Thank you for the question on the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts, “What is the similarities and the differences between Genesis 1:1–2:3 and Genesis 2:4-23. Are the two creation stories more similar or more different? Explain specifically how. What implication might this have for authorship of these two chapters?”
As one reads Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, some readers have observed more differences than similarities and interpret that another writer added Genesis 2 in contradiction to Genesis 1.
For one’s consideration, Genesis 1 is more chronological in the Six Days of Creation while Genesis 2 is more topical focusing on the Sixth Day of Creation. There is an order of creation in Genesis 1 and there is an expansion in Genesis 2 on Adam and Eve. The remainder of the Bible continues to expand on what happened to humans and God’s interventions into human history for the redemption of mankind.
Depending on the reader if one wants to highlight inconsistencies or the reader wants to highlight the consistencies between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. For example, a reader may point out that in Genesis 1:24–25 that God made the animals before he made Adam, but in reading Genesis 2:15–20a that God made man before he made the animals. An apparent contradiction or is it? How does one reconcile the two accounts?
My observation of the text is to note carefully that God FORMED all the beasts of the fields and all the birds of the air and BROUGHT the animals to Adam (vs.19). If Adam was created first and the animals were made before Adam, God WOULD NOT have to bring the animals to Adam. To bring would imply that something already existed and one has to fetch or get it. In other words, the animals were already present roaming in the Garden whereby God commanded/brought each one of them to Adam. God brought each animal to Adam so that he can see that there was no help-meet liken to himself. When Adam opened his eyes and saw someone like himself, he saw her uniqueness liken to himself. He had a profound appreciation for her. Thus in my view, there is no contradiction but an expansion of the sixth day of creation. It’s complementary and enable the readers to see how the sixth day unfolded in greater detail.
It is unlikely that one author would neglect or forget what he just wrote and then write something in contradiction to it. Wouldn’t it be likely that the writer would read the previous words and then the words that he wrote at the end of Genesis? He would see the apparent “contradiction” unless the writer doesn’t see it as a contradiction but an expansion of what he wrote earlier.
It is unlikely that another author would neglect or forget what he just read and blindly inserted Genesis 2 without reading Genesis 1. He wouldn’t forget what he just read a few sentences before and write a version that would contradict an earlier reading. If anything, one would think more so that the second writer would correct the differences so that it is reconciled, not highlight it. In my view, there is no need for a second writer for the first writer knows what he has written in the continuation of the creation event on the sixth day. Remember, there are no chapters and verses in the original Hebrew text.
Is Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradictory or complementary? It will depend on the reader and the careful observation of the text of what one wants to highlight in arguing against or for the consistency of Scripture.
SUMMARY: Genesis 2 is a topical explanation and expansion of Genesis 1 on the Sixth Day of Creation.
For more perspectives: