Literal 6 days?

[MonFrere]

Just a side thought I had.

In many books that I’ve read the beginning is a passage of poetry or a quote of a famous person or a couple lines of well know literature.

In the book of origins (Genesis) therefore, I don’t think it odd at all that Moses would choose ancient renderings of the origin of all things. Who knows what “traditional sources” that he had access to with his formal education in the very best of the Egyptian tradition. I’m sure he had access to the very best that was available in the known world at that time.

The very FACT that they are contradictory demonstrate that they’re not to be taken literally. From reading the accounts of the Pentateuch on thing we cannot say about Moses was that he was dumb. He was an awesome historian and had a great legal mind and with all the insertions of poetry and songs; he seems to have a penchant for the literary too. Certainly, an agile mind as Moses would spot contradictions, if they were genuine – especially when placed so close to each other in his text. With his legal mind he would have been an idiot to put two contradictory accounts of creation side by side; therefore, I cannot see how anyone would therefore come to the conclusion that these are literal accounts.

MonFrere

 

[patrick457]

Just a side thought I had.

In many books that I’ve read the beginning is a passage of poetry or a quote of a famous person or a couple lines of well know literature.

In the book of origins (Genesis) therefore, I don’t think it odd at all that Moses would choose ancient renderings of the origin of all things. Who knows what “traditional sources” that he had access to with his formal education in the very best of the Egyptian tradition. I’m sure he had access to the very best that was available in the known world at that time.

The very FACT that they are contradictory demonstrate that they’re not to be taken literally. From reading the accounts of the Pentateuch on thing we cannot say about Moses was that he was dumb. He was an awesome historian and had a great legal mind and with all the insertions of poetry and songs; he seems to have a penchant for the literary too. Certainly, an agile mind as Moses would spot contradictions, if they were genuine – especially when placed so close to each other in his text. With his legal mind he would have been an idiot to put two contradictory accounts of creation side by side; therefore, I cannot see how anyone would therefore come to the conclusion that these are literal accounts.

MonFrere

As an interesting aside, Origen talked about this ‘contradiction’ between Genesis 1 and 2:

In the next place, Celsus, after heaping together, simply as mere assertions, the varying opinions of some of the ancients regarding the world, and the origin of man, alleges that “Moses and the prophets, who have left to us our books, not knowing at all what the nature of the world is, and of man, have woven together a web of sheer nonsense.” If he had shown, now, how it appeared to him that the holy Scriptures contained “sheer nonsense,” we should have tried to demolish the arguments which appeared to him to establish their nonsensical character; but on the present occasion, following his own example, we also sportively give it as our opinion that Celsus, knowing nothing at all about the nature of the meaning and language of the prophets, composed a work which contained “sheer nonsense,” and boastfully gave it the title of a “true discourse.”

And since he makes the statements about the days of creation ground of accusation—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, and sun, and moon, and stars, and some of them after the creation of these—we shall only make this observation, that Moses must then have forgotten that he had said a little before, that in six days the creation of the world had been finished (Genesis 2:1), and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: “This is the book of the creation” of man, “in the day when God made the heaven and the earth” (cf. Genesis 2:4)! But it is not in the least credible, that after what he had said respecting the six days, Moses should immediately add, without a special meaning, the words, “in the day that God made the heaven and the earth”; and if any one thinks that these words may be referred to the statement, “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth,” (Genesis 1:1) let him observe that before the words, “‘Let there be light,’ and there was light,” and these, “God called the light day” (cf. Genesis 1:3, 5), it has been stated that in the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.

-Contra Celsus VI.50

 

[CWBetts]

Whether the 6 days are 24 hour periods are irrelevant. The six day structure was given to show the liturgical orientation of creation.

Day 1: God made day and night
Day 2: God made made the sky and the sea
Day 3 God mad the land

On these first 3 days, god made habitats for his creations.

Day 4: God made the sun, moon, and stars. Why to mark days, seasons and years. These seasons are liturgical seasons. There are other ways to mark the climatic seasons. But sun and moon were used to calculate the time of the year for Passover.
Day 5: Birds, fish, whales. God filled the sea and sky that he had created on day 2.
Day 6: Land animals and Man. The final creative day was used to populate the earth, and the plan for monogamous marriage was instituted.
Day 7: Worship. The apex of creation is not the creation of Man, but the establishment of the sabbath, which defines the proper relationship between Man and God.

