Ishmaelites or Midianites?

Eric Lyons

Alleged Discrepancies

While enjoying a meal and listening to their brother Joseph cry out from the pit into which they had cast him, the sons of Jacob (minus Reuben) noticed a group of merchants coming from Gilead. Rather than killing Joseph and concealing his body, the band of brothers chose to “ sell him to the Ishmaelites” (Genesis 37:27). The Ishmaelites, in turn, took Joseph down to Egypt and sold him to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh and captain of the guard (39:1). Skeptics charge that the author of Genesis erred when writing about the details of Joseph being sold into slavery. They insist that a clear contradiction exists because Genesis 37:36 says that “the Midianites” sold Joseph “in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh and captain of the guard” (emp. added), whereas Genesis 39:1 indicates that Joseph was sold to Potiphar by the Ishmaelites.

The casual reader of the Bible might be troubled by the different names given in Genesis 37:36 and 39:1. After a thorough study of the Scriptures, however, one easily can see that the names “Ishmaelites” and “Midianites” are used interchangeably. The book of Judges records that after Gideon and his 300 mighty men defeated their enemy,

The men of Israel said to Gideon, Rule over us, both you and your son, and your grandson also; for you have delivered us from the hand of Midian…. Then Gideon said to them, I would like to make a request of you, that each of you would give me the earrings from his plunder. For they [those whom Gideon and his men had just conquered—EL] had gold earrings, because they were Ishmaelites…. Now the weight of the gold earrings that he requested was one thousand seven hundred shekels of gold, besides the crescent ornaments, pendants, and purple robes which were on the kings of Midian (Judges 8:22,24,26, emp. added).

After Gideon had delivered the Israelites from the hand of Midian, he requested the golden earrings that the Israelites had plundered. Plundered from whom? From those whom Gideon and the Israelites had just conquered. And who were they? Like Moses, in his inspired historical narrative concerning Joseph, the inspired writer of Judges referred to the people of Midian as Ishmaelites.

The Midianites and Ishmaelites mentioned in Genesis chapters 37 and 39 were the same group of traders. This is not a contradiction; nor is it proof that Genesis was written by different authors. As Keil and Delitzch concluded:

The different names given to the traders…do not show that the account has been drawn from different legends, but that these tribes were often confounded, from the fact that they resembled one another so closely, not only in their common descent from Abraham (Gen 16:15 and 25:2), but also in the similarity of their mode of life and their constant change of abode, that strangers could hardly distinguish them, especially when they appeared not as tribes but as Arabian merchants, such as they are here described as being (1996).

REFERENCES

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.

---

Published May 26, 2002

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

A Questionnaire

Misc.

In October 1983, two college professors1 submitted a questionnaire to several Bible scholars, inquiring about certain portions of the Scriptures dealing with the Genesis account of Creation, particularly as it relates to time. What follows is the response to that questionnaire that was sent to Dr. Hugo McCord (now deceased), former professor of Bible and Biblical Languages at Oklahoma Christian College.

 The last two pages of the following scanned document constitute the original questionnaire, consisting of 10 questions, as received by Dr. McCord. The 10 questions address the meaning of the Hebrew words asah and bara, whether Creation was ex nihilo, the meaning of the Hebrew word yom and whether its use in Genesis 1 refers to a literal, 24-hour day, whether time lapses occurred between the days of Genesis 1, whether a time lapse occurred between the first two verses of Genesis 1, or between verse 2 and verse 3, and whether biblical genealogies can be used to establish the age of the Earth. Responses to the questions demonstrate Dr. McCord’s expertise in the Hebrew language.

Endnote

1 Jack Wood Sears (now deceased) was a professor of biology and Donald England was a professor of chemistry (now retired) at Harding University.

Click the image below to view entire article.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

The “Twelve”?

Eric Lyons

Alleged DiscrepanciesBulletin ArticlesInspiration of the Bible

Numerous alleged Bible discrepancies arise because skeptics frequently interpret figurative language in a literal fashion. They treat God’s Word as if it were a dissertation on the Pythagorean theorem rather than a book written using ordinary language. They fail to recognize the inspired writers’ use of sarcasm, hyperbole, prolepsis, irony, etc. Such is the case in their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:5. Since Paul stated that “the twelve” (apostles) saw Jesus after His resurrection, these critics claim that Paul clearly erred, because there were not “twelve” apostles after Jesus’ resurrection and before His ascension. There actually were only eleven apostles during that time. [Judas already had committed suicide (Matthew 27:5), and Matthias was not chosen as an apostle until after Jesus’ ascension into heaven (Acts 1:15-26).] Skeptics claim Paul’s use of the term “twelve” when speaking about “eleven” clearly shows that the Bible was not given “by inspiration of God.”

