It is unquestionable that the same Hebrew author _does_ use both of these names for God.――――They made far more account than we of the various senses of the several names for the Deity. The names Jehovah and Elohim, were not precisely identical in their suggested ideas, although both are legitimately used of the one true God. Elohim suggests that he is the Exalted, Eternal One, the Infinite Creator of all. This name is therefore specially appropriate in chap. 1. “Jehovah” conceives of him as the Immutable and ever faithful One, coming into covenant relation with his people as the Maker and the Fulfiller of promise. (See remarks on this as God’s memorial name in my Notes on Hos. 12: 5). Hence as the narrative in Gen. 2 and 3 brings God before the mind in these special relations to the first human pair and to the race, this name is here specially appropriate. But lest some might suppose that this Jehovah is thought of as another God than the Elohim of chap. 1――the writer uses both names――the Elohim who is also Jehovah to his rational creature man and especially to all his obedient trustful people. (2.) That Gen. 2: 7 relates to the creation of the same first man as Gen. 1: 26–28, and not of another man ages later, seems to me to admit of no rational doubt. The inducements to make out two distinct creations, _i. e._ of two different first men, come from the supposed proof of the existence of man on the earth ages before the Adam of antediluvian history. I propose to treat below this question of _the antiquity of man_. Let it suffice here to say that we must not mutilate the record or disregard the laws of philology for the sake of making the sacred narrative conform to theories which are yet rather assumptions than scientifically proven facts.――――As to the correspondences and variations in the two narratives of the creation of man, the first makes prominent his being created in the image of God: the second assumes this in the fact that God gave him law in Eden; in the knowledge of the lower animals which his naming them assumes; in the superior dignity which the Lord’s bringing them before him for names implies; and in the fact that among them all no helpmeet for him could be found. His nature ranked far above theirs.――――The earlier narrative says briefly that God “created them male and female.” The later one expands this fact much more fully and makes it the foundation for the law of marriage. The later record treats with the utmost brevity the main part of the six days’ work and must have been written with the previous record before the mind, to be a supplementary and continuative history, designed to bring out prominently the creation of woman and the scenes of the garden, its moral trial and ultimately its results.――――The supposition of a different Adam from that of the former record could never have occurred to the Hebrew mind, and therefore can not be accepted as the sense of the passage.