The account in Genesis 2 is not a contradiction of Genesis 1. There is a slight variance in order, but there is no indication of order of events on the sixth day of creation. God made man and the land animals on the sixth day, but just because man is mentioned last does not mean he was made last. Do these two chapters contradict Darwinism? Not necessarily, but I choose to reject humanistic evolution on other grounds (I am still debating with myself on theistic evolution). Be recognizing that Genesis 1-2 are not of the historical genre of literature, it can safely be said that the purpose of these chapters are not meant to convey history, although Adam and eve were a historical couple, but rather to establish man’s relationship with God. (BTW, the reason we know that Adam and Eve were a historical couple is because of Genesis 3, where we read of the historical account of the fall of man)

 

[Mailman]

Is Genesis Ch. 1 & 2 a literal history?

Yes, it definitely is. Genesis is a narration of past events. It is a historical record of the pre-Adamic world and the first 2,000 years and more of man’s history. As in any recording of historical facts, the meaning of the texts cannot be taken BUT in its plain and obvious sense, that is, literally. Factual narration would not involve the use of figurative language, symbolisms, metaphors, or analogies, whereby the true meaning is not what it appears to be. Genesis is not a prophecy or a parable. It is a recording of facts and must mean what it says.

With men this is impossible; but with GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. Mt. 19:26

I believe this statement and therefore I believe that if God wanted to create the world in six days He would have done it. I also believe that if He wanted to create the world in a nanosecond, He would have done it. However, I believe that the passages are telling us not to accept the literal meaning but to accept the importance of man within these passages. After all, we are created in His image, that is the importance of the first two chapters of Genesis. If, however, you believe that the chapters should be taken literally, let’s explore the possibilities.

1: Genesis 1: 27 tells us: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.”
This happened on the sixth day. Remember that all else was created before man, and man was given dominion over all. Also, remember that male and female were both created on the sixth day. Yet, Genesis 2: 4-7 tells us that the earth was bare until man was formed out of the dust of the ground. I thought man was formed last according to Genesis 1: 27, is the Bible wrong?

2: Genesis 2: 8-15 tells us that God put man into God’s latest creation, the Garden of Eden, created after man. I thought that Genesis 1: 9-13 told us that vegetation came before man. Is the Bible wrong?

3: Genesis 2: 19-20 talks about the creation of all sorts of living creatures that Adam names, such as cattle. I thought Genesis 1: 20-25 told us that all these creatures were created before man. Is the Bible wrong?

4: Genesis 2: 21-23 talks about God taking out one of Adam’s ribs and making a woman out of it. That would mean that Adam and Eve were created at opposite parts of the story. Adam first, then everything else, then Eve. But I thought that Genesis 1: 27 said that “male and female He created them” and I thought that Genesis 1: 31 claimed that this happened on the sixth day. Is the Bible wrong?

The answer to these questions is very simple: a very emphatic NO! The Bible is not wrong when put into correct context. The order of creation is changed because that is not what is being emphasized in both stories. Perhaps the Bible itself is telling us, in its own way, not to take these dates too literally. Perhaps the inspired writers are telling us that the importance of these two separate stories of creation is simply that man is created in the image of God. I am not discounting the other verses, quite to the contrary. I believe all the verses in these 2 chapters stress the importance of this simple point. Man is created in the image of God.

Genesis chapter 2 does not give the time order of creation. The correct chronological order of creation is stated in chapter 1. It gives a day-by-day description of creation week. Genesis 2 is a reiteration – not in time order – of what God created. A close examination will show that there are frequent insets in the Bible, not only in this creation story, but in many other parts in the Bible, as well as in histories written by men.

Chapter 2 emphasizes the reason and purpose behind the creation of man. It points out Adam’s responsibilities in caring for God’s creation (Adam was to dress and keep the garden, verse 15), as well as his responsibilities in naming each kind of animal. When properly understood, the events described in Genesis 1 and 2 mutually amplify each other.