The simple solution to this numbering “problem” is that “the twelve” to which Paul referred was not a literal number, but the designation of an office. This term is used merely “to point out the society of the apostles, who, though at this time they were only eleven, were still called the twelve, because this was their original number, and a number which was afterward filled up” (Clarke, 1996). Gordon Fee stated that Paul’s use of the term “twelve” in 1 Corinthians 15:5 “is a clear indication that in the early going this was a title given to the special group of twelve whom Jesus called to ‘be with him’ (Mark 3:14). Thus this is their collective designation; it does not imply that all twelve were on hand, since the evidence indicates otherwise” (1987, p. 729, emp. added).

This figurative use of numbers is just as common in English vernacular as it was in the ancient languages. In certain collegiate sports, one can refer to the Big Ten conference, which consists of 14 teams, or the Atlantic Ten conference, which is also made up of 14 teams. At one time, these conferences only had ten teams, but when they exceeded that number, they kept their original conference “names.” Their names are a designation for a particular conference, not a literal number. In 1884, the term “two-by-four” was coined to refer to a piece of lumber two-by-four inches. Interestingly, a two-by-four still is called a two-by-four, even though today it is trimmed to slightly smaller dimensions (1 5/8 by 3 5/8). Again, the numbers are more of a designation than a literal number.

Critics like Steve Wells, author of the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, misrepresent the text when they claim Paul taught: “Jesus was seen by all twelve apostles (including Judas) after Judas’ suicide and before Jesus’ ascension” (2001, emp. added). Paul did not teach that Jesus was seen by all twelve of the original apostles (including Judas). The text says simply that Jesus “was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.” As already noted, skeptics reject the explanation that Paul used the term “twelve” in a figurative sense (yet they must admit that such numbers can be, and frequently are, used in such a way). These critics also disregard the possibility that the twelve may have included Matthias, the apostle who took Judas’ place (Acts 1:15-26). Although in my judgment Paul was using “the twelve” in a figurative sense, it is possible that he was including Matthias with “the twelve.”

Matthias had been chosen as one of the apostles long before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, and we know he was a witness of the resurrection of Christ (Acts 1:21-22). In fact, it is very likely that he was part of the group that “gathered together” with the apostles when Christ appeared to them after His resurrection (Luke 24:33). When Paul wrote of “the twelve,” it may be that he was using a figure of speech commonly referred to as prolepsis (the assignment of something, such as an event or name, to a time that precedes it). Thus no one can say for sure that Matthias was not included in the twelve apostles mentioned by Paul.

Does Paul’s reference to “the twelve” in 1 Corinthians 15:5 contradict Jesus’ appearances to ten of the apostles on one occasion (John 20:19-23) and eleven on another (John 20:26-29)? Not at all. Either he simply used a figure of speech common to all languages—where a body of persons (or groups) who act as colleagues are called by a number rather than a name—or he was including Matthias.

REFERENCES

Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Fee, Gordon D. (1987), The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible [On-line], URL: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/index.html.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Questions and Answers: Was Jesus Transfigured 6 or 8 Days After Prophesying?

Eric Lyons

Alleged Discrepancie

Q.

Was Jesus transfigured six or eight days after prophesying that some would live to see the establishment of the kingdom (Matthew 16:28-17:2; Mark 9:1-2; Luke 9:27-29)?

A.

At first glance, it may appear to some that Luke’s time line contradicts Matthew and Mark’s account of the amount of time that elapsed between Christ’s prophecy and His transfiguration. However, a closer examination reveals that Luke never intended for his readers to understand that exactly 192 hours (eight 24-hour days) elapsed from the moment Jesus finished His prophecy to the time that He and the others began their ascent to the mount of transfiguration. Luke recorded that it was “about eight days,” not exactly eight days. Although Luke was a physician (Colossians 4:14), he did not use “scientific precision” in this case. He merely approximated the time between the two events.

