Genesis 2:4-9 NASB and Genesis 2:15-22 NASB

Many people say that the creation account in chapter 2 has to be different from that of the one in chapter 1 due to one main difference. That is the order of creation. In chapter one the order is plants, then sun, then fish and birds, then land animals, man, and woman. It has been said that in chapter 2 the order appears to be man, then plants, then animals and birds, and then woman. Yet a quick analysis can clear up many of these seeming differences.

To begin with verse 5 "Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground." Seems like there aren't any plants on the earth at first glance, yet that is not what is going on. The phrase "no man to cultivate the ground" gives us a clue as to what is really being said. It appears that there were no crops at the time. When something is "of the field" it brings to mind a field of corn or of wheat or of something. How do crops grow? They need rainfall and a man to cultivate the ground. This differentiates them from other plants. Many other plants do not need a man to cultivate the ground. As for the rainfall, at the time the author was writing there was only rainfall to water the earth, yet in those days (creation days) "a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground." It is a literary technique to simultaneously introduce both the watering mist and the reason there were no crops. So it seems that the author is only saying there were no crops, but he is not saying there were no plants at all.

This difference is carried into verse 9 where "Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." This verse really isn't much a problem after clearing up verse 5. In this verse it seems that the Lord caused a garden to grow, one that had a few special trees in the midst of it. However just because the Lord caused this garden to grow does not mean that there aren't plants elsewhere. There could easily have just been no plants at this particular location. And then God put Adam in the garden. Nothing wrong with that.

Next comes the seeming creation of all the animals. Yet a quick question will yield the answer. Now verse 19 says "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name." Why do these beasts and birds have to be the original creations? Why can't God simply form them all again right in the garden so that Adam could name them? It just says that He formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky. Now that every could be either every as in every Jolly Rancher ever made or it could mean every as in every flavor of Jolly Rancher. In the context it seems appropriate to take the every flavor interpretation.

Now for the man and the woman. In chapter 1 verse 27 it states "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Yet when in chapter two Eve is created later it is sometimes thought that this has to be a different creation account. Yet there is no reason for this interpretation. The overall style of chapter 1 is that of an overview. On each day God did ... (fill in the blank). In chapter two (which is a more in depth look at the creation of man) while Adam is naming the animals it could very well still be day 6. So God would have created male and female on the same day as it states in chapter 1. There really isn't a problem.

Well hope that helps clear up some seeming discrepancies.