The Order Of The Addition Of Life

The order of the creation account has been interpreted in the first section of pages in the "Cretationism" area of the site, but to the reader and most christian interpretations of genesis the order fo creation seems askew from intuition.

-- Click To Expand/Collapse Bible Verses -- Gen ch1:v20-27
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (KJV)

On first appearance, "sea life" is created with birds before any land creatures and mammals, with man appearing in the account last.

The order science usually ascribes to evolution is sea-life, then simple land creatures, then large land creatures, then birds, then mammals, then man amongst them. The obvious difference is birds following larger land creatures. This simple difference has let the "seven epochs" myth of creation continue - though it does nothing to show that God was speaking just the truth even though He was using similitude. One could ask whether it was wrong to do so, but to any scientist it is more important to be consistent in your language and as any stage actor or musician will tell you, if you make a mistake just keep on going. God, does not make a mistake: He remains consistent.

Likewise the second account of creation of Adam and the garden is as follows;

-- Click To Expand/Collapse Bible Verses -- Gen ch2:v15-23
Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (KJV)

This secondary account would appear to state that the animals were created after man. (Who himself was created after the plants, recall.) The account states on the sixth day that the fossil record was created; but on the fifth day the animals were made - so that they were "brought forth" from the "waters". The language, if we are consistent states that in Gen 1:1 the "earth" was created but was yet formless, it took the gathering together of the past ("seas") for the dry land (matter) to appear.

These animals in v.19 were given form (matter, or "existence") from out of the earth; in fact from out of the ground: So we still have the animals produced as contingent from the fossil record; unlike man whom is distinct at this stage that he has no suitable 'help' in the fossil record: He would have to be created a "mate". There was and is no suitable "missing link" leading to man in the biblical account of this searching of all nature for such a "help meet for him." There is no creature even close that Adam could pair with.

So not only does this passage actually decry evolution, there is only the distinction between the syncronicity of verse 19 and its predecessors to interpret. Do the animals exist before they are brought out of the ground? In the first account, yes they do. In the second account they are brought forth from the ground - and then subsequently brought "unto" Adam. Both these ocurr on the sixth day. (We are told of man's creation, "...male and female created He them.")

There is simply the distinction that Adam is not brought forth from the ground as the animals were: with a fossil chain of transitional forms; but that he was created from the dust of the earth and life was breathed into him as a living soul. (There is written here no chance of a successful "man-ape" species.)

God creates woman then to be a suitable mate for Adam. There may be some rudeness here, if you are a little offended I apologise. There is no record of man ever having more ribs than a woman, or less ribs than women. Clearly God performs some surgery but we are simply told that a rib (a "curve" of the body, or a curved bone) was taken from Adam and it was made into Eve whom Adam named a "woman".

The etymology of "woman" has been linked to the words "womb - man", and it is often implied that the meaning is that a woman is a "man with a womb". But the biblical account says the opposite - that the woman came out of man, that woman was born of the womb of a man; and this is an important distinction. It Is Adam who states that he gave birth to his wife Eve (though not named Eve as yet) whom was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. And Adam named the woman as the fruit of his "womb".

Did you know that many other mammals have a bone (the baculum) within the male penis? (There is also a similar case in the females) It is a "curved" rib like bone to allow the urethra to run along it's length unhindered, and its shape is like a "long saddle", and better suited to the kind of activity we witness in nature documentaries with lions, or whales, or some of the more animalistic methods of reproduction. (Point made.) That particular bone appears to be completely unnecessary in the case of man, yet is conspicuously missing from him in comparison to similar apes. Chimpanzees are supposedly our closest relative but they indeed have a baculum. Man is bipedal, and for some reason not continually priapic in appearance. One could also make statements about man's aqualine nose and how his nose is better suited to swimming than that of other apes; the subject however appears to be scientifically without premise. Exceptions in the mammal world (that lack this bone) include many animals, but (the bones) are indeed quite common amongst other placental mammals.

God actually puts the man Adam to sleep and performs surgery upon him, closing up the flesh (rather than letting it heal scarred), and possibly creates the woman from the baculum. Indeed this is a mystery, but not such a mystery when one considers that permission should be granted for intercourse and it is indeed worth waiting for when made to measure.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page