Creationists, what's up with two creation stories?

[busterdog]

Quote:

Originally Posted by busterdog
Lack of knowledge is not sin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by busterdog
one can very simply show that inadequate data is sinful.

Gluadys:

As far as I can see, these statements directly contradict each other.

Could you please clarify your position?

Inadequate data is data inadequate for the task.

If there is no task, there is no inadequacy, just lack of knowledge, such as the following:

Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

 

[gluadys]

Quote:

Inadequate data is data inadequate for the task.

Typically cryptic.

What task?

And how does that make inadequate data "sinful"?

Especially if one does not even know the data is inadequate.

How could one know that data existed which was observable only by telescope before the telescope itself existed and was put to use in astronomy? Medieval geocentrists were not only working with all the data they had, but with all the data they had reason to believe existed. So how is it sinful to build a model on that data?

 

[Vance]

Basically it means that Genesis 1 is not giving us a report of the chronology of creation; it is telling us a story about creation.

And days in a story are---well---days in a story, not days in real time.

The real time could be anything: it could be the instantaneous moment Augustine believed in or the billions of years science describes. Either way, the story is still a story with literary and theological reasons for organizing the creation in a six-day format. Not because the six days were an actual period in time outside the story.

See, I told you she could do it better than I could! I took me all that, and she covered it in a few sentences.

 

[busterdog]

Typically cryptic.

What task?

And how does that make inadequate data "sinful"?

Especially if one does not even know the data is inadequate.

How could one know that data existed which was observable only by telescope before the telescope itself existed and was put to use in astronomy? Medieval geocentrists were not only working with all the data they had, but with all the data they had reason to believe existed. So how is it sinful to build a model on that data?

Gen 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou [art but] a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she [is] a man's wife.

Gen 20:6
And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
Ie, it would have been sin whether he knew it or not. Inadequate data for the task of a sexual relationship. Its not just that he forgot what his favorite color was or the air velocity of an unladen swallow.

 

[Tinker Grey]

But that is action against another human being. Not at all equivalent to, say, geocentrism.

This is just the point -- some kinds of knowledge are different than others.

 

[Ben12]

I believe there are two Adams in Genesis; one made after God’s image (spirit) and one who God changed to a living soul and later carnal flesh.

Gen 1:26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Then in the next chapter and who how short or long this period is:
Gen. 2:7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Then we get the deep sleep:
Gen: 2:21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 3:6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat

 

[gluadys]

Gen 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou [art but] a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she [is] a man's wife.

Gen 20:6
And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
Ie, it would have been sin whether he knew it or not. Inadequate data for the task of a sexual relationship. Its not just that he forgot what his favorite color was or the air velocity of an unladen swallow.

On the contrary, God is not condemning him precisely because he is the victim of inadequate data. If he had taken Sarah into his harem knowing she was Abraham's wife, that would have been sin, even if he was never intimate with her.

It was not a sin to take her into his harem because he is not accountable for having inadequate data.

And for that reason God protected him from committing an act that would have been sinful.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

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

First creation story - Genesis 1:1-2:4a
Second creation story - Genesis 2:4b-25


In the first creation story birds and sea creatures are made on the fifth day. Land animals are made first on the sixth day, then Human beings.
In the second creation story God forms man from the dust and decides he needs a helper so he forms all of the animals and brings them to Adam.

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
Genesis 2:18-19 (NASB)

When were animals created? Before or after humans?

This is a tricky one. Is the 2nd creation account allegorical or not? I think that it is, but is drawn from the real human origins, in Armenia. Or human civilization origins. I have read other ideas about this, that humans were only becoming spiritual beings as the first adam, but I don't go along with this idea, I think humans were created as spirit beings from the first. The garden of Eden was a real place, a real garden in the region of Eden, which is located near a large lake in northern Iran, bordering Armenia and Turkey. This is where civilization started, and the general area from which Noah and his descendants were also located. There can only be one creating of human beings, in my opinion in east Africa. So I think the story is an allegory, to illustrate a fall of mankind. And the serpent is the spirit of the adversary, symbolized by a snake/serpent. (and still is). I suspect the story is a divine-inspired which draws from the background of the Sumerian creation accounts. For me the important thing is the message of the fall, and whether it really happened or not, I don't know. the fall obviously did happen, and still happens, and the players in the fall are still the same, the serpent is still the same. Originally the serpent says 'surly you will not die' and this is what the modern 'new age' serpent says also.. you will not die, there is no death, you will go on to another level of existence, and possibly become an ascendant master (demon).

