For centuries many biblical scholars have argued that the book of Genesis contains 2 different creation accounts. Many Christians who have read their Bibles for years find this idea to be very perplexing when first coming across it.

So what clues do scholars point to in the text to support this idea? And what if Genesis really does contain two different creation accounts? 

Clue #1: Genesis 2:4 is a Transition Marker Between the Two Accounts

When reading straight through Genesis 1-2, some interpreters argue that the first 3 verses of Genesis 2 serve as a definite conclusion to the first account and that Genesis 2:4 introduces the second account. Let’s look at this section.

Genesis 2:1-5 (NASB):

“1 And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. 

5 Now no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground…”

God rested “from all his work which God had created” in verse 3, so this does seem like a firm stopping point. Then verse 4 reads, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth.” 

The Hebrew word for “account” in the NASB (or “generations” in other places) is “toledot.” The author of Genesis uses this Hebrew word as a marker to start new sections in the book. There are 10 of these markers throughout Genesis:

• Genesis 2:4: This is the account of the heavens and the earth.
• Genesis 5:1: This is the book of the generations of Adam. 
• Genesis 6:9: These are the records of the generations of Noah.
• Genesis 10:1: Now these are the records of the generations of the sons of Noah
• Genesis 11:10: These are the records of the generations of Shem.
• Genesis 11:27: Now these are the records of the generations of Terah. 
• Genesis 25:12: Now these are the records of the generations of Ishmael.
• Genesis 25:19: Now these are the records of the generations of Isaac.
• Genesis 36:1 (and 36:9): Now these are the records of the generations of Esau.
• Genesis 37:2: These are the records of the generations of Jacob.

(You can read more about the toledot formula here.)

Based on these reasons, it does seem like Genesis 2:4 acts as a transition point to something else.

Genesis 2:5 states that there weren’t any shrubs or plants because God had not yet caused it to rain. Also, “there was no man to cultivate the ground.” 

This leads us directly to our next clue. Why would the author say this when he already wrote that plants were created on day 3 (Gen. 1:11-12) and that humans were created on day 6 (Gen. 1:26-27)?

Clue #2: The Order of Creation is Different in Both Accounts

The order in the first creation account is as follows: (1) earth, (2) light, (3) sky, (4) land and seas, (5) plants, (6) celestial bodies, (7) animals and finally (8) both man and woman.

The order in the second creation account is as follows: (1) earth, (2) water or mist, (3) the man, (4) plants, (5) animals, and finally (6) the woman.

The first major difference between the order of events was mentioned above: plants come before the man and the woman in the first account, but plants come after the man and before the woman in the second account. The second major difference of order is that the animals are created before man and woman in the first account, but the animals are created after the man and before the woman in the second account.

There have been several responses which try to reconcile these differences such as arguing that the second account focuses on the creation of man on day 6, as seen here from GotQuestions.org. 

I personally find many of these types of explanations to be a stretch, and they often have to interject information into the text that just isn’t there in my opinion. 

Clue #3: God is Portrayed Differently in Both Accounts

Another major clue is how God appears and acts differently in each account. 

In the first account, God is portrayed as a transcendent being who observes His creation from a distance. He speaks creation into existence out of nothing, showing His power and majesty. God follows a very orderly pattern of creating for 6 consecutive days and resting on the 7th day. God sees that His creation is good, and His resting seems to indicate a job well done.

In the second account, God is portrayed in more human-like terms. Instead of observing creation from the outside, He on the earth interacting with creation in a more personal manner. Like an earthly potter, God forms man out of the ground and breathes life into his nostrils. God plants a garden and places the man inside it to cultivate the land. God personally speaks to the man and so on. 

Still with me? Let’s look at one final clue.

Clue #4: The Names for God are Different in Each Account

This final clue is one that scholars have noticed for centuries.

In Genesis 1:1-2:3, “Elohim” is the Hebrew name/title used exclusively for God. In Genesis 2:4-23, “Yahweh Elohim” (translated “LORD God”) is the Hebrew name used exclusively for God. And not only this, but the switch between using these two names happens in Genesis 2:4! 

Here’s Genesis 2:3-4 again with the Hebrew name/title substituted for “God”:

3 Then Elohim blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which Elohim had created and made.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh Elohim made earth and heaven.

The second account adds “Yahweh,” which is God’s personal name as revealed to Moses.

Why would the author use different names for God in each account unless he was trying to signal something to the reader?

So What If There Are Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? 

Now, you still might not be convinced that there are legitimate differences between the two accounts. If that’s you, just pretend with me for a moment. If there are two accounts, what would this mean for us today? 

First, this would not prove that the Documentary Hypothesis or that similar theories like it are true. The Documentary Hypothesis is the view that Genesis 1 and 2 were originally independent stories by two different authors that were edited and combined by someone else centuries later. 

Second, I don’t think that acknowledging the existence of two creation accounts in Genesis means you have to deny Mosaic authorship. For example, it could possibly be the case that Moses either wrote both accounts himself or placed the two accounts together when writing Genesis.

Third, as biblical scholar Pete Enns talks about here, I think that highlighting the differences between the two accounts is actually a good thing. For example, would you rather us have only one Gospel instead of four? Having different accounts to compare and contrast helps us see what each account is trying to teach us. If we minimize the differences, we could easily overlook the distinct theological viewpoint that each account communicates. 

You see, the more I study creation in the Bible, the more I think that the main point isn’t to tell us exactly how God did it. Instead, its primary purpose is to tell us about who God is. 

I believe that when we contrast both accounts, we get a much fuller picture of God. We see that God is both transcendent (Gen. 1) and personal (Gen. 2). God is both majestic (Gen.1) and willing to get his hands dirty (Gen. 2). 

We see that God creates humans as the pinnacle of creation who are endowed with the image of God (Gen.1). We also see that God creates humans to be his servants and representatives in the garden (Gen. 2). We serve a God that is wholly independent from us (Gen.1), but One who also cares enough to relate to us on our level (Gen. 2). 

I recognize that this is a very complicated issue and isn’t something easily resolved in a blog post. I would love to know your thoughts. Do you think Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation accounts?