Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was talking with someone recently and the question was raised as to when Eve was created. I immediately replied that she was created on the sixth day, albeit later in the day than Adam. One person seemed surprised by that concept. It appears that there are two positions on this.

What, then, is the basis for the belief that Eve was not created on the sixth day, but on a later day?

share|improve this question
    
You have two of these. Are both of them the same question? –  Jesse Jul 7 at 19:48
    
@Jesse One for each position –  Narnian Jul 7 at 20:01
    

4 Answers 4

The Biblical basis for claiming that Eve was created after the sixth day is one from inference instead of literalism.

The account in Genesis 1 starts with all the creatures first, then man on the sixth day. Chapter two continues on describing a different time of creation, or a smaller, second creation, if you will.

The story in Genesis two has Adam created separately, then God places him in the garden (verse 15). Then God decides that Adam should not be alone so he brings all the beasts to Adam to name them. Because of the wording, some literalists say that God made separate beasts right in front of Adam to be named; Adam then names all of them (verses 19-20).

Adam found none of the beasts suitable for his helpmate, so God put him into a sleep then made Eve from his rib (verses 21 -22).

The inference is that naming all the beasts would take a good deal of time. Even assuming that there were less kinds then there are today, seeing all of them, examining them, then deciding a name for all of those kinds would surely take longer than a day. Unless God brought the beasts to Adam in rapid fire succession, and Adam named them just as quickly, literalists holding this position insist that the event took a long time, much longer than a day.

Proponents of this view must neglect a literal reading of these verses, however. The final verse in Genesis 1, declaring the close of the sixth day, unmistakably puts the creation of mankind then. Takers of this view simply state that they are two separate stories with two separate lessons and neither is necessarily literal or more valid than the other.

share|improve this answer
    
I agree with the above, but I disagree about being "literal of more valid than the other". As Scripture cannot contradict itself, reading Genesis 2, in verses 5-6 God waters the earth and causes the plants to grow. We read this in Genesis 1:11-12, on the third day. As such, it's literal and valid enough to say that the Genesis 2 account of Adam and Eve's creation, in fact, took place on the very same day - Day 6 - unless somehow there was a woman before Eve, which contradicts Eve being the mother of mankind. –  Jesse Jul 7 at 20:52
1  
@Jesse The depends on how you define mankind, I think. There are views on this that say there were people created before Adam and Eve, but Adam and Eve were personally created by God. They were deemed special, just like the people Israel. –  fredsbend Jul 7 at 20:56
    
I'd completely agree with you here, however Scripture tells us Adam was in fact the FIRST man in 1 Corinthians 15:45. While it could very well be a language discrepancy, I find that harder to believe than Adam not being the first. The Hebrew אָדָם does have different variations (mankind, man, man/woman, and male) - to my limited knowledge of Greek, such an issue is not the case. So we can affirm through Paul that Adam was, in fact, the very first man. I used to think there were people created beforehand too. The more I learned, the more I knew I suppose. –  Jesse Jul 7 at 21:04
1  
@Jesse Again, that depends on how you define man. "Adam was the first man that God personally communed with." That might be what they would say. Just like Israel was the first people God communed with. Like most theologically opposing thoughts, this comes down to definitions. –  fredsbend Jul 8 at 0:00
    
+1 regarding the naming of the beasts. This is the only salient argument I've ever heard in support of the inference that Genesis 2 either happened later or that the whole account is metaphorical in some way and is not to be taken literally. –  mojo Jul 8 at 3:57

The reason some people believe Eve was created on a later date is because they interpret Genesis 2 to be chronologically after Genesis 1. This is not what the author intends, as Genesis 2 is a retelling of the events in Genesis 1 with greater detail. Modern literature is almost always written in chronological order so this retelling can confuse people--but Genesis 2 is not a chapter of events following Genesis 1, but a retelling of it.

