NationStates Jolt Archive

Disclaimer: This thread has NOTHING to do with creationism. It is about the idea that some people have that there are two accounts in Genesis of the creation of Earth.

I hope this helps you understand... (http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html)

For people who think there are two Genesis creation accounts...

You mean most educated theologians?

You mean most educated theologians?

Had you bothered to read the site before you posted this?

I hope the following helps YOU understand.

www.geocities.com/paulntobin/creationist.html

Had you bothered to read the site before you posted this?

No, but I read it after. The lengths people will go to to get around something because they feel that they have to base their faith upon it (which is silly in and of itself) continues to amuse me.

My favorite is how the author "proves" that the two accounts were written by the same author with an "obvious" correlation, that is actually no more "obvious" than the Da Vinci Code (which I'm sure we can both agree is pretty silly and reading way too much into it).

It seems you can twist and turn any bible story to suit any need. Just argue semantics and grammar and you can make two separate stories with many differences agree. Truly this must be a divine book because it can support any argument one might want to make. Even contradictory ones.

You'd think that if god existed, was smarter than the average teenager, and had any ammount of power he could get his point accross much more clearly and unambiguously. Because of that the bible is, for me, evidence against god.

I hope the following helps YOU understand.

www.geocities.com/paulntobin/creationist.html

Link doesnt work

It seems you can twist and turn any bible story to suit any need. Just argue semantics and grammar and you can make two separate stories with many differences agree. Truly this must be a divine book because it can support any argument one might want to make. Even contradictory ones.

You'd think that if god existed, was smarter than the average teenager, and had any ammount of power he could get his point accross much more clearly and unambiguously. Because of that the bible is, for me, evidence against god.

Ok this is rather pathetic

You cant actually deal with what the website says so you resort to attacking the Bible in general. Very clever. :rolleyes:

I have found that whenever I have a deep theological question concerning Torah, it is infinitely better to turn to the Chassids for guideance.

Incidently, there are four recountings of Creation, not just two. ;) That's ok, though. I'll let it slide .... this time.

Incidently, there are four recountings of Creation, not just two. ;) That's ok, though. I'll let it slide .... this time.

In the Genesis text? That is not one I have heard before.

Disclaimer: This thread has NOTHING to do with creationism. It is about the idea that some people have that there are two accounts in Genesis of the creation of Earth.

I hope this helps you understand... (http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html)
I'll be honest, I only skimmed it, with my own copy of the source. I'm short on time. Anyway, I don't see how the author manages to dispute the idea that there are two separate accounts of creation in Genesis. He only (slightly) refutes the notion that they are contradictory.
Still, if you look at 2:5-7, there were no plants AND God formed man in the same sentence. If they were two different sentences they I'd be more willing to buy the notion of the author not neccesarily moving in chronological order.

Actually, it's more or less correct, the two are not directly contradictory.

Most of the "contradictions" occur from misuse, or misunderstanding of language structure itself. Forcing rules onlt language that do/didn't exist, or applying present structures to past forms, or mis-understanding the principle of word-usage.

Between widely divergent languages, differences occur in scope and relation of words. When translating its more important to look at context, and usage, as opposed to literal translation.

To take Koine Greek for example, in relation to english:

If I say I love my wife, or I love my brother, or I love God. I am always using the same english word. If I were speaking Koine Greek, I would use a different word for each of those....
I EROS my wife, I PHILEO my brother, I AGAPAO God.

While in english we may have different forms of words, which were the same word in another.... for example...

I have faith in God, I believe you.... We use different words... In Greek however

I have pistis in you. I pisteuo you. They are mere alterations of the word in accordance with usage (as verb, noun, adjective, etc.).

The problem with relying on the idea they are expressing seperate accounts, is that it is based upon an incorrect transliteration of the original language, according to modern usage (an etymological error).

The "two accounts" are accounts from seperate subjects. The subject of the first account is the creation of the universe by God.... The subject of the second, is God's creation of, and relation with Man... and continues into the Third Chapter in its topic of decussion and the fall (all relative to man)...

As with reading any other literature, its important to look at the usage of language, and the subject matter, then mere literal words being used.

If I were to say "Her beauty shines with much brilliance." Do you assume that I am saying that some woman actually produces "an extreme bright light" ? Or that her beauty actually produces "a exceptionally keen intelligence" ? Or are you going to pay attention to CONTEXT in narrative, as opposed to the LITERAL definition of a word?

Actually, it's more or less correct, the two are not directly contradictory.

Most of the "contradictions" occur from misuse, or misunderstanding of language structure itself. Forcing rules onlt language that do/didn't exist, or applying present structures to past forms, or mis-understanding the principle of word-usage.

