2 different creation stories?

[BWSmith]

seebs wrote:
> 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.

Not necessarily. The issue is VERY complex, and to present the non-historicity issue at oversimplified face value is to tell a half-truth, which is just as dangerous as a lie.

Did the teacher bother to balance his revelation that "Gen 1-3 are not history" with an adequate description of what they are supposed to be instead? I don't know, but I doubt it.

Unfortunately, much of evangelical Protestant Christianity is committed to the basic historicity of ALL the events in the Bible. If a child comes from a church that does not desire to view Gen 1-3 as unhistorical, then that child's faith will be affected, through no flaw in his own upbringing. He will have no basis on which to say that his own church was wrong about this one issue, but right about everything else.

Such is the dilemma we theistic evolutionists face.

 

[kern]

Originally posted by BWSmith

Keep in mind that the idea that the details are insignificant is relatively moderate.

Yes, and I am fully willing to accept a label of "moderate" as far as I agree with those labels in the first place. I am strongly against the idea I've seen in conservative circles where if one verse of the Bible is not 100% true, then the whole Christian religion fails.

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

I'm not sure that the two creation accounts theory has anything to do with Creation vs. Evolution, does it? I suppose it is used by "evolutionists" to argue against a literal creation.

-Chris

 

[BWSmith]

> I'm not sure that the two creation accounts theory has anything to do with Creation vs. Evolution, does it? I suppose it is used by "evolutionists" to argue against a literal creation.

I would agree with the latter.

The origin of the text is a large factor in how we interpret it in the face of the evidence for evolution. If it was dictated to Moses on Mt. Sinai by God himself, that requires one interpretation. On the other hand, if Gen 1-3 was a joint effort by two sets of Palestinian writers before and after the exile (using sources that are now-lost), then that requires another.

IMHO, the crux of the creation-evolution issue (among Christians) is not with the interpretation of science, but with Biblical interpretation. The Bible comes with no instruction manual on how literally or figuratively it should be interpreted. As such, Christians have the responsibility of weighing their interpretation of the Bible with their interpretation of science (and hopefully, their results will bring them close to the truth).

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by kern

I suppose it is used by "evolutionists" to argue against a literal creation.

IMO that's it in a nutshell. But it's a mystery to me why they'd think that way. Either creation is true or it ain't. Whether there is one or fifty sources for Genesis won't make it one way or the other.

 

[BWSmith]

> IMO that's it in a nutshell. But it's a mystery to me why they'd think that way.

Essentially, it's to provide evidence that the creation account is not to be interpreted as a direct, scientific, historical oracle from God Himself.

> Either creation is true or it ain't.

This statement is not true. The reality of God as Creator of the universe is a separate issue from whether Genesis is an historical record of the exact details of that creative act.

> Whether there is one or fifty sources for Genesis won't make it one way or the other.

The idea is that when you separate the "two accounts" and reinterpret them as standalone accounts of cosmic creation (rather than creation of a garden setting on the sixth day), then contradictions begin to appear in both the initial state of the universe and the order of creation.

For example, in J creation, the universe (or rather, the earth, which is presumed to be eternal) is a desert, and creation is described as the springing of an oasis/garden in that desert. Creation also begins (man) and ends (woman) with humans, and is centered around the law of God (you shall not eat...).

In P creation, everything is different. The universe is a big ocean, and creation is the wind of God that blows the ocean down below the dry land and up above the firmament of the heavens. Creation is a linear progression of timed events that culminates with the simultaneous creation of both humans and the law of God at the end.

Hence, the evolutionist argument would be that the J account "rivals" the P account as a record of events. The only conclusion that can be reached (if you accept the two as competing accounts) is that God is not interested in revealing the details of Creation in the Bible.

Comments?

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Maybe it would help some people to see this written in modern-day English paragraphs.

Genesis 2...
...Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
By the seventh day, God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day, he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. (Could read-> "Because he rested on it from all the work he had done, God blessed the day and made it holy.")
---This is an account of the heavens and the earth when they were created---
When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up. For the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
(Flashback) Now, the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; (resume)and there he put the man he had formed.

God kinda goes back and forth filling in here and there. Kinda like "The Great Gatsby." Where you find out some of what is currently going on, then you are informed about what happened in the past to get you there, then you resume again. Kinda like that. There aren't 2 stories, one is just a retelling in more specific terms of the first. And the only way that you can get the creation order messed up is if you read it wrong. You have to "read it right."(Nice choice of words)

 

[BWSmith]

Then how do you explain the two flood stories, each of which point to separate creation accounts?