Furthermore, it seems clear that whereas Matthew and Mark excluded the days of the two terminal events (the prophecy and the transfiguration), Luke included both days, as well as the six intermediate days, and thus mentioned that the two events were eight days apart. Even today, when people rehearse something they witnessed a few days earlier, they may refer to the events as happening on “different” days. For example, if a store was robbed on a Monday afternoon, and the following Monday morning a witness told friends what he had seen, he could say truthfully that he recalled the events six days or eight days after they occurred. If one were counting only full days, then six would be correct (i.e., Tuesday through Sunday). However, it also would be correct to speak of the events as occurring eight days earlier—if one were including both full and partial days (Monday through Monday). Whether one uses “six” or “eight” does not discredit his story. Likewise, the time difference between Matthew, Mark, and Luke in no way represents a legitimate Bible contradiction. Luke simply used the inclusive method of reckoning time, whereas Matthew and Mark counted only complete days (Coffman, 1971, p. 261).

REFERENCES

Coffman, James Burton (1971), Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Could Terah Have Been 130 When Abraham Was Born?

Eric Lyons

Alleged Discrepancies

When calculating the age of Terah at the time that Abraham (his son) was born, one is compelled to conclude that he was around 130. Considering that Terah died at age 205 (Genesis 11:32), that Abraham moved to the land of Palestine after Terah’s death (Acts 7:4), and that Abraham was 75 when he departed Haran and moved to the land of Palestine (Genesis 12:4), the clear implication is that Terah was at least 130 at Abraham’s birth. [For more information on the age of Terah when Abraham was born see: “How Old Was Terah When Abraham Was Born?”] The “problem” with Terah being 130 when Abraham was born has to do with why Abraham regarded his own ability to beget a son at age 100 as somewhat incredible (Genesis 17:1,17). Curious and diligent Bible students want to know why the apostle Paul described Abraham’s body as being “already dead (since he was about 100 years old)” [Romans 4:19; cf. Hebrews 11:12], if Abraham was born when his father was 130? Why would Abraham have staggered at the thought of a 100-year-old-man begetting a son if the above calculations are correct? [“Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, ‘Shall a child be born to a man who is one hundred years old?’ ” (Genesis 17:17).]

First, it should be remembered that Abraham did not think it impossible to sire a child by Hagar at age 85 (Genesis 16). In fact, by insisting that Abraham engage in conjugal relations with her maid, Sarah exhibited confidence in his ability to raise up an heir. In modern times, one only rarely hears of a man in his mid-seventies begetting children. Abraham, on the other hand, begot his first son at 86 years of age. Although during Abraham’s day the longevity of man was not what it once was (e.g., Noah begot sons at 500 years of age—Genesis 5:32), it still was greater than it is today. Thus, we must refrain from comparing the ages of those who sired children thousands of years ago by today’s standards.

Another detail often overlooked in Abraham’s life is that he had more children than just Ishmael and Isaac. He actually obtained six heirs through a woman he married by the name of Keturah (Genesis 25:1-6; cf.1 Chronicles 1:32). Because nothing is mentioned about Keturah until after the death of Sarah, it is reasonable to presume that the children she bore to Abraham came along well after Isaac was born. Genesis 23:1-2 states that “Sarah lived one hundred and twenty-seven years” and “died.” After reading about Isaac’s marriage to Rebekah recorded in Genesis 24, the text says, “Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bore him Zimran, Joktan, Medan, Midian, Ishback, and Shuah” (25:1-2, emp. added). If these events are to be understood as occurring in chronological order, it means Abraham was more than 140 when Keturah bore him six sons. [Abraham was ten years older than Sarah (17:17), and thus when Sarah died at 127, Abraham would have been 137. Also, since Isaac was born when Abraham was 100, and he (Isaac) married Rebekah at the age of 40 (25:20), then this would make Abraham at least 140 when he married Keturah.]

It must be admitted, however, that just because the events regarding Abraham’s marriage to Keturah are recorded after the death of Sarah, it does not necessarily mean this is the exact order. There are events recorded, and stories told, throughout the Bible that are not written in a chronological format (cf. Genesis 10 and 11; and Matthew 4:1-11 with Luke 4:1-13). As the respected commentators Keil and Delitzch mentioned, “it is not stated anywhere, that Abraham did not take Keturah as his wife till after Sarah’s death. It is merely an inference drawn from the fact, that it is not mentioned till afterwards; and it is taken for granted that the history is written in strictly chronological order” (1996). Adam Clarke agreed by stating: “When Abraham took Keturah we are not informed; it might have been in the lifetime of Sarah” (1996, emp. added). According to some, “this must have occurred many years before the death of Sarah, for several sons are listed” (Wycliffe Bible Commentary, 1962). However, based on the wording of Genesis 25:1, and the fact that neither Keturah nor any of her sons is ever mentioned before this time, it seems more likely that Abraham took Keturah as his wife after Sarah died. But, even if it were during his marriage to Sarah, he still would have been close to (if not more than) a century old. Why? Because we read that well after entering the land of Canaan at the age of 75 Abraham was “childless” with “no offspring” (Genesis 15:2-3). Ishmael, Abraham’s first child, was not born until he was 86. The “best” scenario (for those who believe Keturah bore Abraham six sons while Sarah was still living) is that Zimran, Joktan, Medan, Midian, Ishback, and Shuah were born sometime after Abraham was 86. Therefore, even the most conservative estimates put Abraham in his nineties during this time—a time when he was still begetting sons.