Wait. So you are saying that people who have been studying these languages all of their lives are less aware of the structure than you are?

Meanwhile, would you agree that differences in writing style can be ascertained from word usage and sentence structure, regardless of what language is used? If you and I both write an essay on pretty similar topics, and we agree on most details, would a person who has studied our various writings not be able to surmise that they were written by different people?

Actually, it's more or less correct, the two are not directly contradictory.

Most of the "contradictions" occur from misuse, or misunderstanding of language structure itself. Forcing rules onlt language that do/didn't exist, or applying present structures to past forms, or mis-understanding the principle of word-usage.

Between widely divergent languages, differences occur in scope and relation of words. When translating its more important to look at context, and usage, as opposed to literal translation.

To take Koine Greek for example, in relation to english:

If I say I love my wife, or I love my brother, or I love God. I am always using the same english word. If I were speaking Koine Greek, I would use a different word for each of those....
I EROS my wife, I PHILEO my brother, I AGAPAO God.

While in english we may have different forms of words, which were the same word in another.... for example...

I have faith in God, I believe you.... We use different words... In Greek however

I have pistis in you. I pisteuo you. They are mere alterations of the word in accordance with usage (as verb, noun, adjective, etc.).

The problem with relying on the idea they are expressing seperate accounts, is that it is based upon an incorrect transliteration of the original language, according to modern usage (an etymological error).

The "two accounts" are accounts from seperate subjects. The subject of the first account is the creation of the universe by God.... The subject of the second, is God's creation of, and relation with Man... and continues into the Third Chapter in its topic of decussion and the fall (all relative to man)...

As with reading any other literature, its important to look at the usage of language, and the subject matter, then mere literal words being used.

If I were to say "Her beauty shines with much brilliance." Do you assume that I am saying that some woman actually produces "an extreme bright light" ? Or that her beauty actually produces "a exceptionally keen intelligence" ? Or are you going to pay attention to CONTEXT in narrative, as opposed to the LITERAL definition of a word?

I am inclined to agree with your statement that most contradictions, etc... within scripture (both the Creation stories, and other scripture) are rooted in linguistic inaccuracies, of one form or another... but there are areas where even the chronology of events is recounted differently, for example.

The fact that there are two 'independent' recountings of the Genesis mythology... focusing on different elements, pitched to different audiences... even pitched in different 'voices' - implies that there are two distinct versions of the same basic story being told.

They don't 'quite' agree, but that is almost an aside.... they are clearly two different accounts of the Creation.

Umm... to be honest, i have the feeling this kinda goes into the direction of Orwellian doublethink... :rolleyes:

I am inclined to agree with your statement that most contradictions, etc... within scripture (both the Creation stories, and other scripture) are rooted in linguistic inaccuracies, of one form or another... but there are areas where even the chronology of events is recounted differently, for example.

The fact that there are two 'independent' recountings of the Genesis mythology... focusing on different elements, pitched to different audiences... even pitched in different 'voices' - implies that there are two distinct versions of the same basic story being told.

They don't 'quite' agree, but that is almost an aside.... they are clearly two different accounts of the Creation.

Except, the second isn't a creation "Account", it's an "Account" of God's relation to man. "Creation" is an afterthought in the storyline. The main flux of the story is interrelation, and not creation. The subject of the story is totally different. The "assumption" is that of it being a "creation account" because it elludes to "creation"... But eluding towards something does not make it the subject. The subject is derived by overall context, not by word usage.

The first is certainly a "creation account"... "In the beginning God created...." an account... designed to be connsecutive... Operational caused and effects, and itemized list of "Creation".

The second deals with in the "day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens".... Day has a very nebulous meaning, as the word used. It can deal with diffentiating epochs or "ages".... So we're dealing with "Creation", but centered around the subject of "God making man" and his inter-relation with man, as occurs throughout the texts. Chapter 1, is like the "Foreword", where as "Chapter 2" and subsequent deals with men's relationship with God in a continuing story.

My argument is against the idea of "forcing accounts"... That is the false assumption both are "Accounts" of the same happening.... It's ignoring the context of each story to do so. Chapter 1 is an account of creation.... Chapter 2 isn't... Which is my point.... They are "seperate accounts" of seperate subject-criteria. But there is only "one account" of Creation (Chapter 1).

Except, the second isn't a creation "Account", it's an "Account" of God's relation to man. "Creation" is an afterthought in the storyline. The main flux of the story is interrelation, and not creation. The subject of the story is totally different. The "assumption" is that of it being a "creation account" because it elludes to "creation"... But eluding towards something does not make it the subject. The subject is derived by overall context, not by word usage.

