Two Different Confusion Accounts?

One thing I’ve learned from years of training in various martial arts is that having a big picture of what concepts you are practicing and why you are practicing them is just as important as diving into the minutiae of the individual techniques themselves.

After hearing their coach yell “Always keep your hands up!” for their first 10 classes, it may seem confusing to the student watching their instructor demonstrate something later on with no seeming regard to having their hands pinned to their temples. But there is often a very good reason for teaching new people basics before showing them how to “bend the rules.”

In fact, first establishing the broad strokes of the material prior to “deep diving” is extremely commonplace when learning all sorts of disciplines. Students of history are often faced with this practice, where they are assigned the opening chapter of a book containing an overview of a long historical period such as the “Middle Ages,” with subsequent chapters providing thorough detail of major events within that time frame. Other chapters might describe the condition of the world prior to those events and what led up to them.

The study of God’s Word is no different.

Confused About the Confusion

One area in the Bible pointed out as supposedly contradictory is the historical account of the great flood in Genesis 6–9. The contradiction in question is concerning when people began to disperse around the world after the flood’s occurrence.

The charge is that Genesis 10 and 11 contradict each other regarding the order in which the origin and establishment of different people groups and their languages occurred. Genesis 10 describes the origin of people groups prior to Genesis 11 (which contains the account of the confusion of languages and the scattering of people from the tower of Babel).

Genesis 10:1 states, “These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Sons were born to them after the flood.”

The account then lists several groups and their heads, and how they spread out—“by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations” (Genesis 10:31).

However, Genesis 11 describes how and why mankind was judged with the confusion of languages and spread out over the earth after (and because of) that event. But is this truly a contradiction in chronology?

Don’t Assume Contradictions

Expressing a known contradiction is lying, and as Numbers 23:19 states, “God is not man, that he should lie.” We should not expect to see contradictions in the Bible—and we don’t see them when we study carefully.

It is obvious in context that Genesis 10 is broadly tracing the origins of nations and people groups as they dispersed around the world after the flood:

“These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their nations, and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood” (Genesis 10:32).

The chapter is a historical narrative of the descendants of Noah’s three sons, but it doesn’t say exactly when it occurred in relation to the tower of Babel incident. As mentioned, the text of Genesis 10 said that they were dispersed “according to their families, according to their languages” (Genesis 10:5, 20, 31). So one should ask, “If Noah and his sons all spoke the same language prior to this dispersion, where did all of these various languages come from?” And of course, Genesis 11 gives us the answer.

So, there’s really no contradiction here at all. Everything flows naturally when you simply assume there should be no contradictions in the revelation from an omniscient, good God. Moses wrote Genesis 10 as an overview (putting the effect before the cause), and then Genesis 11 fills in the details.

Two Different Creation Accounts?

Of course, this addresses one of the more common “two different accounts” objections we see when people declare there are supposedly two contradictory creation accounts right at the start of the book of beginnings.

Opponents will often say that in Genesis 1 man and woman are created at the same time after the creation of the animals, but in Genesis 2, Adam comes before Eve and the animals are created after people.

But once again, when we understand that Genesis 2 is simply a deep-dive examination of day six of creation, we realize that Genesis 1:27 is just an overview of the fact that God made humankind—while Genesis 2 supplies us with increased details of how God made the first man and woman.

However, when looking at Genesis 2:19, we can see why people might think there is a contradiction, because many versions of the Bible use language that makes it seem as if God made the animals after making Adam—whereas in Genesis 1 we have a reversed account of God creating animals first, and then creating Adam and Eve afterwards.1

For example, the word formed in both the KJV and the NKJV reads similarly regarding its use:

Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. (Genesis 2:19 NKJV—emphasis added)

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. (Genesis 2:19 KJV—emphasis added)

However, the Tyndale Bible (which preceded the KJV), the NIV, and the ESV contain a more proper (although a subtly different rendition) that eliminates the so-called contradiction.

The Lord God had made of the earth all manner of beasts of the field and all manner fowls of the air. (Genesis 2:19 Tyndale—emphasis added)

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. (Genesis 2:19 NIV—emphasis added)

Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. (Genesis 2:19 ESV—emphasis added)

The reason this version is correct is that “the verb in the sentence can be translated as pluperfect [or past-perfect tense] rather than perfect tense. The pluperfect tense can be considered as the past of the past . . . a narration set in the past.”2

So, the event to which the narration is referring has already taken place once Genesis 2:19 occurs. Obviously, the animals brought to Adam had already been made and were not being brought to him immediately after their creation. Once the pluperfect is considered, the perceived contradiction completely disappears.

This can also be applied to the supposed simultaneous creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 versus the separate creations of both in Genesis 2. Clearly, Genesis 1:27 is just a summary of God’s creation of humankind, while Genesis 2 gives us the intimate details of Eve being created directly from Adam.

Accepting Contradictions Destroys Apologetics

It is truly sad to see the adoption and acceptance of these supposed contradictions by Christians—seemingly for the express purpose of discrediting Genesis 1-11 as real history—all driven by their adoption of the secular, evolutionary-based, long-age theory of the history of the world.

Even parables convey truthful messages, so why would God have portions of Scripture contain contradictory accounts?

They argue that the “contradictions” are the signal that these portions of Scripture aren’t to be taken literally. But aside from the fact that these areas of Scripture are clearly historical narratives, where else in Scripture are allegorical texts, poetic language, or parables contradictory of others? Even parables convey truthful messages, so why would God have portions of Scripture contain contradictory accounts?

These attempts discredit a person’s ability to apply the rules of logic (particularly the law of non-contradiction) towards any other portion of Scripture—or any other worldview for that matter.

Making these claims means that to be intellectually honest and declaring something that you might believe contradictory as “illogical” or “unsubstantiated” would be illegitimate. After all, why would rules of logic apply to them and not yourself?

“Science” over Scripture

One must ask, why did the majority of Church fathers, Reformers, and lay Christians take these now-contended texts as literal before the rise of old-earth and evolutionary ideas? One would have to conclude that later theologians adopted evolutionary-based interpretations in science that drove their interpretation of Scripture.

By saying God placed contradictory accounts within his holy Word in order to signal it is not to be taken literally, they are declaring that science should dictate our interpretation of the Bible. Which means scriptural interpretation itself could later evolve along with secular scientific interpretations—which means one cannot declare that the Bible records absolute, unchanging truth.

God’s Word Is True, Not Confusing

Christians should have ultimate peace in their knowledge that they have been saved from their sin and are secure in their salvation, and they should understand that their faith is a rational one. The study of Christian apologetics is the rational defense of the faith, but apologetics becomes a fool’s errand under the premise that truth could change over time. Why defend something as true today that might not be true tomorrow?

However, Jesus (the living Word and second person of the Trinity), has told us that God’s Word is true and we can trust it.

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. (John 17:17–19)

From Adam’s rebellion to God’s book of Revelation, from Babel to Bethlehem, and from Creation to the Cross—God’s Word need not be confusing. Indeed, we can trust it from the very first verse.