A final detail that few have considered concerning Abraham’s age when Isaac was born, is how old Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, was when Joseph was born. According to Genesis 47:9, Jacob was 130 years old when he arrived in Egypt (cf. 47:28), which was at the end of the second year of the famine (45:6,11). Joseph was in his thirtieth year when he stood before Pharaoh nine years earlier at the beginning of the seven years of plenty (41:46). Thus, at the end of the second year of the famine (the year Jacob arrived in Egypt being 130), Joseph would have been 39 years old. This means that Jacob was 91 when Joseph was born.

If Jacob was 91 when Joseph (“the son of his old age”—37:3) was born, one is curious to know how old he was at the birth of his youngest son, Benjamin. In order to ascertain this figure, one must begin with Jacob’s twenty-year commitment to Laban in Padan Aram (Genesis 31:38). The first seven years Jacob was in Padan Aram serving Laban, he was not married and had no children (29:18-20). After his “marriages” to Leah and Rachel, the text indicates that all of Jacob’s sons, save Benjamin, were born sometime within the next few years (Genesis 29:30-30:25). It was after Joseph’s birth that Jacob began serving his final six years in Padan Aram (30:25; 31:38,41). We know that Benjamin was more than six years younger than Joseph, because he was not born until sometime after Jacob discontinued working for Laban. Jacob did not receive his twelfth son until after he: (1) departed Padan Aram (31:18); (2) crossed over the river (Euphrates—31:21); (3) met with his brother, Esau, near Penuel (32:22,31; 33:2); (4) built a house in Succoth (33:17); (5) pitched his tent in Shechem (33:18); and (6) built an altar to God at Bethel (35:1-19). Obviously, a considerable amount of time passed between Jacob’s separation from Laban in Padan Aram and the birth of Benjamin near Bethlehem. Biblical commentator Albert Barnes conservatively estimated that Benjamin was 13 years younger than Joseph (1997). Hebrew scholar John T. Willis said Benjamin was likely about 14 years younger than Joseph (1984, p. 433). Actually, if Benjamin was just ten years younger than Joseph (and few, if any, commentators have ever suggested there was less than 10 years between the two), that would mean Jacob was 101 when he begat Benjamin. The fact that Jacob could still beget children when he was 100 years old (with no indication of there being a miracle involved) supports the proposition that Terah, his great-grandfather (who begot Abraham 260 years earlier) could have begotten Abraham at 130 years of age.

The obvious question, then, is why it took a special miracle for Abraham to become a father when he was only 100 years old? Actually there are several factors that may come into play as to why Abraham was somewhat baffled at the idea of having a child at the age of 100. First, it seems likely that the emphasis of Genesis 17:17 is on the physical condition of Abraham at this particular period in his life, and not so much his actual age. It is possible that Abraham simply was failing in health. This would not be surprising, considering his son experienced a serious failing in health about 44 years before he (Isaac) died (Genesis 27:1). [Since Isaac was 60 years old when he begat Jacob (25:26), and since Jacob was about 91 when Joseph was born (as noted above), Isaac must have been about 151 when Joseph was born. Since Joseph was born after Jacob had been living in Padan Aram for about 14 years, Isaac would have been no more than 137 in Genesis 27:1.] Like Isaac, it may be that Abraham was failing in health at 100, even though he wouldn’t die for another 75 years. Considering that his father begot him at 130, and that his grandson sired a child at 100, Abraham’s statement about him being 100 years of age when Isaac was promised likely should be interpreted in light of his physical condition at the time rather than his actual age.