The first is certainly a "creation account"... "In the beginning God created...." an account... designed to be connsecutive... Operational caused and effects, and itemized list of "Creation".

The second deals with in the "day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens".... Day has a very nebulous meaning, as the word used. It can deal with diffentiating epochs or "ages".... So we're dealing with "Creation", but centered around the subject of "God making man" and his inter-relation with man, as occurs throughout the texts. Chapter 1, is like the "Foreword", where as "Chapter 2" and subsequent deals with men's relationship with God in a continuing story.

My argument is against the idea of "forcing accounts"... That is the false assumption both are "Accounts" of the same happening.... It's ignoring the context of each story to do so. Chapter 1 is an account of creation.... Chapter 2 isn't... Which is my point.... They are "seperate accounts" of seperate subject-criteria. But there is only "one account" of Creation (Chapter 1).

Okay - Genesis 1 discusses the world being made.

Genesis 2 also discusses the world being made.

Thus, regardless of the 'focus', BOTH are accounts of the creation of the earth.

In fact, you are actually reinforcing the common perception of the Two Accounts argument... that one is a 'miraculous' text, talking about the miracle of creation, and the other is a more 'mundane' text, focusing on the nuts and bolts of the thing.

It still cannot be denied, however... that the two 'accounts' differ over the ORDER of Creation.

Okay - Genesis 1 discusses the world being made.

Genesis 2 also discusses the world being made.

Thus, regardless of the 'focus', BOTH are accounts of the creation of the earth.

In fact, you are actually reinforcing the common perception of the Two Accounts argument... that one is a 'miraculous' text, talking about the miracle of creation, and the other is a more 'mundane' text, focusing on the nuts and bolts of the thing.

It still cannot be denied, however... that the two 'accounts' differ over the ORDER of Creation.

Ok....


On the first day, I bought a car.

On the second day, I bought a new fender for the car.

On the third day, I bought a new sidepanel for the car.

On the third day, I bought a new radio for the car.



One day I bought a car, and then bought several parts.

I replaced the radio in the car, and then proceeded to install the a new sidepanel, because the old was rusted out. And put on a bumper, because the original was missing.


According to how you read, my two stories are contradictory accounts of me "buying a car".

Ok....
According to how you read, my two stories are contradictory accounts of me "buying a car".

Not at all.. a better example might have been:


On Monday, I bought a new car.

On Tuesday, I replaced the rusted wheels.

On Wednesday, I replaced the rotted tyres.

On Thursday, I drove it home.

versus:


First, I bought a new car. It was a pink volkswagen beetle. It is a 1973 model.

Then, I brought it home, to my house, in Kent... where I live with my three puppies and my wife of sixteen years. Her name is Susan.

Then, I replaced the wheels and tyres. Then I went to the pub.


See WHY these are contradictory accounts?

But - even if they were not contradictory, they are STILL two separate "Car" accounts.

When does Genesis mention cars?

Both of you, stop using irrelevant analogies and get back to the actual text.

Not at all.. a better example might have been:



versus:



See WHY these are contradictory accounts?

But - even if they were not contradictory, they are STILL two separate "Car" accounts.

I see, however, you're using seperate language structure, than what is used in Gen1 vs. 2.... And your still "assuming" creation, even though that is not the subject matter past the "first sentence"... Once again, subject matter is defined by context of the story....

What is the context of Genesis 1?

It is the "let their be"... creation story.... of each subsequent act.

What is the context of Genesis 2?

Man, his relation to God, the animals, and the "garden" God made for him.... NOT CREATION. 2:5,8-9 is enough evidence to deny Chapter 2 as a chronological account of Creation... 2:7-8,15-25 addresses the subject matter (the principle of the chapter)... which is man, relationship and God... Which contines throughout the rest of the entire book of Genesis.

Had you bothered to read the site before you posted this?

Yes. Have you? More importantly, have you looked at the REST of the site?

The site is avowedly Christian, which makes ANY conclusions there suspect. This isn't a bash on Christianity - I'd be just as suspicious of any religious "proofs" offered on, say, an Atheist's website. Remember, the advantage of the Interweb is being able to find information on nearly any topic - the disadvantage is that it's VERY difficult to tell if what you're reading is entirely factual, or a load of made-up nonsense.

In a case like this, where not only strict reading of the source text is necessary, as well as other literature AND an understanding of history, archeology, and prevalent culture of the time-period, it's best to go with people who are, you know, EXPERTS. Not someone who happens to have their own idea and ran with it. I could just as easily write on my web-site that the Bible "proves" the idea of alien abductions as stone-cold fact (and I'm dead-sure you could Google yourself an example of that), but that doesn't make it RIGHT.

Most educated theologians and archologists who deal in the field of Biblical history tend to assume that certain portions of the Bible are meant to be allegorical, or to make a point. Were the parables as Jesus presented them meant to be taken as literal stories, or as means to understand a concept?

The prevailing theory, whether you're religious or not, is that the "two story" version of Genesis stems from the Bible being a written document based on oral tradition that was thousands of years old (ask a Rabbi about it - considering the Old Testament was "theirs" in the first place, their opinions should hold a little weight). The reason two different versions were included was because the story was told slightly differently in Judah than it was in Israel.

So yes, in much the same way a certain fizzy soft-drink is known as SODA in the Northern US, but POP in the Southern US, the story of the Creation is a victim of regional differences. (PS - it's SODA. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. :p )

Does that make it incorrect? Well, that's a matter of faith. After all, there are DEVOUT Christians who also accept the concept of Evolution who will tell you the "seven-day" Creation is a metaphor, not meant to be taken literally - why should the differing accounts of that creation be any different?

...the Bible being a written document based on oral tradition that was thousands of years old...

Crap. Change that to "hundreds of years", not thousands. To be honest, people tend to assume the oral tradition was at least 500 years old or so, though no one really knows for sure when it all started.

When does Genesis mention cars?

Both of you, stop using irrelevant analogies and get back to the actual text.

I don't believe Genesis DOES mention cars... but a car is a fairly simplistic device (if you don't look too closely), and it is easy to work out where chronology leaves you on a car.

e.g. If the car has no wheels yet (in the order of 'creation'), then it cannot really go anywhere.

I see, however, you're using seperate language structure, than what is used in Gen1 vs. 2.... And your still "assuming" creation, even though that is not the subject matter past the "first sentence"... Once again, subject matter is defined by context of the story....

What is the context of Genesis 1?

It is the "let their be"... creation story.... of each subsequent act.

What is the context of Genesis 2?

Man, his relation to God, the animals, and the "garden" God made for him.... NOT CREATION. 2:5,8-9 is enough evidence to deny Chapter 2 as a chronological account of Creation... 2:7-8,15-25 addresses the subject matter (the principle of the chapter)... which is man, relationship and God... Which contines throughout the rest of the entire book of Genesis.

You agree that the chronology differs, and yet you use that contradiction as a way to show that Chapter 2 is not a 'chronological account of Creation'.

You are, of course, correct - both chronologies cannot be accurate - since there is a direct contradiction in the order of creation.

I'm not sure that it is safe to assume that the Genesis 1 account is necessarily the 'true' account, though... since that implies a flaw in the Genesis 2 account, and it is the Genesis 2 account that gives us all the details of our alleged 'state of grace'.

The fact remains, however, that these are, indeed, two different accounts of Creation. Two 'tellings' of the Creation story. The Genesis 1 account may be the much older account... as the Genesis 2 (and onwards) account seems to borrow heavily from other local mythologies.

We have two accounts, arguing over chronology, and with major stylistic differences. That seems enough to claim that "there are two Genesis accounts".

You agree that the chronology differs, and yet you use that contradiction as a way to show that Chapter 2 is not a 'chronological account of Creation'.

You are, of course, correct - both chronologies cannot be accurate - since there is a direct contradiction in the order of creation.

I'm not sure that it is safe to assume that the Genesis 1 account is necessarily the 'true' account, though... since that implies a flaw in the Genesis 2 account, and it is the Genesis 2 account that gives us all the details of our alleged 'state of grace'.

The fact remains, however, that these are, indeed, two different accounts of Creation. Two 'tellings' of the Creation story. The Genesis 1 account may be the much older account... as the Genesis 2 (and onwards) account seems to borrow heavily from other local mythologies.

We have two accounts, arguing over chronology, and with major stylistic differences. That seems enough to claim that "there are two Genesis accounts".

You missed my point. The language of the second, shows it is not written chronologically. I'm not arguing contradiction between the two. But to "assume" chronological relation in the second, makes the second contradict itself. No where is the second written in a chronological manner. Making the second "chronological", is reading into the language, something that is not there.

The very Language of Genesis Chapter 2 argues that it is not chronological. Also, the SUBJECTMATTER isn't creation (which you keep trying to force it as being), it is MAN, and his relationship with God. IE. It's not a "Creation Account".... Chapter 1 is, it's subject matter revolves around creation.