 

[Ben12]

You are right, tricky; I like hidden, spiritual, symbolic; as well as deep. In Bible days and even seventy of eighty years ago a cistern was really important; but today it is a useless relic of by gone days.

I cannot and will not fit God’s Word in a man made box; it is like a river that flows and gets deeper and deeper; in fact so deep at times you cannot no longer stand; that is where faith comes in.

Jeremiah 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

Water is Symbolic of God’s Word in scripture… I have a cistern in my basement and it holds no water. All that is left is four hard walls (religion).

Adam was created in God’s Image. What does that mean; it means like Jesus He was a son of God. We can get a lot of things out of this very spiritual story if you can allow God’s Spirit to get past your preconceived bias. This is totally new territory for many of you; mainly because most religions were so blinded by their preconceived teaching it took an outsider to open their eyes

Heb. 13:13

Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach​

I believe there is one Adam but two totally different natures of Adam in Genesis;one made after God’s image (spirit); and one who God changed to a living soul and later carnal flesh.

Gen 1:26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Now man has limited dominion over the creatures god created; but not like Adam who named the animals: Adam was able to give each animal its nature, power, authority; He probably even talked with them and walked with them. This is not said but both the animals and Adam had not fallen yet. Roman’s 8:20 declares all creation; not just man was subjected to the curse.

Romans 8:20 (NLT) Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, 21 the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Then we get to the next chapter and who how short or long this period is:

Genesis 2: 1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Notice this is a totally new day, seventh day.

Gen. 2:7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Now God planted a Garden on the seventh day; where did Adam live before?

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Then we get the deep sleep:

Gen: 2:21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 3:6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat

Are we still asleep spiritually speaking, I know we are.

 

[busterdog]

On the contrary, God is not condemning him precisely because he is the victim of inadequate data. If he had taken Sarah into his harem knowing she was Abraham's wife, that would have been sin, even if he was never intimate with her.

It was not a sin to take her into his harem because he is not accountable for having inadequate data.

And for that reason God protected him from committing an act that would have been sinful.

The text is clear. If he did it, it was sin whether or not he knew who she was. Again, mercy is not the absence of sin. God intervenes by mercy, clearly.

 

[gluadys]

The text is clear. If he did it, it was sin whether or not he knew who she was. Again, mercy is not the absence of sin. God intervenes by mercy, clearly.

But it is still the action (which, in fact, did not occur) that is sin. Not the mere fact that he had inadequate information.

Having been warned and prevented from action, no blame attaches to him precisely because his information was incomplete. Far from being sin, the inadequacy of his information rendered him innocent.

 

[Ben12]

But it is still the action (which, in fact, did not occur) that is sin. Not the mere fact that he had inadequate information.

Having been warned and prevented from action, no blame attaches to him precisely because his information was incomplete. Far from being sin, the inadequacy of his information rendered him innocent.

Where do you get the point there is inadequate information? Romans 8:20 is very clear that the fall was God ordained the fall. Adam had no choice; so if sin happened; it happened because it was God’s will. If God want His creation fall under sin and death for His GREATER purpose, that is his right.

 

[gluadys]

Where do you get the point there is inadequate information? Romans 8:20 is very clear that the fall was God ordained the fall. Adam had no choice; so if sin happened; it happened because it was God’s will. If God want His creation fall under sin and death for His GREATER purpose, that is his right.

Different conversation. Not relevant to what you are posting. Go back and re-read thread, especially posts by busterdog and myself.

 

[Ben12]

Different conversation. Not relevant to what you are posting. Go back and re-read thread, especially posts by busterdog and myself.

Sorry; you are right.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Creationists, what's up with two creation stories?


I urge Creationists to explain to me how they can justify two completely different accounts of creation. I've had another look at this, and there does seem to be a total contradiction with the two creation accounts.. Adam and Eve 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. another account, from a different source..
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground just bare earth, no plant life or human life, and streams coming up from the ground, presumably from mist falling and accumulating water underground. - 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Man formed from the dust, at a time where there is no other life.. yes a total contradiction to the first account, I can only conclude that the account is erroneous.