Even today, men use their age when describing their physical situation. For example, when most 45-year-old men are asked if they could play major league baseball at their current age, they often respond by saying, “I’m too old to play baseball.” But does this mean that it can’t be done? Obviously not, since Nolan Ryan was still throwing 100-mph fastballs when he was 45. Ricky Henderson is still hitting homeruns and stealing bases at 42 years of age. Michael Jordan is still playing professional basketball at the age of 39. Thus, even though we know it still is possible for certain people who are our same age (or older) to do something, we frequently use our age to describe our physical condition. My father begot me when he was 40. However, if someone asks me when I’m 40 if I want any more children, I’ll likely respond by saying, “I’m too old to be changing diapers.”

It seems clear that the special miracle the Almighty worked on Abraham “depended on something else than his mere age” (McGarvey, n.d., p. 118). The miracle was not that He simply made it possible for a 100-year-old man to beget a child (for this was done by others both before and after Abraham begot Isaac), but rather that He miraculously endowed him with new vital and reproductive energy for begetting the son of the promise. As Whitcomb and Morris concluded, “In response to his renewed faith in God and in God’s promise (Rom. 4:19), his [Abraham’s—EL] body, which was ‘now as good as dead,’ must have been renewed by God to live out the remaining 75 years and to beget many more children (Gen. 25:1-7)” [1961, p. 480].

Another reason Abraham was so perplexed at the promise of a son (Genesis 17:17) had to do with his wife’s physical condition. Genesis 18:11 states: “It had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women” (ASV). Sarah’s “periods had ceased with the so-called change of life and with them the capacity to conceive…. Capacity for procreation and conception was extinct” (Luepold, 1942, p. 541). “From the human standpoint, it was impossible for a woman long after the onset of menopause to give birth to a child” (Coffman, 1985, p. 239). For this reason, J.W. McGarvey, one of the brightest biblical scholars of the nineteenth century, concluded: “The incredulity of Abraham…had reference chiefly to Sarah” (p. 118). Abraham knew it would take a miracle for her to conceive a child (cf. Hebrews 11:11).

A third reason Abraham expressed astonishment upon hearing Jehovah’s promise of a son through Sarah could have depended largely on the possibility “that he had now been living thirteen years with a young concubine, Hagar, since the birth of Ishmael, and she had not borne him another son (17:24,25)” [McGarvey, p. 118]. Although most people would disregard this option because Hagar “became despised” in Sarah’s eyes after she conceived Ishmael (16:4), nothing is said about Sarah’s feelings toward Hagar for the thirteen years after Hagar gave birth to Ishmael and before Isaac was born. It is more than possible that Abraham continued to “go in to her” during that time. If this was the situation, then certainly Abraham’s amazement upon hearing the Lord’s promise of a son (Genesis 17:17) could have been due (at least in part) to his inability to beget any more children with Hagar the past thirteen years.

The truth of matter is that Terah was 130 when Abraham was born. This fact is known because of the inspiration by which Stephen spoke and Luke wrote (Acts 7:4). As renowned commentator R.C.H. Lenski said, it is a “simple matter of adding a few figures” (1961, p. 263). It in no way contradicts the statement Moses’ recorded in Genesis 11:26 (that “Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran”—see “How Old Was Terah When Abraham Was Born?”), or Abraham’s statement in Genesis 17:17. That Abraham thought it incredible for him to have a son at 100 years of age must be understood in light of other information given in Genesis.

• Abraham had been able to “raise up an heir” at the age of 85 (Genesis 16).
• He then had six other sons by Keturah sometime after he was 86 (likely it was “long after” this time; see McGarvey, p. 118).
• Also, Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, was 91 when Joseph was born, and over 100 when he begot his youngest son, Benjamin.

All of this information leads us to believe that Abraham’s amazement at the pronouncement of Isaac at age 100 was due to some other factor than just his being 100 years of age.

• Perhaps the emphasis is more on his physical condition, and not so much his actual age (with his age being used to “describe” his failing health).
• Or maybe, as J.W. McGarvey suggested, Abraham expressed amazement because “he had now been living thirteen years with a young concubine, Hagar, since the birth of Ishmael, and she had not borne him another son (17:24,25)” [p. 118].
• Likely, however, most of Abraham’s bewilderment was due largely to his wife’s inability to conceive since her onset of menopause (18:11).

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Coffman, James Burton (1985), Commentary on Genesis (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House).

Leupold, H.C. (1942), Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Lyons, Eric (2001), “How Old Was Terah When Abraham Was Born?” [On-line], URL: /articles/572 .