You might as well be agruing the subject matter of "A Tale of Two Cities" is time, because it mentions it in the first sentence... Your reading comprehension, to be blunt, sucks.

Let's see what the Catholics have to say on the matter: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/pentateuch.htm

The grandeur of this historic sweep is the result of a careful and complex joining of several historic traditions, or sources. These are primarily four: the so-called Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomic strands that run through the Pentateuch. (They are conveniently abbreviated as J, E, P and D.) Each brings to the Torah its own characteristics, its own theological viewpoint--a rich variety of interpretation that the sensitive reader will take pains to appreciate. A superficial difference between two of these sources is responsible for their names: the Yahwist prefers the name Yahweh (represented in translation as Lord) by which God revealed himself to Israel; the Elohist prefers the generic name for God, Elohim. The Yahwist is concrete, imaginative, using many anthropomorphisms in its theological approach, as seen, e.g., in the narrative of creation in Genesis 2, compared with the Priestly version in Genesis 1. The Elohist is more sober, moralistic. The Priestly strand, which emphasizes genealogies, is more severely theological in tone. The Deuteronomic approach is characterized by the intense hortatory style of Deuteronomy 5-11, and by certain principles from which it works, such as the centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple.

Two different stories, from two different oral traditions, recorded intact by a single editor. So saith the pope, and he is infallible. Just ask him. This is also a rare case in which the evidence supports a Christian position.

You missed my point. The language of the second, shows it is not written chronologically. I'm not arguing contradiction between the two. But to "assume" chronological relation in the second, makes the second contradict itself. No where is the second written in a chronological manner. Making the second "chronological", is reading into the language, something that is not there.

The very Language of Genesis Chapter 2 argues that it is not chronological. Also, the SUBJECTMATTER isn't creation (which you keep trying to force it as being), it is MAN, and his relationship with God. IE. It's not a "Creation Account".... Chapter 1 is, it's subject matter revolves around creation.

You might as well be agruing the subject matter of "A Tale of Two Cities" is time, because it mentions it in the first sentence... Your reading comprehension, to be blunt, sucks.

My 'reading comprehension sucks'?

Well, okay... I guess I don't have anything to combat such a well-reasoned and informed response.

Happy to "play this game" with you, while you were debating.

Now, that you have chosen to descend into the gutter, I'll leave you to play with yourself.

My 'reading comprehension sucks'?

Well, okay... I guess I don't have anything to combat such a well-reasoned and informed response.

Happy to "play this game" with you, while you were debating.

Now, that you have chosen to descend into the gutter, I'll leave you to play with yourself.

Grave, your being rather childish. You ignored his section above, where he explains why your comprension (in his opinion) sucks. You have here grasped at the only part of the point he made you had a chance to attack. Grow up and look at his arguement as opposed to his low level ad hommin (and to be frank, its rather petty of you to be offended by this, given the number of times you insult me. Of course I now expect a response from you saying why its somehow "right" to insult me)

Grave, your being rather childish. You ignored his section above, where he explains why your comprension (in his opinion) sucks. You have here grasped at the only part of the point he made you had a chance to attack. Grow up and look at his arguement as opposed to his low level ad hommin (and to be frank, its rather petty of you to be offended by this, given the number of times you insult me. Of course I now expect a response from you saying why its somehow "right" to insult me)

Childish? Grow up?

Interesting pep talk there, skippy.

If I had insulted you, you might have a point... but would that excuse the insults of others against me? Do two wrongs, in fact, make one right?

Regardless... the things you take as an insult "You haven't read the bible, Neo", or "You don't understand Hebrew"... are not insults.

Have you actually finished reading the bible yet? I find it peculiar that someone would argue scripture, WITHOUT having read it.

I was happily reading Tekania's post - and developing some responses to his(or her) points... and why I disagreed with them... until I came upon the little retort at the conclusion.

Arguing with my interpretation is one thing. Arguing with my translation is one thing.

But to imply that just because I disagreed, I must be somehow intellectually flawed? I have no time for that kind of discussion technique.

Are you REALLY sure that this is a technique you want to be showing support for?

Actually I believe there are two accounts because there were two creations.

The first creation was a spiritual creation of everything. the earth, plants, animals, mankind all have spiritual forms.

The second creation was the most obvious, the physical creation of all we see. This creation was built around the first (spiritual) creation.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies reborn]It seems you can twist and turn any bible story to suit any need. Just argue semantics and grammar and you can make two separate stories with many differences agree. [QUOTE]

You know, he's got a point there.
I mean IF there would be a second creation, nobody could really prove it right now, because the ways in which you can (mis)interprete the bible are just too many to get a clear picture without an argument.
So right now both positions ( 1 or 2) are both (more or less) supportable.
I myself ould rather hang on to only one creation. its way less confusing.
but if you want to fry your brain trying to prove 2 creations ........... :confused:

It seems you can twist and turn any bible story to suit any need. Just argue semantics and grammar and you can make two separate stories with many differences agree. Truly this must be a divine book because it can support any argument one might want to make. Even contradictory ones.

