God "immediately brought them unto Adam" to be named. It just says 

that He brought them to Adam. How does this explain the contradiction? Well, the verse says God 

created the animals (which He did), but time could've elapsed before He brought them to Adam, which 

allows Adam to be created. It is basically a clever way out, though it is true. Just say, "Yes, God did 

create the land animals, but He waited until Adam was created before naming them."

            I think it is pretty obvious that #1 is the most solid explanation to this supposed contradiction, 

but I know that it can be hard to remember foreign words (and strange forms), especially when you 

don't know the language (who can remember yatsar and "pluperfect" form?). #3 will do in a 

pinch, though it isn't as satisfactory.