The account of creation found in the second chapter suggests the
simple, direct ideas of a primitive people; while the account in
Genesis 1 has the exact, repetitious, majestic literary style of a
legal writer. Are the differences between these two accounts of
creation greater than those between the parallel narratives in the
Gospels? We recognize that the differences in detail between the
Gospel accounts of the same event are due to the fact that no two
narrators tell the same story in the same way. Are the variations
between the two Biblical accounts of creation to be similarly
explained? A growing body of Biblical scholars hold, though many
differ in judgment, that the account in the first chapter of
Genesis was written by a priestly writer who lived about four
hundred B.C., and the second account four hundred years earlier by
a patriotic, prophetic historian.
Observe that the two accounts agree in the following fundamental
teachings: (1) One supreme God is the Creator; (2) man is closely
akin to God; (3) all else is created for man's best and noblest
development.
Is the primary aim of these accounts to present scientific facts or
to teach religious truths? Paul says in Timothy that "Every
scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in
righteousness." Is their religious value, even as in the parables
of the New Testament, entirely independent of their historical or
scientific accuracy? Is there any contradiction between the
distinctive teachings of the Bible and modern science? Do not the
Bible and science deal with two different but supplemental fields
of life: the one with religion and morals, the other with the
physical world?