There are two different versions of the story of the creation of man in Genesis. True or false?

TrueThere are two different versions of the story of the creation of man in Genesis. True or false?
False.





The supposed differences are these:





';version 2'; says that plants were created after man.


(buzzer) incorrect! it says that plants of the field (ie agriculture) was not in existence, but that they earth was watered by mists: When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-





Notice that it specifically says ';because there was no man to work the ground';? Obviously this is not talking about all plant life.











It says that animals were created after man


(buzzer) incorrect! it says ';Now the LORD God HAD formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.'; (the hebrew is open to debate, yes, but that doesn't mean you err on the side of that the author was an idiot who couldn't keep his facts straight)





and finally, it says that woman was created after man.


so what? that is completely possible on day 6. I see no problem here.





Some people just get off trying to tear the bible to peices... and they will do anything, including lie, to accomplish that end.There are two different versions of the story of the creation of man in Genesis. True or false?
True. In the first part of Genesis, male and female humans are created on the 6th day, after light, the heavens, dry land and oceans, heavenly bodies, and fish and birds. Elsewhere, it says man was created from dust, before any plants were created, and woman was created out of one of man's ribs.
the first version says woman and man in the first chapter but the second chapter says the Lord created a man and of his body he created a woman.. there are two stories of the creation of humanity in the book of genesis but they are taken as one but there are different.. if you read carefully..
Genesis chapter 2, further explains the creation of man on the sixth day. Some have supposed that this is a second Creation account and is evidence that the Creation story is but a myth that was passed down from one generation to another and at some point Chapter 2 was added to the myth.





For evidence of their point they note that in Genesis 1, the name used for God is ';Elohim';, and in Chapter 2, the name of God is Lord God, or ';Jehovah Elohim.'; They say this means there were two writers, one who used the name for God, ';Elohim';, and a later writer who used the name of God as ';Jehovah Elohim.'; They further state that the idea of one God grew from an earlier tradition of man believing in many Gods. Thus, the earlier account of Genesis 1, notes God as plural, but later in the time of the Hebrews man's concept of God had evolved into the belief in one God. However, there is no basis for such a unbiblical interpretation of these Scriptures.





';Elohim'; is plural name of God and is found only in Hebrew. No other Semitic language has this word. It is a plural word and is always modified by a singular adjectives and pronouns and used with singular verbs. This notes the unity of God in the singular, yet allows for the plurality of persons in the Trinity. The word denotes God as the ';strong one';, and is a reference to His power. This is exactly what God is doing in Chapter 1, showing His power by speaking the Universe and all in it into existence.





In Chapter 2, the Bible is dealing with man, and his relation to God. It is logical to have the name of God reflect this in using the name ';Jehovah Elohim';, meaning ';Jehovah (Lord) Elohim (God).'; God is the Lord, and Creator of man.





Thus a better explanation for the use of two different names for God used in the first two Chapters is that the writer of Genesis, who Jesus said was Moses, was noting the work of God in Chapter 1, and God's relation as man's Creator in Chapter 2. This view does not contradict Scripture and is grammatically and within the bonds of the normal use of the Hebrew language. This is a more valid view than supposing two writers with two conflicting accounts.





Those who hold to the view that Genesis 1 and 2, are two separate accounts written by two writers at different times do not believe the inspiration of Scripture. They are evolutionist who deny the Creation account of Genesis as myth contrived in the superstitions of primitive man.





Hope this Helped God Bless
The are many ';christian'; religions. Each of these may have a different version of the creation depending on the church leader's personal or political views. Some of these views are tainted with evolution or aliens.
Depends on how one interpets it. Some say it's two accounts, while others say it's two versions of the same story. I don't prefer either, I'm an agnostic.
false





its not two different versions





its a restatement of creation and adds more details.


it was not meant to be a all inclusive detail account of creation again.





That would be redundant.
false.


there are 2 accounts of the same creation. 1 is very detailed. the other is simply an overview.
False. Ch 1 is an overview, Ch 2 is more detailed.
Yes there is one version, maybe there is two


but the third, the evolution theory, maybe more scientific, and who knows, maybe also correct
False.... read the bible....pls.... understand it
True, and they're not even compatible, the timing is all off between them.
well that's true obviously





there are 2 different accounts of the creation story
True, and they contradict one another.
first is the macro version then the micro version, they are the same event
That is the academic consensus, yes.
False.
No. Only one is there.