 

[CWBetts]

Yes, it definitely is. Genesis is a narration of past events. It is a historical record of the pre-Adamic world and the first 2,000 years and more of man’s history. As in any recording of historical facts, the meaning of the texts cannot be taken BUT in its plain and obvious sense, that is, literally. Factual narration would not involve the use of figurative language, symbolisms, metaphors, or analogies, whereby the true meaning is not what it appears to be. Genesis is not a prophecy or a parable. It is a recording of facts and must mean what it says.

Genesis chapter 2 does not give the time order of creation. The correct chronological order of creation is stated in chapter 1. It gives a day-by-day description of creation week. Genesis 2 is a reiteration – not in time order – of what God created. A close examination will show that there are frequent insets in the Bible, not only in this creation story, but in many other parts in the Bible, as well as in histories written by men.

Chapter 2 emphasizes the reason and purpose behind the creation of man. It points out Adam’s responsibilities in caring for God’s creation (Adam was to dress and keep the garden, verse 15), as well as his responsibilities in naming each kind of animal. When properly understood, the events described in Genesis 1 and 2 mutually amplify each other.

Genesis 1 and two are not meant as historical accounts, although Adam and Eve are an historical couple. The purpose of the creation account from 1:1-2:3 is meant to establish the liturgical orientation of mankind. On the first three “days” God created habitats. On the next three “days” He populated these habitats. The seventh day was set aside for worship. God’s end in creation was to create a being with free will that would worship Him. We must also remember that the first thing conceived is the last thing completed. The first two chapters, when taken together, establish the Adamic, or Primordial, Covenant. Although the word “Covenant” is not used in these early chapters, there is definitely covenantal language. Remember that a “covenant” is defined as being an “extension of kinship by oath.” The first hint of covenent language to be found is in the God’s decision to make man: “Let us make man in our image after our likeness…” (Gen 1:26). This phraseology indicates kinship. This can be shown by comparing the language used in reference to the birth of Seth (emphasis mine): “When Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became father of a son in his own likeness, after his image and named him Seth” (Gen 5:3). This kinship is reaffirmed in the Gospel of Luke: “the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God” (Luke 3:38). In addition Adam holds offices associated with other covenants.
Adam is a Prophet. Only the creator of something has the privilege of naming it. God, being the Creator, had the privilege of naming the animals, but he conferred this onto Adam. In this sense, Adam was a prophet, speaking for God.
Adam was a King, in that he was given dominion over all of creation.
Adam was a Priest. Descriptions of the Temple show that it was a re-creation of Eden. The primary job of the Levitical Priesthood was to tend and care for the temple, and Adam was to “till and keep” the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:15).
As you can see, the first two creation accounts are not meant as a literal history, but are more poetical full of typology, prefiguring the Davidic Kingdom, the Prophets, Temple Worship, and of course, Christ.

 

[erikd]

Yes, it definitely is. Genesis is a narration of past events. It is a historical record of the pre-Adamic world and the first 2,000 years and more of man’s history. As in any recording of historical facts, the meaning of the texts cannot be taken BUT in its plain and obvious sense, that is, literally. Factual narration would not involve the use of figurative language, symbolisms, metaphors, or analogies, whereby the true meaning is not what it appears to be. Genesis is not a prophecy or a parable. It is a recording of facts and must mean what it says.

Genesis chapter 2 does not give the time order of creation. The correct chronological order of creation is stated in chapter 1. It gives a day-by-day description of creation week. Genesis 2 is a reiteration – not in time order – of what God created. A close examination will show that there are frequent insets in the Bible, not only in this creation story, but in many other parts in the Bible, as well as in histories written by men.

Chapter 2 emphasizes the reason and purpose behind the creation of man. It points out Adam’s responsibilities in caring for God’s creation (Adam was to dress and keep the garden, verse 15), as well as his responsibilities in naming each kind of animal. When properly understood, the events described in Genesis 1 and 2 mutually amplify each other.