McGarvey, J.W. (no date), New Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Willis, John T. (1984), Genesis (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1962), Electronic Database: Biblesoft.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

What Is the Meaning of Life? Atheism Versus God Video 4 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/what-is-the-meaning-of-life-atheism-versus-god-5782/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

Did Jesus Mistakenly Predict the End of the World? Video 7 min

https://video.wvbs.org/video/matthew-2434-did-jesus-mistakenly-predict-the-end-of-the-world-challenging-bible-verses/ 

Click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Is God Jealous and Insecure? Video 6 min

 

https://video.wvbs.org/video/exodus-205-is-god-jealous-and-insecure-challenging-bible-verses/

Click on the link above and follow the path provided.

 

Did God Create Animals or Man First?

Eric Lyons

Alleged DiscrepanciesCreation

After reading the first two chapters of the Bible, some skeptics, in an attempt to disprove the Bible’s inerrancy, have accused the writer of Genesis of erring in regard to the record of events occurring on day six of creation. While Genesis 1:24-27 plainly indicates that man was created after the animals, critics claim that Genesis 2:18-19 teaches that man was created before animals. They strongly assert that such language by the author of Genesis proves that the Bible is not divinely inspired.

Does Genesis two present a different creation order than Genesis one? Is there a reasonable explanation for the differences between the two chapters? Or is this to be recognized as a genuine contradiction?

Some Bible students resolve this alleged contradiction simply by explaining that the Hebrew verb translated “formed” could easily have been translated “had formed.” In his Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold stated:

Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible (1942, p. 130, emp. added).

Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupold’s assessment of Genesis 2:19 as he also recognized that “it is possible to translate formed as ‘had formed’ ” (1990, p. 176). Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their highly regarded Old Testament commentary that “our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the Holy Spirit, via Moses, intended to communicate—EL] would be simply this: ‘God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed’ ” (1996, emp. added). Adding even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New International Version (NIV) renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emp. added). Although Genesis chapters one and two agree even when yatsar is translated simply “formed” (as we will notice in the remainder of this article), it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the NIV, all believe that it could (or should) be rendered “had formed.” And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree.

The main reason that skeptics do not see harmony in the events recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible is because they fail to realize that Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (actually 2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Chapter two never was meant to be a chronological regurgitation of chapter one, but instead serves its own unique purpose—i.e., to develop in detail the more important features of the creation account, especially the creation of man and his surroundings. As Kenneth Kitchen noted in his book, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament:

Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject—distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, p. 117).

Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe summarized some of the differences in Genesis 1-2 in the following chart (1992, p. 35):

Genesis 1		Genesis 2
Chronological Order		Topical Order
Outline		Details
Creating Animals		Naming Animals

The fact is, “Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God’s work of creation as set forth in chapter 1…. [C]hapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter 1 and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of creation” (Archer, 1982, pp. 68-69). In short, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious in every way. What may seem as a contradiction at first glance is essentially a more detailed account of chapter one. The text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology, but merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man.

If one still rejects both the possibility of yatsar being translated “had formed,” and the explanation of the two chapters being worded differently because of the purposes they serve, a final response to the skeptics allegations is that the text never says that there were no animals created on the sixth day of creation after Adam. Although in my judgment it is very unlikely that God created a special group of animals to be named by Adam (after creating all others before the creation of man—Genesis 1:20-27), some commentators hold this view. After his comments concerning the translation of yastsar, Victor Hamilton indicated that the creatures mentioned in 2:19 refer “to the creation of a special group of animals brought before Adam for naming” (p. 176, emp. added). Hamilton believes that most all the animals on the Earth were created before Adam; however, those mentioned in 2:19 were created on day six after Adam for the purpose of being named. In U. Cassuto’s comments on Genesis 2 regarding the time Adam named the animals, he stated: “Of all the species of beasts and flying creatures that had been created and had spread over the face of the earth and the firmament of the heavens, the Lord God now formed particular specimens for the purpose of presenting them all before man in the midst of the Garden” (1961, p. 129, emp. added). Both of these long-time Bible students recognize that the text never says there were no animals created after Adam, but that all animals were created either on days five and six (before and possibly even after Adam was created). However unorthodox (or unlikely) this position may be, it does serve as another reason why skeptics have no foundation upon which to stand when they assert that a contradiction exists between Genesis 1:24-27 and 2:19.

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Cassuto, U. (1961), A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: Magnes).

Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas A. Howe (1992), When Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books).

Hamilton, Victor P. (1990), The Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.

Kitchen, Kenneth (1966), Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Inter-Varsity Press).

Leupold, Herbert C. (1942), Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

---

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed