Creationists, what's up with two creation stories?

busterdog said:

I am with Juve. The answer is obvious. You already know it. If you have doubts, go look it up.

Click to expand...

Any answer that doesn't include taking the second story allegorically is not occurring to me. You may have to spell it out.

Scotishfury09 said:

Ok, juvie, is Genesis 1 scientifically accurate? Is Genesis 2 scientifically accurate?

Click to expand...

Yes, and Yes.

Do not ask me how or why. I do not know.
Gen. 1 is hard enough. If I could understand Gen. 1, then Gen. 2 would not be a problem at all.

Your question? < 0.000001% of significance in science.

Scotishfury09 said:

Well, BD, I'm not so sure the answer is all that obvious. Crawfish already explained that a sudden change in chronology from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 is hypocritical and the only other answers I could find for my contradiction say that ch. 2 of Genesis does not specifically speak of chronology.

Click to expand...

The nature of looking at a text is first finding what it permits. If you can't imagine the text permits a consistent reading between the two sections, you haven't read it much and debate is pointless.

I understand your argument. It has some logic, its not convincing.

The theory of the dual Creation stories has been put forward numerous times, but it really shouldn't be a question.

There are not two stories. This comes from an improper reading of Genesis 1 and 2 as if they were written from a purely historical/scientific point of view. If they were, we could and should assume a linear progression of time from a straightforward, simplified reading. They are not.

Chapter two refers back to some of the events of chapter one. God made the animals, and so he brought them to Adam. We focus too much on trying to read that was "God made the animals, then, after that event of making all the animals, he brought them to Adam, who already existed." This is not what it is saying. It simply says that, "God brought the animals he had made to Adam." There is no statement of anything being made first or second or last or such.

In fact, the Hebrew could read like this, "God brought the made animals to Adam."

Now some people say, "Wait Fox, it says in the sentence before it that God created the beasts and all that. This is definitely an order." I don't think so, and don't believe that is true. It is simply a statement that "God made the animals." Once the order is clearly defined, there is no reason to specifically clarify that order anymore; it's already been declared and can now be assumed. With that assumption, reading the rest of the creation account presents no inconsistency at all.

Also, a simple glance will reveal that the order remains an important element to the flow of chapter 1, but less so after that, and so the order is not emphasized.

Also, there is a second theory which I don't personally believe, but it presents the idea that the apparent "second story" is really the story of the garden itself, and that the animals God makes are the ones specifically for the garden of Eden. Don't believe it myself, but either way, there are not two universal creation accounts.

Genesis itself splits them into two creation accounts with the title 'this is the genealogy of the heavens and the earth'. The fact that the two different creation account are written in two completely different styles with different vocabularies that Wellhausen picked up on only adds to the fact that Genesis itself labels them as different accounts. But I agree it should not be an issue here. The issue is two contradictory accounts of creation, whether there was one author or four, if you believe God inspired the book, then two accounts that completely contradict each other when interpreted literally cannot be be meant to be interpreted literally.

In fact, the Hebrew could read like this, "God brought the made animals to Adam."

Click to expand...

No the grammar is quite specific, the simple meaning of the construction of the verb, the construction used throughout the narrative to continue the story, 'and then this happened' or 'and so this happened' says: 'and then the Lord God formed out of the ground all the beasts...' 'and then he brought them to the man'. That is the plain reading of the text.

juvenissun said:

OK, no contradiction. Then you suggest the question in the OP is misleading. Right?

Click to expand...

No, because it was addressed to Creationists who do take the accounts literally, or claim to anyway.

OP said:

I urge Creationists to explain to me how they can justify two completely different accounts of creation.

Click to expand...

There are two creation accounts; probably written by two different people at two different times. But: and this is something people can easily forget: there is a third writer. This is the "redactor" or editor. He put the two accounts together for a reason, but not, I think, a chronological one. It's neither "either/or" not "one then the other" but "one and the other."

