2 different creation stories?

[Thunderchild]

Jimbo, in two other threads (dealing with Bible contradictions) on this site, I have posted the response to the issue of the "opposed accounts" of creation in Genesis.

The answer is as follows.

According to Genesis chapter 1, God created the plants and animals (including birds), then he created man.

According to Genesis chapter 2, God created man before there were any plants or birds on the face of the Earth.

Now, make a synopsis of the recorded information in the Bible.

First God created the plants and the birds, then he created man. Man was created before there were any plants or birds on the face of the Earth.

Is this statement logically inconsistent? Not in the least. Replace "God" with "Henry Ford" ... Replace "plants and birds" with "assembly line" ... Replace "man" with "Model T Ford" .... Replace "the Earth" with "Canada". ...

The result: "First Henry Ford created the assembly line, then he created the Model T Ford. The Model T Ford was created before there were any assembly lines on the face of Canada." Far from being logically inconsistent, this second account is a statement of Historical Fact.

Now, it may be that the Biblical account is wholly unbelievable (though why it should be considered unbelievable for Eden to be in heaven rather than on Earth I do not understand) ... it may be, as I say, thoroughly absurd, but it is NOT logically inconsistent.

 

[Thunderchild]

In Joshua 10:13, the children of Israel are avenging themselves on their enemies. The Bible says that THE SUN STOOD STILL and hasted not to GO DOWN about a whole day.

Isaiah 38:8 says THE SUN RETURNED ten degrees by which degrees it was GONE DOWN.

Oh I see.... And what terms are commonly used for such phenomena as dawn and dusk? Last I noticed - the sun (subjectively) rises and sets. If I use those terms, I certainly don't expect anyone to believe that I am speaking of the empirical conditions, nor do I expect anyone to think that I am unaware of the empirical conditions.

The same applies to the concept of heaven as being "up." - With relation to Earth, based on eye-witness accounts, heaven is "up." (In my view it is, in empirical terms, more likely to be at right angles to the dimensions we know. The "other dimensions" so beloved of Science Fiction authors seem to have some theoretical support in science.)

It is my understanding (though I could be mistaken) that the world was know to be a globe prior to the dark ages: that knowledge being lost in the chaos and superstition following the invasions of the civilised world by certain less-than-acceptably behaved persons in the first place, and less-than-Christian church men in the second.

 

[Thunderchild]

On a whim, I just typed "diameter Earth" into the google search thingy....

Less than a second later, the result returned....

A papyrus from 230 B.C. :
Eratosthenes Finds Diameter of Earth!



Alexandria: Eratosthenes peered into a well
here at noon and came up with the diameter and
circumference of our planet! The summer solstice
sun and a trip to Syene was all it took...........

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Zadok


Trying to be the hero arn't we? What buisiness is it of yours. This is the type of thing right wing fundamentalists do when they want to harrass and stalk you.

Kinda like when abortion clinics were routinely being bombed and abortion doctors shot to death at their breakfast table by fundamentalists committed to their cause...

Zadock? Why the paranoia.. I guess I could have just offered to help him write a letter to the teacher, and a follow-up to the school board if necessary... bad biology teachers flouting the constitution need to have something said to them.

{edited to add:

On top of that, a name and a school gives me something I can check out... just on the off chance that this is another one of those urban myths being retold - or even in the making... }

 

[randman]

Why am I not surprised that a teacher can bring in the Bible to slam it all day long, but God forbid a student bring a Bible, or the teacher talk about Jesus. Then, the ACLU and the whole horde of godless atheists come down like a pack of hyenas.

Your teacher is out of his league on Genesis. It is myth created by those wanting to denigrate the Bible.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Jimbo,

If your story is true, then your civil rights are being violated. If you cannot find a remedy by bringing this to the attenton of your teacher or the school adminstration, you can ask for help from the ACLU by filling out and mailing in this form:

http://www.aclu-ky.org/LegalAssistanceRequestForm.htm

If you do choose to take any action, whether it be confronting the teacher, reporting this action to the school administration, or to the local school board, or (if all else fails) contacting the ACLU, I hope you will let us know, and let us know how it all comes out.