 

[artybloke]

Man formed from the dust, at a time where there is no other life.. yes a total contradiction to the first account, I can only conclude that the account is erroneous.

They're only erroneous if you take them as factual accounts rather than stories/narratives intending to convey truth through story-telling - something which would relate more to an audience in ancient Isreal than a scientific account, anyhow.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

They're only erroneous if you take them as factual accounts rather than stories/narratives intending to convey truth through story-telling - something which would relate more to an audience in ancient Isreal than a scientific account, anyhow.

I was thinking about this, that whoever compiled the Genesis 1 and 2 books of creation, knew that the second was at odds with the first, but did not edit it. This might have been because the second account was originally a unit in itself, perhaps part of a number of other poems. This shows that it has been included, because it is of use as an alegory, about the fall of mankind. I suspect that this story originated in the culture of Sumer, or Iraq as it is now, a culture with links to the land of Eden in the far north mountains. I have been trying to dig up information about this, with limited success. David Rohl's book Legend gives an overview of the origins of civilisation from Eden, but I have been trying to find a pre-flood king list. And info. about any other people/evens of those times. I know about Utnapishtim and that legend, but I wasted money on a book called 'Enuma Elish, the seven tablets of the history of creation'. there dosn't seem to be anything of interest in here, it's very fragmented. I'm trying to find anything which might be similar to the second creation account, in the myths of the Sumerians/Babylonians. Are there any experts out there that might be able to direct me to books, or have copies of there own, such as king lists?

 

[gluadys]

I was thinking about this, that whoever compiled the Genesis 1 and 2 books of creation, knew that the second was at odds with the first, but did not edit it. This might have been because the second account was originally a unit in itself, perhaps part of a number of other poems.

Are you familiar with the Documentary thesis of the origin of the Torah? The second creation story, according to this thesis was certainly written prior to 722 BCE . The first was written later, and the author of the first no doubt was familiar with the older story.

I know about Utnapishtim and that legend, but I wasted money on a book called 'Enuma Elish, the seven tablets of the history of creation'.

The 'Enuma Elish' is paralleled more closely by Genesis 1.

I'm trying to find anything which might be similar to the second creation account, in the myths of the Sumerians/Babylonians. Are there any experts out there that might be able to direct me to books, or have copies of there own, such as king lists?

Maybe Vance will have some suggestions. In the meantime, I would focus on some of the main symbols in the story that are also found in ancient Mesopotamian culture, like the Tree of Life


http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsmtol.htm

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Why I think the 2nd creation story goes right back to the sumerian, is the temptation seal, depicting the tree and branches and two figures, and the expulsion, another seal. I don't want to go down the 'aliens from Neburu' path, but Zecharia Sitchin claims to have translated some sumerian writing, and has written a whole lot of books on aliens from a daft planet in a huge orbit around the sun. It's just too wakky for me. I haven't read any of these books as people can make a lot of money out of silliness. Why can't anyone else read the translation and see if the annunaki (or whatever they're called) really are written about as he suggests. Or the apocraphal stuff like the books of Enoch, there dosn't seem to be much merit in any of that.
The Enuma Elish appears to have some cross-over with Genesis 1, so perhaps I'll keep it and read it through.
What a tragic state, if there's nothing surviving of the old culture that relates to Genesis 2, other than those images fired on clay.
Do ya'all think we worship Ea? I was wondering what people think of David Rohl's observation about the name Yahweh. revealed to Moses as 'I am who I am' or 'Eyah asser Eyah'.. I am the one who is called Eyah, ..Ea. I notice that Ea is depicted as having water flowing from his shoulders, is it just coincidence that the symbolism of flowing water is in christianity as well? was Abram the first to invoke the name Yahweh? Just one other thing.. I can't get to a proper translation of Genesis 1, but have found a little that 'in the beginning God' should be translated as.. 'in the beginning Elohim', a plural word for God. How much more is translated as Elohim? I have the Jerusalem Bible which translates the name into Yahweh, where it should be Yahweh.
ps. thanks to the last post for the link to the tree of life..interesting.
So a serpent called Nidhog lives under Ygdrassil, and gnaws at the roots. Strange thing about Ygdrassil, I've known about it for many years, and it's imagery has invaded my conciousness, even before I'd ever heard of it, the image of the Ygdrassil was like a spiral, and it is somehow related to Plato's myth of Ur. The same spiral images. I think it might be some sort of symbol for a connection of dimensions in the universe, a pole that has a spiral something around it. I don't know what it is, but the image of the serpent coils around the tree in the garden of eden. Interesting to think of the fruit as a symbol of eternal life. I wonder if the tree is something that is 'known' throughout the ages, regardless of religion?


