Question about Genesis

[Livingmylifetothefullest]

So, I'm taking a religious studies class and the first thing she presented to the class:there were 2 creation stories in Genesis. She then want on to ask us which one we think is the correct one. Do any you have thoughts on this issue?

This is how she presented it:
Genesis 1: created 1) plants 2) animals 3) humankind

Genesis 2: created 1) man 2) plants 3) animals 4) woman

 

[Poohbear]

In Genesis 1, God created light, the waters and land, the sun, moon, and stars, seasons, plants, then animals, then Adam and Eve.

In Genesis 2, an account of what God had created was given. It's not necessarily telling the order of how things were created like in Genesis 1. Next, it talks about Adam being in charge of the land and the animals. Then, it goes into detail of why and how Eve was created.

 

[HeChangedMyName]

they are both correct, the first one is the overview of what happened when God created everything and then "thought" about creating man. The second one is the detailed account. I've always felt that Genesis one actually was cut off too early and should have gone through what is Genesis 2:3.
Gen 2:4 is where the detailed expansion begins to describe creation of man. If youll notice in other parts of the Bible when He begins to say things like, "these are the generations of..." it is a recount of what has already happened. A detailed account.

 

[MoonstoneBlu]

They're both correct. Genesis 1 gives the exact chronology whereas Genesis 2 gives an overview and an account of the creation of woman. The perceived problem lies in the translation. Remember the English language is somewhat limited in comparision to the original Hebrew and Greek.

Genesis 2:8-9 doesn't tell of how God created the plants in general, it gives an account of how he planted the Garden of Eden before placing Adam there. It would appear that God had already created everything Adam needed in the Garden (except a wife) before bringing him onto the scene.

In Genesis 2:8-9 and 2:19 the verb 'formed' should really have been translated more accurately as 'had formed' or 'had made'. This is how the NIV and Tyndale render it. The Hebrew word used there can be translated as either pluperfect or perfect.

The pluperfect rendering, as used in NIV and Tyndale, refers to a narration set further in the past. In other words it's used to describe something that had already happened prior to the account presently being narrated. When translated this way the so-called contradiction disappears.