Genesis 2:5-7 ESV When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

In verses 5-7 he's talking about the state of the world before he created man on day 6. Look at the verses immediately following these:

Genesis 2:8-9 ESV And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[more detail about the rivers and gold and stuff]

Genesis 2:18 ESV Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

Verses 10-18 talk about various rivers, gardens, and lands, and it's not until verse 18 that a helper suitable for Adam is mentioned. This, again, is just a retelling of chapter 1 with a different emphasis on detail. Those that don't realize it's a retelling but think it to be a compounding sequence of events may easily reach the conclusion that Eve was created long after Adam.

It is worth saying, however, that this viewpoint causes a contradiction with Genesis 1 which states that mankind, male and female, were made on Day 6.

Genesis 1:27,31 ESV So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them ... And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

share|improve this answer
    
As I said to Jesse, "they misinterpret Genesis 2" is not an answer to this question. –  fredsbend Jul 8 at 18:52
    
@fredsbend There's more to my answer than what you point out. That I'm saying they're wrong to interpret it as such is just some extra little bonus information I provide along with my main answer, which is very similar to yours. –  LCIII Jul 8 at 18:57
    
Your last sentence clearly says: "When people incorrectly believe that Genesis 2 is a narrative of events immediately following Genesis 1 they could easily reach the conclusion that Eve was created a different day than Adam." You've also now added "they interpret Genesis 2 to be chronologically after Genesis 1--which would be an incorrect analysis." The question specifically asks for how proponents of this view support it Biblically. It does not ask for the view on why that is wrong, which is what your answer sets out to do. –  fredsbend Jul 8 at 19:09
    
@fredsbend Yeah--it would be scopecreep wouldn't it. And even though it's technically out of scope to say "btw this viewpoint is bad exegesis" I still think it's worth noting. –  LCIII Jul 8 at 19:22
    
That's the point I'm making though. It's not just a point in an otherwise good answer. It is your answer. There is nothing else there. It is perfectly acceptable to note the issues with a particular interpretation, but only after you have made the points that support it. You haven't made any points that support it, which is what the question asked for. –  fredsbend Jul 8 at 19:29

It is more than likely that Eve was taken from Adam after the sixth day. The clues can be gleaned from the Timeline:

Dry land Earth > Man fashioned + Gan Eden planted > Man borne to Gan Eden + Trees from the ground in Gan Eden > Man alone > living creatures as helpmate, from ground in Gan Eden > No suitable helpmate > Eve from Man in Gan Eden.

God made the dry land Earth on the third day.1 From that earth, he fashioned man on the sixth day.2 [And] the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, on the same day or _ day? The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it on the same day or _ day.3 [And] from the ground in the garden of Eden, God made the trees from which man could eat from, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.4 This was on the _ day.

... some time elapses ...

After deciding to make a helper fit for him, God made from the ground in Eden, every living creature that Adam was later to name.5 This was on the _ day.

... some time elapses ...but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. cf. [Gn 2:20]

Finally God takes Eve from Man on the _ day.

There isn't enough information to fill in the blanks and the timeline strongly indicates that Eve was taken out of Man, in Gan Eden, after the sixth day [Adam from dry land Earth].


1. [cf. 1:9-13]↩

2. [cf. Gn 1: 26-31 & Gn 2:7]↩

3. [cf. Gn 2:8, 15]↩

4. [cf. Gn 2:9]↩

5. [cf. Gn 2: 18-19]↩

share|improve this answer
    
@Narnian What do you think? –  FMS Jul 18 at 0:53

As far as I have ever been taught or aware, both were created on the sixth day - as written in Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

As far as the reasoning, my best guess (as well as a net search) is that it was misread when reading the account in the Garden,

share|improve this answer
    
"it was misread" That's not what the question asked for, though. –  fredsbend Jul 7 at 19:57
    
The question asked for the basis of the belief - and the basis of the belief is misreading the events of Genesis 1:27-31 and Genesis 2:20-22 as being separate points in time, when following Scripture shows that these events take place on the same day. –  Jesse Jul 7 at 20:08
    
That's what you say. Proponents holding this position insist they are right and you are misreading it. The question asked for how proponents of this position explain their views. –  fredsbend Jul 7 at 20:10

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.