On the other hand, if the teacher is not doing Biblical interpretation in your biology class, but merely mentioning that there are ideas about creation that come from interpreting the Bible or other religious texts, he isn't violating your civil rights.

If that is the case, the only complaint I can think of is, if he spends too much time on discussing the non-scientific ideas about life, that he is wasting your time.

Either way, let us know how it comes out!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by kern

As for your "grade school reading comprehension", it is you who are torturing the text.

Which part did I torture? For example, the part that says God made animals from the ground or the part that says God made animals from the ground? I just want to know how I managed to torture that part in response to the claim that the Bible says God made them out of water.

The first account clearly says that animals were created before humans. Now, we see in the chapter 2 account that in verse 18 God says "it is not good that the man should be alone, I will make him a helper as his partner." Then in verse 19, it says "So (i.e. because of this reason), out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field..."

How can this second account be read as matching completely with the first one? I don't latch on to the other supposed differences, but in 1 it clearly says that animals were created before man, and in 2 the man is created before the animals.

Let's see what it clearly says:

18 The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

You seem to want to interpret version 19 as telling of a new order of creation of animals. That's ridiculous. Verse 19 CLEARLY refers back to what God did (as if to say, "Now, as you will recall, God had formed out of the ground...").

Why would it bring up the issue of animals at this point? Simple. It illustrates that even though Adam was perfectly "friendly" with the animals (obviously there was no fear of Adam since, after all, God brought each one of them to Adam so that Adam could name them), they weren't appropriate helpers for him. WHICH IS WHAT THE TEXT SAYS IN THE FIRST PLACE (duh). So you understand by verse 21 why God needed to make AN APPROPRIATE HELPER (note the singular here) for him.

I was looking for something tasty with which to make a sandwich. I bought some bologna, but I don't like bologna sandwiches. So I made some tuna salad.

If it were up to you, the above quote MUST be understood to mean that I bought the bologna AFTER I decided to look for something tasty. That isn't likely to be the case even without adding any more detail -- why, for example, would I go out and buy bologna when I'm hungry if I don't like bologna?!? Likewise, if God is all-knowing, then why would he create animals specifically for the purpose of being a singular helper (you'd think that'd be enough of a clue for any reader) for Adam if he knew in advance that they wouldn't be suitable?

I think it was Corporal Hicks in Aliens who said, "You ain't readin' it right."

 

[RufusAtticus]

I think some of us have been jumping to conclusions. Jimbo hasn't given us enough information to go on.

I appears that the teachers comments were within a discussion about creation mythology from around the world. In college, that topic came up in my evolutionary biology class to dispell notions that creation/evolution is an "either-or" explaination. We do not know if students had been arguing with the teacher about the errors of evolution or if this was some sort of free day at the end of the year.

There are two separate and different creation stories in Genesis. That is not some atheist biblical revisionism, but an observation put forth by Christians, Jews, etc. to suport the contention that much of the Old Testament is a merging of two distinct Jewish traditions, the Priestly and Yahwist. It appears to me that the teacher's question is probaly meant to get the students to understand that special creation is a religious explaination with all the baggage that comes along with that and that evolution is a scientific explaination with all the baggage that comes along with that. The teacher might have been attacking Christianity or he might have not. Without being in that classroom or knowing the teacher and students, we can't tell.

 

[kern]

Originally posted by npetreley


You seem to want to interpret version 19 as telling of a new order of creation of animals. That's ridiculous. Verse 19 CLEARLY refers back to what God did (as if to say, "Now, as you will recall, God had formed out of the ground...").

In the translation you provided, I agree. "Now God had created..." means that the creation was already done.

However, the NRSV says "So out of the ground God created..." which means that in response to the statement in the previous verse, God proceeded to create the animals. I suppose we need a Hebrew scholar, or maybe just a consensus of translations.


And to rufus: Good post, I'm glad someone else agrees with me.