 

[AV1611VET]

My biology teacher brought a bible in to class and showed us that in Genesis there are actually 2 different stories of creation! He went on to pose the question, "How can these stories be different and still both be right?" Please someone give me some way to respond back to him.

Genesis 2 is an insert to Genesis 1, that should be inserted between Genesis 1:27a and Genesis 1:27b.

 

[Gracchus]

Genesis 2 is an insert to Genesis 1, that should be inserted between Genesis 1:27a and Genesis 1:27b.

You'd think God could have hired an editor!

 

[Boogdar]

In my faith, we believe that there were literally two creations. First everything was created spiritually before it was then created physically...

 

[Cabal]

You'd think God could have hired an editor!

So much for perfection!

 

[juvenissun]

My biology teacher brought a bible in to class and showed us that in Genesis there are actually 2 different stories of creation! He went on to pose the question, "How can these stories be different and still both be right?" Please someone give me some way to respond back to him.

They are not two stories. Gen 1 and Gen 2 are talking about the same creation process. One interprets the other. It is a perfectly synchronized writing.

Sorry for the lack of details. It is a long one. Invite your teacher to here. I will explain it to him/her. But, at the same time, YOU need to understand it too.

 

[Boogdar]

Sorry for the lack of details. It is a long one. Invite your teacher to here. I will explain it to him/her. But, at the same time, YOU need to understand it too.

I think many of us here would appreciate the details as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think many of us here would appreciate the details as well.

Here is the sequence of events -- all done on Day Six of the creation week:

1. God creates Adam -- as yet, there is no garden in Eden.
2. God parades the animals past Adam for Adam to name.
3. This generates in Adam a desire for a wife.
4. God plants a garden in Eden and grows it Himself in a moment of time.
5. God places Adam in the garden and puts him to sleep, taking a rib and making Eve.
6. Adam wakes up and God brings her to him in what is the first wedding ceremony.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I think many of us here would appreciate the details as well.

Genesis 1

Day 1: light day/dark night
Day 2: firmament
Day 3: land, sea, grass, herbs, fruit trees
Day 4: greater light (day), lesser light (night),
stars, (signs, seasons, days, years)
Day 5: water bring forth creatures, fowl, whales,
creatures, winged fowl
Day 6: earth bring forth living creatures, cattle,
creeping things, beasts of the earth,
man

Genesis 2 has man before the animals. Also, it appears that god created man and women at the same time in G1, but at completely separate times in G2.

According to scholars, G1 & G2 are written in completely different styles, and the word for god is even different in both accounts. How is there a "evening and morning" for the first three days of creation if the sun, moon and stars are not created until day four?

Taken literally, the two accounts cannot be reconciled without special pleading.

 

[Split Rock]

They are not two stories. Gen 1 and Gen 2 are talking about the same creation process. One interprets the other. It is a perfectly synchronized writing.

"Perfectly synchronized???" You must be joking. They were written by different authors at different times with different writing styles. The only thing they have in common is that they both show that God created life on earth, including mankind.

 

[Split Rock]

Here is the sequence of events -- all done on Day Six of the creation week:

1. God creates Adam -- as yet, there is no garden in Eden.
   Where did he create Adam? In a void?
   
2. God parades the animals past Adam for Adam to name.
   Yes, looking for a "helpmeet" for Adam.
   
3. This generates in Adam a desire for a wife.
   inappropriate behavior with animals?? Just when I thought that incest was bad....
   
4. God plants a garden in Eden and grows it Himself in a moment of time.
   More "opinion" or inerrant Word of God?
   
5. God places Adam in the garden and puts him to sleep, taking a rib and making Eve.
   Where was Adam before this while he was naming and lusting after beasts?
   
6. Adam wakes up and God brings her to him in what is the first wedding ceremony.

You just love adding all kinds of stuff to "The Documentation," don't you, AVET?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

You just love adding all kinds of stuff to "The Documentation," don't you, AVET?

LOL, It's quite funny when you think about it. Adam needs a helper, so god gives him a choice of any animal, but Adam is just not interested, so god says, 'ok, I'll make a woman for you.'

Like the joke says,... "arm and a leg? What can I ge for a rib?"

You've gotta' love ancient middle eastern patriarchal societies.

 

[juvenissun]

I think many of us here would appreciate the details as well.

You ask question, I try to answer.
No question, no answer.

 

[juvenissun]

"Perfectly synchronized???" You must be joking. They were written by different authors at different times with different writing styles. The only thing they have in common is that they both show that God created life on earth, including mankind.

Thank you very much for the annotation. That is what synchronization mean.