You'd think that if god existed, was smarter than the average teenager, and had any ammount of power he could get his point accross much more clearly and unambiguously. Because of that the bible is, for me, evidence against god.
Very true :fluffle:

Oh, great. One jewish fairy tale differs in it's fictional account of the creation of the Earth from another one, and you expect me to read a long account of how it's only the semantics that make the differences and nothing else.
My question would be what's the point?

Oh, great. One jewish fairy tale differs in it's fictional account of the creation of the Earth from another one, and you expect me to read a long account of how it's only the semantics that make the differences and nothing else.
My question would be what's the point?
The point would be creationists affirming that their “literal” belief in the creation story is founded in facts

The contradiction projects doubt on the validity of literal interpretation can be true (as there are two separate literal interpretations)

Just casts doubt on the story

The point would be creationists affirming that their “literal” belief in the creation story is founded in facts

The contradiction projects doubt on the validity of literal interpretation can be true (as there are two separate literal interpretations)

Just casts doubt on the story

Exactly. If you are claiming a source as a LITERAL explanation of how something happened...

...and it transpires that that source has TWO versions of the event, and they happen in slightly different fashion, depending on which account you read...

...it throws doubt on the LITERAL validity of the source.

Bahh... the author of this page has quite factual a style:

However, in stepped at this point a member of the Skeptic X school, who, having apparently found a copy in the street (it is hard to imagine any of them going to a library to look this sort of thing up)[...]

The other problem is:
Do I speak Hebrew?
Can I judge wether the author is right or not?
No, I cant, but even in my Catholic bible the annotations say that there ARE 2 Genensises.

Exactly. If you are claiming a source as a LITERAL explanation of how something happened...

...and it transpires that that source has TWO versions of the event, and they happen in slightly different fashion, depending on which account you read...

...it throws doubt on the LITERAL validity of the source.
Exactly :fluffle: mornin kind sir

Bahh... the author of this page has quite factual a style:

The other problem is:
Do I speak Hebrew?
Can I judge wether the author is right or not?
No, I cant, but even in my Catholic bible the annotations say that there ARE 2 Genensises.
Grave_n_idle can :p

Exactly :fluffle: mornin kind sir

Bonjour, mon ami. :)

:fluffle:

Exactly. If you are claiming a source as a LITERAL explanation of how something happened...

...and it transpires that that source has TWO versions of the event, and they happen in slightly different fashion, depending on which account you read...

...it throws doubt on the LITERAL validity of the source.

The question becomes whether or not it was ever meant to be literal. In the priestly version, it is rather obvious that the overall point is that God made the heavens and the earth and did so in a wonderous way. We are meant to be awed by God's power. The order and details are largely irrelevant.

The Yahwist story is supposed to tell us about our separation from God and speaks to a loss of innocence brought on by increased knowledge.

I've even heard interesting interpretations of the Cain and Abel story. If anyone has read Ishmael, My Ishmael, they'll have heard it. The basic idea is that the ancient Hebrews were a nomadic peoples. They were largely herders. And the tribal people's of the time sometimes squabbled over resources, but didn't really establish lands. As agrarian society rose, it became more stable and began attempting to conquer and civilize the nomadic societies around it, taking over more and more land. The nomadic peoples, of course, would have thought that their way of life - the herder way of life - was correct and more pleasing in the eyes of their God. They also would have seen the rising up of the agrarian society, not to get resources, but to totally wipe out their way of life, as being unprecedented and displeasing to God.

Of course, over time, the ancient Hebrews themselves became more agrarian, and the meaning of the story may have been lost. Even now, most kids hear the story and wonder why God didn't want Cain's offering - he was giving what he could, after all.

It shows that a reader can, if he or she chooses, interpret Genesis as shown by the author of the website. It fails, however, to show that it is the only possible interpretation, mainly because it is not trying to prove that it is the only possible interpretation.

By the way, I really likes the derisive remarks about skeptics. We are obviously intellectually unable to visit a library.

So what about all the other contradicitions in Genesis?

Genesis 2:4 says the heavens and the earth were made in one day.
'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.'

While Genesis 1:3-2:3 claim that it took six days.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

By the way, I really likes the derisive remarks about skeptics. We are obviously intellectually unable to visit a library.

