Critical scholars claim that the Genesis 2 story of the creation of man is much older than, and contradictory to, the creation narrative of Genesis 1. This conclusion is based partly on alleged discrepancies in the two sections and partly on clues that the two sections were drawn from two separate sources, one much older than the other. The differences in the two narratives are said to support the documentary hypothesis, or theory, that the narratives making up the five books attributed to Moses were taken from documents representing different periods of Israel’s history. Are these ideas beyond dispute?

No, not by a long shot! Critics claim that the order of creation in Genesis 2:4–7, 19 differs from the order presented in Genesis 1:1–27 in that the former has the creation of man preceding the creation of other living organisms (plants and animals alike), and the latter puts man’s creation last. However, if we understand that the plants and herbs “of the field” (2:5) are the plants and herbs man would plant and harvest after leaving the garden (3:18), we can see there is no conflict between these two verses. Originally, man’s habitat was the Garden of Eden. He was to “tend and keep it” (2:15) and “freely eat” of “every tree of the garden” (verse 16). He acquired food through toiling in the field after he left the garden.

Further, Genesis 2:19 does not necessarily mean that God made the beasts of the field and birds of the air after He made Adam, as a plain reading of some translations would indicate. The Hebrew construction permits the NIV’s rendition of the verse: “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them…” (emphasis added).

The expression “had formed” suggests that God had made these creatures at some point before He brought them to Adam for naming. This agrees with the Genesis 1 narrative.

I don’t have a problem with the theory that biblical writers used documents handed down from their forefathers. Just as the Spirit-inspired writers of the New Testament used the inspired Old Testament as they composed their accounts and epistles, the men God used in composing the

Old Testament could have used documents handed down from previous generations of God’s people. The Holy Spirit guided the entire process.

I do have a problem with the notion that many of the historical narratives (narratives presented as historical) of the Pentateuch are traceable to myths and legends previous generations of Hebrews had picked up from their hea- then neighbors. Unfortunately, this form of biblical criticism has gained wide acceptance, and many who embrace it reject any other approach to the Scriptures. This tendency to reject the supernatural has done considerable damage to the historical critical as a useful tool for serious biblical studies.