A single creation account

The following was borrowed from the following site:
http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm

it show the authors lack of biblical knowledge and desperate attempt to make the book of Genesis into a myth.
_____________________________________________________
Two Creation Stories

This is the first clue that we are not dealing with literal narratives here. When the book of Genesis was put together, the compiler had a number of sources, and, clearly, at least two Creation stories. And it didn't matter too much to him that they were contradictory. Clearly, therefore, the truth he was concerned about communicating was not the simple factual description of how the universe came into being. He had other fish to fry. If both accounts are true, then they are not true in a literal sense.

I want to say a few words about another Red Herring here. This Red Herring is the tense of the verb 'make' in Genesis 2 v 19. Here God makes the animals - after man, in direct contradiction of the first Creation story, which says man was made last. Claiming that the verb can be pluperfect 'had (already) made' (as indeed the NIV translates it) does not answer the criticism. The motivation for the making of the animals is clearly stated in verse 18 - God wants to make a suitable companion for the Man He has made. This is a classic case of literalism suffering the death of a thousand qualifications. The clear obvious reading of the second Creation story is that God makes the earth, then Man, then the animals to be his companions, then finally the Woman because none of the animals are suitable. There is no escaping the fact that this contradicts the first Six Day story, except by doggedly insisting that both have to be literally true and tying ourselves in knots twisting the text to fit that supposition. By contrast, a figurative interpretation of the text requires no twisting, no qualification and frees us to understand what the text is realy saying.

Now, it's often said that the presence of two creation stories is a mere invention by us dodgy types to 'discredit' the historicity of the Genesis narratives. Only when we were seduced by evolutionists did we start to see this supposed contradiction, notwithstanding the obvious differences. Well, this is simply not the case. If it were so, then how was it that the German minister H B Witter first proposed the idea that the two stories had different authors as far back as 1711? How was it that Jean d'Astruc picked up on this work in 1753, identifying four sources in the book of Genesis? Earlier still the obvious discrepancies had been noted, and usually put down to the real meaning of the accounts not being the literal one. (See Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorised Version, Viking, 1991).


So what does the bible really say?

Perhaps the author ought to read the verses again.

In one verse we have the animals then mankind created.
In the other we have Adam, then animals then Eve.

What the author fails to tell you is that mankind wasn't established with just the creation of Adam. Eve was necessary.

So in both verses, Animals were created prior to Mankind..no contradiction.

Such a simple answer.


_______________________________________

Now from the above web page:

The motivation for the making of the animals is clearly stated in verse 18 - God wants to make a suitable companion for the Man He has made. This is a classic case of literalism suffering the death of a thousand qualifications. The clear obvious reading of the second Creation story is that God makes the earth, then Man, then the animals to be his companions, then finally the Woman because none of the animals are suitable.

According to the Theistic Evolutionary sect the bible mentions or hints at evolution in the following verses:

Gen 1:11 And the earth brought forth...
Gen 1:24 Let the earth bring forth...
Gen 2:7 Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground...

It's obvious if God created man in his image by using evolution then Adam had to have had male and female "cousins" that were very similar to him.

So, if Adam had others living near, around or with him then why did God in Gen 2:18 say;
"It is not good for man to be alone, I will make him a helper suitable for him"?
Why did God in verse 21 and 22 then need to form a woman from Adams rib if there were other females around?

This seems to be quite a contradiction that the Theo-Evo sect needs to explain.

Actually, that is not a bad question. The answer, I would think, would be either that, assuming that Adam and Eve were individuals, having infused Adam with a soul, he would have to infuse an Eve with a soul as well in order for her to be a true companion.

If Adam and Eve were "types" for Mankind as as whole (Adam) and for man (Adam) and woman (Eve), then the passage would mean that God wanted the male of the species to have a helpmeet and companion with the same special relationship to God, which the other animals did not have.

I would think Eve was infused with her soul as she was being formed from Adams rib.
The bible is silent on when Eve received her soul.

Very true. It is silent on a lot of things. I honestly don't know exactly how all that went down, and it would be foolish to dogmatically state that a particular concept is necessarily correct. What we know is that the world is old and that evolution occured. It could even be that God specially created a particular Adam and Eve as the first and only h. Sapiens. Although we have a very convincing fossil record of hominids leading right up to h. Sapiens, it could be that God created them specially right there rather than have them evolve. I am not sure why he would do this, and it would seem a little deceitful, but who am I to judge? Regardless, the point is that dogmatism has no place in origins with so much left to understand.

The sliding progression of Creationism I have posted before shows the futility of taking dogmatic positions only having to retract it and retrench in a bunker further back, which makes the whole belief less convincing.

No vance, we dn't know that the earth is old and that evolution occured.
The fossils that we find are of contemporanious animals buried during the flood of Noah.

The bible is quite clear that evolution was NOT the means of which God createds.

Actually, the Bible points to something other than an instentaneuos creation of man, separate and apart from anything else. The Bible does tell us that God created man from the 'ground', from the 'dust'. What does this imply? Does anyone other than me see the parallels here?

You should have read post 2 in this thread.
The parallel yoou are suggesting has already had a question asked of it.

Well, I'm glad you read my article, although I could have done without the personal attack on my Biblical knowledge.

Let's take a look at your questions:

No. The Genesis 1 story is very clear. God makes the animals, and then makes mankind - male and female. After creating the animals, God says "Now let us make mankind in our image". It seems a bit of a wriggle to say that means God completed the creation of mankind by making the woman to add to the man he'd done earlier, before the animals. Only a prior commitment to harmonisation will actually support this interpretation.

Moreover, it obscures the theological point of the Genesis 1 narrative - the six days have shown a consistent progression of preperation for the pinnacle of God's creation - which is mankind. He gets everything ready first, then finally puts the flake in the ice cream - mankind. That is the point of the Genesis 1 story.

Naturally, if you take the first part figuratively and then suddenly switch to a literal reading for Genesis 2:18ff, then you're going to run into problems!

Again, the point of the story of the creation of woman is theological - man is not complete on his own, and the suitable companion for him is not some creature lower in the created order than him, but rather an equal sharing his entire nature.

__________________
I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race
Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face
I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed
But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead

I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears
I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun

You need a male and female...to reproduce.

Eve was the completion of mankind...with out Eve, no mankind.