-Chris

 

[randman]

Kern, have you ever thought that perhaps Genesis 2 should be read in the context of Genesis 1 instead out of context. You can only make it into 2 stories by taking the text out of context. It is obviously part of one book. Presumably the author did not intend to contradict himself, right? The obvious logical answer is to read Genesis 2 in the context of Genesis 1.

What you ar e doing is basically like stating Jesus wants people to hate their parents because he taught to love God more and take His statements out of context.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by kern

However, the NRSV says "So out of the ground God created..." which means that in response to the statement in the previous verse, God proceeded to create the animals. I suppose we need a Hebrew scholar, or maybe just a consensus of translations.

I'm not a Biblical Hebrew scholar, but I can decipher the Biblical Hebrew with the help of some books on Biblical Hebrew that I have. As far as I can see, there's nothing about the text that implies 2:19 should be translated as "So" or "Therefore" or as any other direct response.

Frankly, I trust that more than a consensus of translations, but if it helps, I looked up the verse in 7 translations and NONE of them used the word "So".

 

[kern]

Originally posted by randman
It is obviously part of one book.

Even though textual criticism always says this is two accounts, J and P? It's not just because of this one contradiction that people came to this conclusion. You also study style, theological statements, etc. This is not just some decision arrived at in 2 minutes by some guy who said "Hey, there's a contradiction, must be two different stories!"

-Chris

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

There are two separate and different creation stories in Genesis. That is not some atheist biblical revisionism, but an observation put forth by Christians, Jews, etc. to suport the contention that much of the Old Testament is a merging of two distinct Jewish traditions, the Priestly and Yahwist.

Let me preface my response by saying that I believe there ARE at least two different perspectives represented in the text, which could be reasonably called the Preistly and Yahwist perspectives. There are also people who think three perspectives are in there, the third being "Elohist."

Now -- where did the idea come from that the Torah is the result of combined texts? Here's the whole body of evidence: People hypothesized that the reason you can see multiple perspectives interwoven into the text is because someone actually wove different texts together, and they extracted what they thought was the original text from the Torah to create the "originals."

That's it. People imagined it to be true.

Does that mean it didn't happen? Darned if I know. It is certainly possible that some interweaving took place. Whether or not it was to the extent claimed is another factor that nobody could possibly know without the true originals. So, IMO, unless someone can produce the true original documents (not the hypothesized originals), it's just fanciful dreaming. It makes just as much sense to me that God would reveal certain aspects of His character throughout the Torah, and make sure that these aspects were alternately represented as needed in the text.

It is certainly true that the people who believe this theory includes Christians and Jews. But IMO that does not lend any credibility to the theory. If it's right, it's right. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

What I find most fascinating is that it is the evolutionists on this board who seem most likely to believe in the multiple source theory.

Should I be surprised? Look at the support for this theory:

1. There is no hard evidence (original documents) to substantiate the theory, only the scholar's imagination.

2. They assign the theory credibility based on the types of scholars who proposed it.

That's the same type and amount of support for evolution, so it makes perfect sense.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by kern


Even though textual criticism always says this is two accounts, J and P? It's not just because of this one contradiction that people came to this conclusion. You also study style, theological statements, etc. This is not just some decision arrived at in 2 minutes by some guy who said "Hey, there's a contradiction, must be two different stories!"

-Chris

The idea that there was more than one story behind the text had nothing to do with contradictions -- not even "apparent" contradictions.

 

[kern]

Originally posted by npetreley


Now -- where did the idea come from that the Torah is the result of combined texts? Here's the whole body of evidence: People hypothesized that the reason you can see multiple perspectives interwoven into the text is because someone actually wove different texts together, and they extracted what they thought was the original text from the Torah to create the "originals."

Can you provide a source that would indicate this? This sounds just like your anti-evolution ramblings.

That's it. People imagined it to be true.

That's the same type and amount of support for evolution, so it makes perfect sense.

But I can see (actually I already knew) that debating with you is pointless, as you refuse to consider any position but your own straw men. No use wasting my time on someone who's not going to listen.

-Chris

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by kern


Can you provide a source that would indicate this? This sounds just like your anti-evolution ramblings.

