Genesis "6th Day" Question

[my_agatha]

I’m so confused.

In Gen 1:27 it says that God created man and woman on the 6th day.

But, then in Gen 2:7, after the day of rest it says:

“And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” ASV

He creates a woman later in Gen 2:23.

So… which is it? On the sixth day, creating man and woman together? Or, after the seventh, creating man first, and then woman from the rib?

 

[matthias]

If you take this to be a literal creation account (which is currently up to opinion) then most people would take the “second creation narrative” as actually being a “re-telling” of the creation of man (and women) on the 6th day only in more detail and from another perspective.

So both would be accounts of the 6th day.

That is if you incist on a literal account. If not then the discrepency would not be important because you would focus on the theological implications of the text not the literal narrative.

 

[Ghosty]

my agatha:

I’m so confused.

In Gen 1:27 it says that God created man and woman on the 6th day.

But, then in Gen 2:7, after the day of rest it says:

“And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” ASV

He creates a woman later in Gen 2:23.

So… which is it? On the sixth day, creating man and woman together? Or, after the seventh, creating man first, and then woman from the rib?

Those are two different accounts in the same “book”. It’s not meant to be read as a sequential account, chapter two following chapter one. It’s better to think of chapter one as an overview, and chapter two as the human-specific elements of the story.

In other words, chapter one tells us why the universe is important, and where humans fit in the universe, then chapter two describes the how humans relate to God. The rest of the chapters describe how our place in the world, and our relationship with God, changed through early history and the beginning of the Covenant.

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

 

[levi86]

So I take it that “seven day creation” was never infallibly declared? Seems strange that it wouldn’t have been.

 

[my_agatha]

matthias:

If you take this to be a literal creation account (which is currently up to opinion) then most people would take the “second creation narrative” as actually being a “re-telling” of the creation of man (and women) on the 6th day only in more detail and from another perspective.

So both would be accounts of the 6th day.

That is if you incist on a literal account. If not then the discrepency would not be important because you would focus on the theological implications of the text not the literal narrative.

I’m not “insisting” on anything. I’m confused and very new to reading the Bible as a tentative believer. I’ve read it, but this is the first time I’m reading it with an open heart.

So, be nice!

 

[Ghosty]

levi86:

So I take it that “seven day creation” was never infallibly declared? Seems strange that it wouldn’t have been.

Not in a literalist sense, no, though the story is obviously inspired and upheld as dogmatic. There’s a difference between a story being True, and a story being total fact; sometimes figurative language is used to convey Truth better than a clinical, factual telling would be.

As early as St. Augustine we see that the Creation Story is not necessarily to be taken literalistically. Opinions have varied before and since, and nothing has been dogmatically defined other than the fact that it’s a true story, and contains elements of fact and symbolism.

Peace and God bless!