Western thinking is often sequential (one thing, then another, then another) but ancient near eastern thinking tends to be serial. They put two stories next to one another and leave the reader to make the connections. It's probably closer to modernist poetry than then Western logical thinking.

Scotishfury09 said:

And what exactly does the reading permit, busterdog? Can you interpret it in any way you want, as long as it exemplifies your Creationist dogma?

Haven't read it much? That's your argument? If you understand the Scriptures so well, O' Wise One, how do you read it? Help me to understand how they can be read with consistency.

I'm more than willing to listen to what you have to say, but as of yet, you haven't said anything.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Sounds like you are looking for a fight.

Most creationists here seem to be looking for evolutionists to show that they are willing to engage. So, my feeling is you can go first. You be of a generous spirit and show that you are willing to dialogue.

Again, if you can't find a way to make it consistent, you are not trying hard enough.

ArcticFox said:

The theory of the dual Creation stories has been put forward numerous times, but it really shouldn't be a question.

There are not two stories. This comes from an improper reading of Genesis 1 and 2 as if they were written from a purely historical/scientific point of view. If they were, we could and should assume a linear progression of time from a straightforward, simplified reading. They are not.

Click to expand...

I could see it being a question, as a conviction, it just doesn't do justice to the text.

However, the notion that these two references to creation MUST be contradictory because they are seriatim is just being obtuse. Not to mention tendentious.

Or as you say, the hebrew shows distinct purpose. I wasn't aware of that. Interesting.

However, the notion that these two references to creation MUST be contradictory because they are seriatim is just being obtuse. Not to mention tendentious.

Click to expand...

Quite agree. As poetic and fictional accounts, they complement each other very well. However, any attempt to reconcile them scientifically runs across inherent contradictions: one or the other has to be interpreted allegorically in order for them to fit. Plus the inherent contradiction with reality that a 21st century literalistic interpretation has anyway...

busterdog said:

Originally Posted by Scotishfury09

And what exactly does the reading permit, busterdog? Can you interpret it in any way you want, as long as it exemplifies your Creationist dogma?

Haven't read it much? That's your argument? If you understand the Scriptures so well, O' Wise One, how do you read it? Help me to understand how they can be read with consistency.

I'm more than willing to listen to what you have to say, but as of yet, you haven't said anything.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Sounds like you are looking for a fight.

Click to expand...

Goodness! Scotishfury really seems to be losing it here, is he alright?



No, wait, You are the one who threw in the ranting text formatting. Gosh that's really good busterdog.

busterdog said:

However, the notion that these two references to creation MUST be contradictory because they are seriatim is just being obtuse. Not to mention tendentious.

Click to expand...

An interesting approach you take here busterdog, you have used it a couple of times lately:
Take a TE argument, restate the TE position without giving the reason behind it, and present it a an irrational argument or unjustified bias.

I don't know of any TE who claims that because the two account are series (I presume that is what you mean by the legal Latin) they must therefore be contradictory. Instead our point is that their literal interpretation is contradictory because the accounts give two completely different sequences of events.

busterdog said:

However, the notion that these two references to creation MUST be contradictory because they are seriatim is just being obtuse.

Click to expand...

You are mistating the case. It is not that the two stories are set one before the other that makes for a contradiction.

It is that each story is about the same overall event (creation including the creation of humanity and of animals) and each story contains a sequence of events. But the two sequences do not coincide. In the case of humanity and animals they blatantly contradict, in one case putting the creation of animals before that of humanity and in one case putting the creation of humanity before that of animals.

On the basis of a literal interpretation that is a contradiction, no ifs ands or buts.

busterdog said:

Nonsense.
Again, if you can't find a way to make it consistent, you are not trying hard enough.

Click to expand...

Making it consistent is easy. We've seen several ways to do that in this thread. That is not the point.

The point is that all ways of making the stories consistent require departing from the literal interpretation of one or both texts.

The question is: how do literalists justify departing from the literal interpretation of one of the stories (usually the second) but resist departing from the literal interpretation of the other?