Yeah, it's nothing but anti-evolutionist ramblings, but I have a convenient co-conspirator who wrote this...

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/programs/jewish/30yrs/rendsburg/

As is well known, biblical books, especially the books of the Torah. As is well known, biblical scholarship in the 20th century saw the well nigh universal acceptance of the Documentary Hypothesis that had been fashioned mainly by German scholars in the 19th century. An occasional serious protestation by Umberto Cassuto had no major effect on the common opinion.[6] The theory proposes that the Torah is comprised of four major documents, at one time existing independently of one another, but brought together by an exilic or post-exilic redactor to produce the final product of Genesis through Deuteronomy. The standard approach holds that the four documents were the Yahwist source from the 10th century, the Elohist source from the 9th century, the book of Deuteronomy from the 7th century, and the Priestly source from the 5th century, or to use their abbreviations, J, E, D, and P. An alternative approach, associated mainly with the name of Yehezkel Kaufmann reversed the order of the last two sources to create the sequence J, E, P, and D, with the Priestly source earlier than Deuteronomy, and with the entire Torah the product of [7]pre-exilic times.

 

[BWSmith]

I consider myself an expert on the DH, so I hope I can shed some light on this issue...

First of all, your teacher was correct about there being two creation accounts. However, I think he was incorrect in bringing that to light in a public school setting. That kind of discussion is best kept in the context of an OT studies course. Out of that context, it has serious potential to disillusion the kids and may even kill their faith.

Second, everyone who is saying that there is a single creation account in the text as we have it today is correct. The Eden account IS set within the context of the "sixth day" of the cosmic creation. The conclusion that there are two creation accounts does not stem from a plain reading of the text, but from the observation of abrupt stylistic and theological changes that change in the narrative once you cross over 2:4.

Third, confirmation that there are two accounts does not come from reading Gen 1-3 in a vacuum, but from the further observation that the flood account is a composite of two accounts, one that matches the style and theology of Gen 1, and the other matching Gen 2-3. Two complete (and contradictory) flood stories can be extracted from the account we have today.

Substantially, Gen 1-11 is a composite of two basic sets of material: the humanistic Yahwist text from the divided kingdom period, and the transcendental Priestly text from the post-exilic period.

Here's a page from my website where I have given my own division of the two floods so you can see how the account we have is a composite:

http://www.geocities.com/bwsmith88/genesis/flood/2floods1.html

Comments?

 

[kern]

I think the main point is that it really doesn't matter if there are two sources or one, both creation accounts say the same thing in the end. This is true of most of the contradictions offered in these "101 contradictions" lists and the like.

To me, the more important things to look at are the (alleged) contradictions that involve important matters of faith, like the emphasis on works in the synoptic gospels vs. the emphasis on faith in John. Discussion of these "broader" differences is likely to bring out more useful debate and results than quibbling over orders of creation events or numbers in a census.

-Chris

 

[seebs]

If discovering that Genesis might not be a factually literal account would kill a kid's faith, the problem is not addressing that in the schools, but that the parents raised the kid to depend on a very fragile view of truth.

 

[BWSmith]

kern wrote:
> I think the main point is that it really doesn't matter if there are two sources or one, both creation accounts say the same thing in the end. This is true of most of the contradictions offered in these "101 contradictions" lists and the like.

This is exactly right from a high-level, theological perspective: both are in agreement that God created the universe. (It's the details that aren't important.)

> To me, the more important things to look at are the (alleged) contradictions that involve important matters of faith, like the emphasis on works in the synoptic gospels vs. the emphasis on faith in John. Discussion of these "broader" differences is likely to bring out more useful debate and results than quibbling over orders of creation events or numbers in a census.

Keep in mind that the idea that the details are insignificant is relatively moderate. There are plenty of conservatives out there (who fight to get creationism in the schools) who see the literal science and history of the Bible as inarguable "fact" that transcends the scientific method itself (or is easily harmonized with science provided that the experiments are performed by those with a "commitment" to creationism).

Hence, the details DO matter as long as there are factions out there who have decided that this is an issue worth fighting over.