There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
| The divine comedy|
| Light iron-age reading|
|Gabbin' with God|
Creation Week is the week in which Biblical literalists believe God created all that exists. According to the first version, the work was done over six literal days, and began possibly on the evening before Oct 23, 4004 BCE with the seventh day being a day of rest.  No timescale is given for the second version. They are both described in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis. As Biblical literalists have a fondness for the King James version, all references here are to that edition.
Perhaps owing to its placement at the beginning of the Book of Genesis and its role as a creation story for the Abrahamic religions, the account of God creating the world in a week is one of the most famous parts of the Bible. However, the story—if taken literally—is incompatible with a vast preponderance of paleontological findings, and this has led to considerable disagreement between Young Earth Creationists and scientists.
Consequences of two contradictory creation stories
You would think that the existence of two contradictory creation stories would be a problem for believers in full biblical literalism and young-Earth creationists - it's practically the running joke of Biblical literalism. They seem to have no problem with it, as long as you accept at least one version. Those who take it allegorically clearly don't have this problem.
Apologists do exist who attempt to reconcile these two contradictory accounts. Since ancient Hebrew didn't distinguish between the simple past tense and the pluperfect tense, they choose to render Genesis 2:19 as "Now Yahweh God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky," implying that this act had already taken place before Adam was created, back in verse 7. This is kind of hard to swallow, considering that in verse 18 God said "I will make a helper suitable for him" and then Adam searched for a helper among the animals in verses 19 and 20, implying that God decided to create the animals after Adam already existed so that he'd have a pool of potential helpers to choose from. Also, the Bible does seem to have a certain form corresponding to pluperfect; notably used at the beginning of Genesis 39(40 in Hebrew), where "Joseph had been taken down to Egypt", but it seems to be absent in this case.
Meanwhile, legitimate Biblical scholars, i.e., the ones who aren't confined to asserting it as an accurate historical document, seem to view it as a curiosity that might show how the Bible was written. The addition of chapter and verse numbers to the Bible was a recent invention. While sections, chapters and divisions were often used, the standard version we see today didn't evolve outright until around 1590. Even then, it wasn't until the 19th Century that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were really considered "separate".
In terms of writing style, Genesis 1 is like a procedural framework while Genesis 2 is a more continuous narrative. When taken together some suggest that the second story is closer to an edited commentary on the first, rather than a complete revision — though the differing time sequences for the creation of Adam and Eve and everything else make this solution problematic.
In fact, in the original languages, the names used for God differed between the two contradictory stories (plural Elohim in Genesis 1, singular Yahweh in Genesis 2), indicating with near certainly different origins for the stories. Out of the two, the first one seems to be heavily influenced by Mesopotamian or Egyptian mythology, since these are the regions where life is connected to the annual overflow and receding of large rivers, and Genesis 1 describes a flooded earth from which the water recedes in order to make life possible. The second one, however, seems to be influenced by local mythology, since Genesis 2 states that the land was barren because there was no rain, and Canaan is the one place in the area where rain is important. In the so-called "framework interpretation", the second story may be considered as close to a literal narrative as necessary, while the first is a priestly account of creation used to emphasize the Sabbath and God's involvement with the creation of the world. The followers of this interpretation would claim that this resolves conflict with science because they claim the literal seven days are an allegorical account; young earth creationists reject this for precisely that reason.
- Young Earth Creationists believe the creation literally took place in 6 days ending on Oct 23, 4004 B.C.E., or some other absurdly late date such as "within the last 10,000 years".
- Old Earth Creationists believe a wide variety of things but generally don't believe that the 6 days refer to a 24 hour time period and happened 6-10,000 years ago.
- Rationalists and sensible Christians tend to accept the evidence for the theory of evolution and the big bang theory.
- Alternatively, according to Day-Age Creationism, creation happened over six undefined periods of time or figurative days.