Additionally:

What is the principle that decides which story is to be read literally?

Why is it objectionable to read both stories non-literally?

gluadys said:

On the basis of a literal interpretation that is a contradiction, no ifs ands or buts.

Click to expand...

Well, if the issue has been decided, why discuss it?

I say, let's see evidence that there is the slightest interest in considering why the text works literally. If that is not acceptable, then fine. It will save us all alot of time.

Firstly, it is telling to note how the creationists have gone about defending their position. It has really amounted to nothing more than repeating the mantra "no, they need not be contradictory - no, they need not be contradictory - no, they need not ... ", and asserting that the answers can be found online.

None of them have offered an exegesis of the text. None of them have gone so far as to repeat the wording of the text.

Having said that, I actually don't think the passage itself offers a strong argument against creationism. The way the creationists have treated it, of course, does. But not the passage itself. I think the wording of the passage actually indicates that the assumption of non-contradiction is valid. And here's why.

Using the more literal ESV:

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
(Genesis 2:18-21 ESV)

This part of the narrative opens with:

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."

It continues with either

So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

or from the NIV

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.

Now, let's just assume that God knows what He's doing when He creates stuff. Reasonable, no? Therefore, the ESV is incorrect in putting in "So out of the ground ... " It can't be as if God says to Himself "Hmm, Adam needs a mate - I know, let's create crocodiles and baboons!" The creation of the animals and birds can't be God's response to Adam's loneliness - God's creation of Eve is.

Thus, if God's creating the beasts of the field and the birds of the air is not causally postcedent to His declaration of Adam's loneliness, it need not be temporally postcedent either. Furthermore, if v. 18 'Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." ' is logically answered by v. 21 'So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.', then vv. 19-20 are an ellipsis within the overall structure of the passage, and they are not necessarily required to be temporally in sequence between 18 and 21.

The argument doesn't sound 100% convincing to me, but it is enough for me to refrain from using this passage against creationists. The exegesis flows out of the work of C. John Collins, the guy quoted in my signature; he is by no means a YEC, and neither, obviously, am I. But I think it is telling that it takes an evolutionist to look at the text itself to support creationism. Within Sun Tzu's framework - I know the other side; do they even know themselves?

shernren said:

It continues with either

So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

or from the NIV

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.

Now, let's just assume that God knows what He's doing when He creates stuff. Reasonable, no? Therefore, the ESV is incorrect in putting in "So out of the ground ... "

Click to expand...

I am not sure this works, shernren. After all the Hebrew is simply "And the LORD God formed..."

In that respect, both translations are wrong.

Thus, if God's creating the beasts of the field and the birds of the air is not causally postcedent to His declaration of Adam's loneliness, it need not be temporally postcedent either.

Click to expand...

It seems to me you are neglecting v 20b "but for Adam no suitable helper was found." (NIV) This confirms that the creation of the animals was causally postcedant to God's declaration of Adam's loneliness.

It is only when no suitable animal helper is found that the narrative turns to the creation of Eve.

So, I don't agree that it is an ellipsis within the narrative structure. vv.10-14 are a better example of an ellipsis. They add descriptive information to the story, but they do not advance the plot.

The framing of the creation of the animals by vv 18 & 20b clearly ties it into the narrative sequence as part of the temporal order of events.

busterdog said:

Well, if the issue has been decided, why discuss it?

Click to expand...

What you quoted is not the issue. The issue you failed to address is:

how do literalists justify departing from the literal interpretation of one of the stories (usually the second) but resist departing from the literal interpretation of the other?

I say, let's see evidence that there is the slightest interest in considering why the text works literally. If that is not acceptable, then fine. It will save us all alot of time.

Click to expand...

Yes, by all means, show us how the text works literally.

If, in fact, it does work literally, then my question above is irrelevant.

But so far all we have seen are justifications for not making it work literally. And as long as this is the approach, my question is relevant.

If you can remove the basis of the question, by all means, go ahead.