The really funny part is that the idea of there being two Genesis accounts has been pretty well accepted in the theologian community for quite a while. Do they count as "sceptics"?

The Genesis account seems to give an accurate description of creation given the level of scientific knowledge at the time. Would make any sense to burden the people in those days with a full account of creation as we know it to be true today? Seems laughable to me. Genesis does describe the stages of creation just as science does today. The scientific accounts today give much more detail that is understandable by people today. Six thousand years ago this information would have been uncomprehensible to the people of that time.

What this means to me is the knowledge whether spiritual or scientific is progressive. It is revealed when people are able to understand. If we put aside the politics of religion and science and attempt to understand each other perhaps we can make a better world.

The really funny part is that the idea of there being two Genesis accounts has been pretty well accepted in the theologian community for quite a while. Do they count as "sceptics"?
There are three accounts of creation in the Bible. The third is Genesis 5:2.

There are three accounts of creation in the Bible. The third is Genesis 5:2.

*shrug* Ok. I wouldn't really call that a creation account. When I say creation account, I don't mean "creation was mentioned."

The Genesis account seems to give an accurate description of creation given the level of scientific knowledge at the time. Would make any sense to burden the people in those days with a full account of creation as we know it to be true today? Seems laughable to me. Genesis does describe the stages of creation just as science does today. The scientific accounts today give much more detail that is understandable by people today. Six thousand years ago this information would have been uncomprehensible to the people of that time.

What this means to me is the knowledge whether spiritual or scientific is progressive. It is revealed when people are able to understand. If we put aside the politics of religion and science and attempt to understand each other perhaps we can make a better world.
Um *raises hand*; what do we know more true today about the Creation than they did then? :confused:

*shrug* Ok. I wouldn't really call that a creation account. When I say creation account, I don't mean "creation was mentioned."
Neither do I.

Neither do I.

And yet you refer to Genesis 5:2, which is almost an exact repeat of Genesis 1:27 and 28, as a separate account?

Um *raises hand*; what do we know more true today about the Creation than they did then? :confused:

Our understanding of how life began from a purely scientific point of view has advanced leap and bounds, as has most if not all scientific knowledge, especially since about the mid to late 1800's.

If you mean religious Creation then you need to look at the Quran and the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

It seems you can twist and turn any bible story to suit any need. Just argue semantics and grammar and you can make two separate stories with many differences agree. Truly this must be a divine book because it can support any argument one might want to make. Even contradictory ones.

You'd think that if god existed, was smarter than the average teenager, and had any ammount of power he could get his point accross much more clearly and unambiguously. Because of that the bible is, for me, evidence against god.

The problem actually lies in the translation. It's because it can be translated in several ways, due to the translation process. The original isn't as unclear.

The problem actually lies in the translation. It's because it can be translated in several ways, due to the translation process. The original isn't as unclear.

In fact, according to those who can read Hebrew, the original makes it even more evident that we are looking at two accounts, written by two separate authors.

Here a commentary by a person who was at one time an important figure in a Christian Church, a Bishop I believe.


Man's upward movement out of spiritual incompleteness has its
parallel and antetype in the story of the gradual creation of the world in the six days. Until material evolution reached its climax in the birth of man, imperfection reigned everywhere over land and sea. Fishes existed and
ferns, and reptiles and birds, and the like; but there was as
yet no form capable of registering the higher spiritual impulses; the purpose for which creation had been undertaken was unattained and undiscernible; and it was not until long ages after the body of man appeared, that the meaning of the process at last became evident and material evolution achieved a perfect result.

The period of world history covered by the Bible corresponds
to the five and a half days in the creation story before the
appearance of man. As there was then everywhere on the planet
material imperfection and incompleteness, and nothing else;
so likewise has there been spiritual imperfection and
incompleteness on the planet from the time of Adam onward.
Shortcomings, errors, ignorances, sins have been rife and have
played their evil part at every stage of man's journey. The
goal, the end, the purpose of man's spiritual creation has not
yet taken visible shape and the hour is not come for God a
second time to rest from His labours.

But humanity is not at a standstill. Humanity is on the move.
As in distant ages material evolution swept forward in ordered
triumph till at length it achieved its crowning work in man,
so thereafter has spiritual evolution been sweeping
irresistibly forward all the world over to achieve its purpose
of developing a regenerate race of men who shall indeed be as
children of God.

