What is your explanation for the apparent contradiction between Gen
1:11-13 and Gen 1:26-31 with Gen 2:5-7 ?


I can see why one might ask this perfectly reasonable question. I believe
that Genesis 2 is the story, not of creation as a whole, but of the
creation of “man.” It is not a recounting of the events of Genesis
1:1-25. My understanding of this is that the phrases in Genesis 2:5
“shrub of the field” and “plant of the field,” are a reference to the
types of plants which were eventually used for agriculture. Adam and Eve
did not have to grow crops, as they had all they needed for food in their
original state. However, when Adam sinned, both by not leading Eve well,
and by eating the fruit, Adam and Eve were sent out of Paradise, and Adam
had to work with his hands for his food.

The exact historical relationship between this brief summary and the
actual discovery of agriculture and eventual creation of domesticated
crops by human manipulation of crop genes by unnatural selection I do not
know, as I do not know when the first man and woman lived.

Now, I am not a Hebrew scholar, so you might want to do some digging into
a thorough commentary of the Hebrew Bible, but I believe Genesis 2:5-7 is
not about the creation of plants, but the beginning of agriculture. The
word for “field” is sadeh, which my Hebrew dictionary defines as “area of
land, usually cultivated field.” The passage even references the fact
that man had not yet had to work the ground, which seems to be a reference
back to the “shrub of the field.”

John Oakes, PhD

Comments are closed.