Hi, Mailman, thank you for your response. I was wondering, since you did not address it here, how you account for the fact that in chapter 2 Adam was created, then everything else around him, then Eve? This appears to be a different account, chronologically contradictory to chapter one, as I explained in my OP. I look forward to reading your response.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

I’m going to paste the same controversial apologist to answer your question:

This objection can be answered in one of two ways. The Hebrew word yatsar (rc,YIw used in Genesis 2:19 (“and out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast…and every bird…and brought them to the man to see what he would call them”) is a Hebrew imperfect tense, which, since Hebrew only has two tenses, past and future, can be understood as a pluperfect, which would then be understood as: “and out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast…” This explanation makes the most sense, since the quest given in Genesis 2:18 is to find a “suitable helper” for Adam. Since God knew the animals would not to be a suitable helper (i.e., a being with whom Adam could not communicate and procreate), then it would be rather aimless for Him to create the animals after He created Adam merely to see if a suitable helper could be found among them. It makes much more sense that, having previously created the animals, it was already known that none of them served as a suitable helper, and thus Eve’s creation had already been anticipated. In this way, Genesis 2:18-20 serves as an alternate perspective on the chronology of Genesis 1:24-26 so as to set up the theological underpinnings of Eve’s creation, a theology which will serve as the basis for Adam’s headship over Eve (cf., 1 Timothy 2:13; 1 Corinthians 11:5; Ephesians 5:22).

 

[juliamajor]

KJV does not use original texts because none exist.there are no texts that are originals-period. AS far as translations go a modern one is better then an older one-simply because some of the most important textual finds occured in the 20th C.and we know more about the biblical era via sciences,and archaeology.

 

[CWBetts]

First, my King James bible is an accurate bible, the King James bible was translated using the oldest available manuscripts around. I dont understand where the disconnect is, but your information is propaganda against it. It used the oldest available Hebrew and Greek around, period. Whatever the oldest most accurate manuscript happen to be, that is what was used. the end. and it was translated letter for letter. letter for letter. What is the disconnect with everybody who just REFUSES to listen to that point, all your information about this and that, what is the point, it is THE MOST accurate bible, translated by MEN, who make mistakes, there are many translation errors and I know every single one of em, and does this change the point that the word of God is more accurately read in my bible than yours, stop attacking my bible.

Second our numbers are printed exactly the same in both bibles. What is with the propaganda, get over this issue, it is the same, the word of God is unchanging, a living breathing thing, yet mine would be written in a prose and form considered more accurate and ancient. do i bash your bible for modernizing the words of God. They were spoken in a particular way, and so that is how I like to read it.

Third, I have seen this particular calander of time before, and it is incredibly incorrect, that is why i began my own study.

Your dates will never add up to 931 BC when King Solomon died and the division of the kingdom of Israel. This is a clear proof, as you can **ONLY **reach 931BC **IF **all your calculations are correct.

When trying to decode the genealogy you need to take this into account:

In (Gen 4:25), (Gen 4:26) God uses special language to set forth a precedence, to discern between offspring and grandchildren.

These two same people are again used in context in Genesis 5, to distinguish the difference between named him and begot. all you did was add up all the numbers one after another, how is that difficult to do, and has been done sense people first started trying to decode them. It is inaccurate to say the least. What is so special and mysterious about adding numbers right after the other, and if so, how do explain why you can;t calculate any of the other dates.

5590 BC: NOAH IS BORN. LAMECH IS 182 YEARS OLD.
MAY 21, 4990 BC: GOD DESTROYS THE WORLD BY WATER.
2167 BC: ABRAM IS BORN. TERAH IS 130 YEARS OLD.
3153-2914 BC: GOD DIVIDES THE EARTH INTO CONTINENTS, AND CONFUSES MAN’S LANGUAGE.
1967 BC: JACOB GAINS ESAU’S BIRTHRIGHT AND GOES TO HARAN.
1933 BC: JOSEPH SOLD INTO SLAVERY.
1877 BC: ISRAEL ENTERS EGYPT. BEGINNING 430 SOJOURN.
1530 BC: AARON IS BORN. 1527 BC: MOSES IS BORN.
APRIL 1447 BC: MOSES LEADS ISRAEL OUT OF EGYPT AFTER 430 YEARS OF BONDAGE.
JULY 1447 BC: THE 10 COMMANDMENTS [THE LAW].
MARCH 1407 BC: JOSHUA LEADS ISRAEL INTO THE LAND OF CANAAN.
1108-1068 BC: ELI JUDGED.
1068-1067 BC: THE ARK IS CAPTURED.
1067-1047 BC: SAMUEL THE PROPHET JUDGED.
1067-1047 BC: THE ARK IS RECOVERED.
1007-967 BC: KING DAVID.
**971-931 BC: KING SOLOMON. **
931-914 BC: KING REHOBOAM.