Man from the beginning is made in the likeness of God and
his essential manhood never changes. But this likeness at
first is rudimentary. It is no more than an embryo.
*

(George Townshend, The Heart of the Gospel, p. 21)

And yet you refer to Genesis 5:2, which is almost an exact repeat of Genesis 1:27 and 28, as a separate account?
Yes --whether the difference is significant to you or not, it is a separate account. It is an accounting in a separate book, written by a different author, in a different voice, for a different purpose than the prior books of Genesis.

Yes --whether the difference is significant to you or not, it is a separate account. It is an accounting in a separate book, written by a different author, in a different voice, for a different purpose than the prior books of Genesis.

I believe the geneology accounts in the OT are generally attributed to the Priestly author - the author who is also attributed the first Genesis Creation account.

The question becomes whether or not it was ever meant to be literal. In the priestly version, it is rather obvious that the overall point is that God made the heavens and the earth and did so in a wonderous way. We are meant to be awed by God's power. The order and details are largely irrelevant.

The Yahwist story is supposed to tell us about our separation from God and speaks to a loss of innocence brought on by increased knowledge.

I've even heard interesting interpretations of the Cain and Abel story. If anyone has read Ishmael, My Ishmael, they'll have heard it. The basic idea is that the ancient Hebrews were a nomadic peoples. They were largely herders. And the tribal people's of the time sometimes squabbled over resources, but didn't really establish lands. As agrarian society rose, it became more stable and began attempting to conquer and civilize the nomadic societies around it, taking over more and more land. The nomadic peoples, of course, would have thought that their way of life - the herder way of life - was correct and more pleasing in the eyes of their God. They also would have seen the rising up of the agrarian society, not to get resources, but to totally wipe out their way of life, as being unprecedented and displeasing to God.

Of course, over time, the ancient Hebrews themselves became more agrarian, and the meaning of the story may have been lost. Even now, most kids hear the story and wonder why God didn't want Cain's offering - he was giving what he could, after all.

I totally agree about the differentiation between the Creation stories... and that is actually at the root of the debating I have been doing in this thread, although it has been implicit, rather than explicit.

I have not been arguing that there were two 'creations', only that there are two accounts... and that they are 'different' accounts. You obviously understand what the 'difference' was.

I have thought out the same basic idea about the Cain and Abel story... and am somewhat gratified to find that someone else has published it already, although they have deprived me of publishing revenue. :)

It follows on from the earlier part of the Creation myth - with the 'exile from the garden', which I see as being a poetic way of describing the loss of hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and replacing it with a semi-domesticated lifestyle... enabling the oppurtunity for 'specialisation' in the form of 'priest' classes.

I see another parallel in the Cain and Abel story, there - being the separation between the commanalty and the priesthood... with Abel representing the priests (hence, he understands the 'correct' sacrifice... the appeasement gift.... versus Cains more 'friendly' gesture).

Cain and Abel is probably my favourite bible story... I see so much in it. I even have a theory about why Cain is actually the favoured son...

I believe the geneology accounts in the OT are generally attributed to the Priestly author - the author who is also attributed the first Genesis Creation account.

Given the highly fractured chronology of the earlier portions of Genesis, I'm not sure how safe it is to try to assume the actual number of specific 'authors'. It does seem that, to a large extent, large sections of early Genesis are constructed from a mosaic of smaller texts. Perhaps to the point where indivdual chapters can not even be assumed to follow (in terms of creative input) from their immediate predecessor text.

Given the highly fractured chronology of the earlier portions of Genesis, I'm not sure how safe it is to try to assume the actual number of specific 'authors'. It does seem that, to a large extent, large sections of early Genesis are constructed from a mosaic of smaller texts. Perhaps to the point where indivdual chapters can not even be assumed to follow (in terms of creative input) from their immediate predecessor text.
It's also worth noting that the very first editor would have been working from oral traditions which were centuries old. None of it was written down until the end of the Babylonian Captivity.

I have thought out the same basic idea about the Cain and Abel story... and am somewhat gratified to find that someone else has published it already, although they have deprived me of publishing revenue. :)

You should pick up Ishmael and My Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Very good books with some interesting philosophical outlooks (some of which make more sense than others, of course).

You should pick up Ishmael and My Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Very good books with some interesting philosophical outlooks (some of which make more sense than others, of course).

Well, I am always interested in expanding my reading horizons. :)

So, I'll add them to 'the list'.

The best interpretation of the Bible is that given by the Spirit. Do not underestimate one who has not read the whole Bible. I have heard of (relatively) new Christians debating at the standard of Christians who have been dedicated for 25 years.

The best understanding of the Scripture is gained by having an understanding of the Creator Himself.

The best understanding of the Scripture is gained by having an understanding of the Creator Himself.

Only if your definition of 'best' is the same as everyone else's definition of 'most biased'.