</IMG>

 

[GenemZ]

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

First creation story - Genesis 1:1-2:4a
Second creation story - Genesis 2:4b-25


In the first creation story birds and sea creatures are made on the fifth day. Land animals are made first on the sixth day, then Human beings.
In the second creation story God forms man from the dust and decides he needs a helper so he forms all of the animals and brings them to Adam.

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
Genesis 2:18-19 (NASB)

When were animals created? Before or after humans?

Passages in Chapter One frequently contain the words .... "and God saw."
We do not see those words appearing in Chapter Two.


In Chapter One, we see God creating [bara]. "Bara" is a term when used this way is a feat designated solely for Deity. For, when used in this context. It meant to create something 'out from nothing.'



Note: We only see the Hebrew creation word 'bara' mentioned once in Chapter Two.

Why? Only once? In what context?

Its used to tell us that God RESTED from bara.

God rested from creating 'out from nothing' God does not "bara" in Chapter Two!

Genesis 2:3 niv
" And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating [bara] that he had done."
​

Yet, in Chapter Two, we see God still bringing things into being! Just not creating them!

Why was that?

When it says? In Chapter One? "God saw?"

God was seeing what was, yet was not yet to be seen by man's eyes. Chapter One! "And God saw it was good. "

Then, after? Chapter Two? ... God executed into motion what he had seen prior, by bringing it into the open for us to see.

In Chapter Two, God manifested how the creation he brought to being in Chapter One, was to unfold.

In doing so? In Chapter Two? God was making us retroactively, eye witnesses to the open display on earth that can be viewed by man. ... Genesis Two!


God did not bring man into being in the same manner in both chapters!

Different Hebrew words were put into motion!

In, Genesis 1:27? ...

God created man 'out from nothing.' BARA!
The INVISIBLE soul was created [bara] 'out from nothing!'
It was man's soul that was created in God's image (who can not be seen).

In, Genesis 2?

God was not creating [bara] (out from nothing) any longer. It says, he rested from such creating!

" And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating [bara] that he had done."
​

What we find in Genesis Two is the Lord providing a 'material home' for the human soul. A material body. For the souls he had created in Genesis One!

The Hebrew reveals that 'body' was not created [bara] out from nothing! It was formed and molded from what was already existing. The earth of the ground.

"From the dust of the earth."
​

The lifeless body was [yatsar] 'molded and formed' ... from what had already been created out from nothing!

"In the beginning, God created [bara] the Heavens and Earth."
​

The Lord in Genesis Two was providing a BODY for the soul. A body to make the soul that had been [bara] created 'out from nothing' a home while on earth. An earthly home so the soul could be alive to being placed into time and space.

Its the SOUL that was created in Gods image! Not our body!

God as Deity is invisible essence. The human soul was created invisible essence!

The earthly body was simply provided as to make the soul able to be made manifested in the realm of time and space. God lives in Eternity. Our soul has been designed for Eternal life! This life on earth is temporal.

Genesis One? Man's soul had been created.

The type of soul animals have was also created. All in Chapter One!

And? God rested from bara on the seventh day! So, no more God creating 'out from nothing' to be found in Chapter Two.

In Chapter Two? ... God reveals in a different order of sequence of what had already been created by God in Chapter One. They did not have to be manifested for us to see in Chapter One. God did not have to run "test models" in Chapter One. Because whatever God creates? Is perfectly done!

So, God placed what had been created in Chapter One to be later in public view, in Chapter Two.



In Chapter One? - Only, God saw!

In Chapter Two? - Now, we see it!

There are not two different accounts of creation. .

Its two accounts, revealing how the same creation unfolded!


Grace and peace, GeneZ





.