7 BC: JESUS IS BORN
This is how I learned that Christ was born in 7 BC and not 3 bc, or 1 ad, Because seven is the spiritual number for completion, because 7BC was a jubilee year, because Christ IS THE JUBILEE

1BC-1AD: 11013 YEARS FROM CREATION. [there is no 0 BC]
29 AD: JESUS IS BAPTIZED.
MAY 22, 33 AD: PENTECOST. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS POURED OUT: 50 DAYS LATER.

Named him: Denotes an immediate descendent. An offspring. The calendar is based off of the new patriarch at the year of his birth.
(Gen 4:25),(Gen 4:26),(Gen 5:29),(Gen 21:3),(Gen 25:26)

Begot: Denotes a descendent far removed. A grandchild. The calendar is based off of the death of the old patriarch.

It has been established that the calendar has been tied to the life spans of certain patriarchs.
(Gen 5:32),(Gen 11:10),(Gen 11:26)

You can prove this is correct because all the dates add up to 931 BC and the death of Solomon. Your calendar, if you continue the work, will never ever ever add to that date. Thus, it is inaccurate. But I am not a catholic and I presume to teach, and I have already been banned because apparently a guy cant humbly and charitable teach on here with out being attacked by the forum admin for absolutely no reason.

When isn’t apparent, every single thread, every single post, SOMEBODY presumes to teach somebody else. yet I trust completely in the bible and teach biblical doctrine and do not trust in the doctrine of man when compared to the bible and they dont connect, so i am ex communicated from the forum… Nice everybody. i am not happy about this personal attack on me.

So please, I am moving on, everybody has there own motive, and refuses to listen to sound biblical teaching, like I am creating out of thin air. NO, I DID THE WORK, I didn’t just listen… I did the work to prove to MYSELF the truth. And i have, and I do trust completely in the bible because of it. Ill be kicked off for this post, but oh well,

God bless,

If your translation is perfect, where did the punctuation come from? Hebrew had no punctuation. As a result, you are completely missing a double entendre in Genesis 22, because of your abject refusal to accept anyones arguments against your so-called “perfect” (when it is actually flawed) translation. Pay attention to others, and maybe you can learn that the first chapter of Genesis was an account that described the liturgical an nuptial orientations of man, and is not a literal historical account.

 

[tmancath]

Is Genesis Ch. 1 & 2 a literal history?

With men this is impossible; but with GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. Mt. 19:26

I believe this statement and therefore I believe that if God wanted to create the world in six days He would have done it. I also believe that if He wanted to create the world in a nanosecond, He would have done it. However, I believe that the passages are telling us not to accept the literal meaning but to accept the importance of man within these passages. After all, we are created in His image, that is the importance of the first two chapters of Genesis. If, however, you believe that the chapters should be taken literally, let’s explore the possibilities.

1: Genesis 1: 27 tells us: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.”
This happened on the sixth day. Remember that all else was created before man, and man was given dominion over all. Also, remember that male and female were both created on the sixth day. Yet, Genesis 2: 4-7 tells us that the earth was bare until man was formed out of the dust of the ground. I thought man was formed last according to Genesis 1: 27, is the Bible wrong?

2: Genesis 2: 8-15 tells us that God put man into God’s latest creation, the Garden of Eden, created after man. I thought that Genesis 1: 9-13 told us that vegetation came before man. Is the Bible wrong?

3: Genesis 2: 19-20 talks about the creation of all sorts of living creatures that Adam names, such as cattle. I thought Genesis 1: 20-25 told us that all these creatures were created before man. Is the Bible wrong?

4: Genesis 2: 21-23 talks about God taking out one of Adam’s ribs and making a woman out of it. That would mean that Adam and Eve were created at opposite parts of the story. Adam first, then everything else, then Eve. But I thought that Genesis 1: 27 said that “male and female He created them” and I thought that Genesis 1: 31 claimed that this happened on the sixth day. Is the Bible wrong?

The answer to these questions is very simple: a very emphatic NO! The Bible is not wrong when put into correct context. The order of creation is changed because that is not what is being emphasized in both stories. Perhaps the Bible itself is telling us, in its own way, not to take these dates too literally. Perhaps the inspired writers are telling us that the importance of these two separate stories of creation is simply that man is created in the image of God. I am not discounting the other verses, quite to the contrary. I believe all the verses in these 2 chapters stress the importance of this simple point. Man is created in the image of God.

As Catholics and I know many may disagree with me, we are to take the Bible literally. Also even though we do take the Bible literally, we must not take it in a literalist sense, meaning if it says one thing so it much absolutely mean that exact thing. ie. It was raining cats and dogs. A literal meaning would mean that it was raining hard. Literalist meaning would mean that instead of raindrops, that cats and dogs were raining from the sky as if they were raindrops. Also the Bible can’t contradict itself.

 

[erikd]

As Catholics and I know many may disagree with me, we are to take the Bible literally. Also even though we do take the Bible literally, we must not take it in a literalist sense, meaning if it says one thing so it much absolutely mean that exact thing. ie. It was raining cats and dogs. A literal meaning would mean that it was raining hard. Literalist meaning would mean that instead of raindrops, that cats and dogs were raining from the sky as if they were raindrops. Also the Bible can’t contradict itself.

Amen tmancath, you sound like a fan of John Martignoni. His explanation of raining cats and dogs or the arena filled with a million people really drives this explanation home.

 

[Mailman]

Hi, Mailman, thank you for your response. I was wondering, since you did not address it here, how you account for the fact that in chapter 2 Adam was created, then everything else around him, then Eve? This appears to be a different account, chronologically contradictory to chapter one, as I explained in my OP. I look forward to reading your response.

Hi erikd,
I see verse 8 to 14 as speaking about the creation of the garden only, not of the entire earth’s vegetation. Notice verse 8 says, “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden…,” after which it speaks about the trees God placed in the garden and the four rivers flowing into it.

Everything was indeed created first – the earth’s vegetation, all the animals, etc. – then Adam. What chapter 2 is telling us is that when Adam was created, God brought him to that spot on earth where He would plant the garden. There, God improved, embellished and beautified the place by modifying its plant cover and overall physical appearance. What God did could be compared to a garden landscaper transforming an ordinary-looking patch of land into a beautiful garden. But why did God create the man before He planted the garden? It could be because God wanted Adam to see Him in the process of creating. God may have wanted the first man to see and know that He was the Creator so that the first man would know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, who his maker was.

Now, on verse 19: “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field….” Note that this does not say the land animals were created on that very day. Before telling us that the animals were to be brought to Adam for him to name them, the Genesis writer first reiterated how the animals came into existence. The purpose of the statement is not to explain WHEN God created the animals, but HOW, and also to point out Adam’s responsibility in naming each kind.

Also, the Hebrew yatsar, translated “formed” in verse 19, can be translated “had formed” as in Gen. 2:8: “And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he HAD FORMED [yatsar].” When rendered this way, verse 19 would read, “Out of the ground the Lord God HAD FORMED every beast of the field… [These he] brought unto Adam to see what he would call them….” Here, it becomes clear that the statement was made only to recall the creation of the animals, not to give a chronology of the creation.

But let’s assume there really is a contradiction in the time order of creation in chapters 1 and 2. If this the case, then the Genesis writer FORGOT what he wrote after writing only some 50 short sentences. (Note that unless the contradictions were intentional, the writer must have forgotten what he wrote.) Is this possible? Not likely.

But let’s just say the Genesis writer was an extremely absent minded old man and so did not remember what he wrote after writing just a few lines of his story. The question we need to ask is this: Would that old man not be able to spot the error when he comes around to review his work? (I don’t think there’s any writer, especially one writing a historical document, who does not go over his/her work at least once, if not a few times, to check for errors.) What are the chances of this old man not spotting such a glaring error in his story?

However you look at it, there is no way Genesis 1 and 2 could contradict each other – that is, even if we do not take into account that Genesis is an inspired writing.

God bless.