More than just Adam and Eve

[LoG]

criticize ideas for what they say, not what you think they say. I was clear that human beings were created with the "imago dei" several thousand years(maybe 150K years) before the specific Adam of Gen 2.

Wasn't critisizing but following your idea to its conclusion from my viewpoint. Your theology follows no particular format that I've been able to determine so expect that I will use my own interpretation to see if there is any viability to it.

 

[HypnoToad]

Where do you get the idea the the "male" of ch.1 is not Adam?

the adam in Gen 1 is generic, male and female.
the Adam in Gen2-5 is much more specific, from the puns on his name to the historical narrative framework.
there is no necessary connection.

Ch.1 is "generic" because the point of ch.1 is the whole creation. Ch.2 is "specific" because the point of ch.2 is the creation of man. There is no reason to think Adam isn't the "male" of ch.1.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Ch.1 is "generic" because the point of ch.1 is the whole creation. Ch.2 is "specific" because the point of ch.2 is the creation of man. There is no reason to think Adam isn't the "male" of ch.1.

from the very structure of:
male and female he created them
together, unified, the big point being the image of God and the dominion over the creation as vice-regent under God

versus

adam
then naming the animals
then lonely
then asleep
then rib taken.
very progressive, very pointed
man then woman.

the big point being that man ought not to be alone and needs a helper suitable for him.
suitable to do what? tend the garden and walk with God.

you ought to gain an appreciation that these are different times, different people.

 

[HypnoToad]

from the very structure of:
male and female he created them
together, unified, the big point being the image of God and the dominion over the creation as vice-regent under God

versus

adam
then naming the animals
then lonely
then asleep
then rib taken.
very progressive, very pointed
man then woman.

the big point being that man ought not to be alone and needs a helper suitable for him.
suitable to do what? tend the garden and walk with God.

you ought to gain an appreciation that these are different times, different people.

There is absolutely nothing there suggesting "different times, different people", nothing at all.

All that's suggested is a different theme between ch.1 and 2. Ch.1 is just a brief overview of man because man is simply not the theme of ch.1, the theme is ALL of creation. Ch.2 is more detailed and intimate around man because man is the main theme of ch.2.

 

[Willtor]

There is absolutely nothing there suggesting "different times, different people", nothing at all.

All that's suggested is a different theme between ch.1 and 2. Ch.1 is just a brief overview of man because man is simply not the theme of ch.1, the theme is ALL of creation. Ch.2 is more detailed and intimate around man because man is the main theme of ch.2.

It really depends, though. The whole JEPD debate notwithstanding, there is still the question of what comes from where. Even if Moses wrote the whole thing, including a prophesy of the particulars of his own death, we still have to ask how much of the Genesis story was uniquely his, and how much came out of Hebrew society.

 

[philN]

Isn't it at all suspicious to you that the first few chapters of Genesis are written as Hebrew poetry rather than as an outright historical account? There are two types of revelation: general and specific. The former includes science; the latter includes scripture. Now, I would suggest that the two are never at odds with one another, but rather that our interpretations of each are at odds with others. For example, if you take a Literal Concordist viewpoint, then you believe that the bible contains specific information about the construction of scientific theories, and thus our scientific conclusions must be in concord with our scriptural interpretations. This is all well and good, except that this is not necessarily how the bible was intended to be read. It is not a step-by-step explanation of the creation of the world. This also puts you in a dangerous position where you are forced to pit general revelation against specific revelation as new discoveries are made. Using logical theory, it is safe to say that with the exception of a mature creationism point-of-view, where everything was created with age (which is a bit of a cop-out because it cannot really be tested), Occam's razor does not particularly favor the scientific loopholes and leaps that are needed to justify a six-day creation. I think that lots of creationists are realizing this, which is why there have been so many christians that have eagerly embraced "intelligent design" in recent years, because it is an evolution-lite -- something that bridges the gap between the two. To be honest, I think creationism and even to some extent Intelligent Design, are analogous to epicycles added to the Ptolemaic system as a last ditch effort to save it from Copernican revolution. People realize that logically Occam's razor does not favor either of them. I think in future years, even more Christians will take the Intelligent Design stepping stone over towards the evolution camp, just as Christians were slowly forced to do when a heliocentric universe was proven to be correct.

 

[stevezak11]

READ YOUR BIBLE'S CAREFULLY...God did not create both Adam & Eve. He only created Adam. Eve came from Adam.

The word create means "to form out of nothing". Eve came from something so she was not created.

 

[Melethiel]

READ YOUR BIBLE'S CAREFULLY...God did not create both Adam & Eve. He only created Adam. Eve came from Adam.

The word create means "to form out of nothing". Eve came from something so she was not created.

How do you explain this then? "Male and female He created them."

 

[gluadys]

READ YOUR BIBLE'S CAREFULLY...God did not create both Adam & Eve. He only created Adam. Eve came from Adam.

The word create means "to form out of nothing". Eve came from something so she was not created.

In addition to Melethiel's question, here is another:

If 'the word create means "to form out of nothing" ', please explain Gen. 2:7 which says that the man was formed from the dust of the earth. Does that mean the man was not created either?

 

[RealityCheck]

This is how it works.

There are multiple authors of the first 5 books of the Bible. Genesis especially has several different sources that were blended into a single book and labeled as "Genesis". It was not written by a single author in one sitting or even over a few years.

The first chapter of Genesis is the classic 6-day creation story. Light is created, the sun and moon after the light (?!), day and night are created (but before the sun and moon!), the ocean is separated into the waters of the earth and the waters of heaven (ie why is the sky blue?), plant life is created, then the animals, and finally "man" and in this chapter man refers to "all humans", both male and female. This first account of creation specifically implies that men and women are created at the same time, not separately and not man first, woman after out of man. In this account, it is stated that God created "man" (male AND female) in the likeness or image of God. God commands the humans to "be fruitful and multiply" and then comes day 7.

Now, comes chapter 2. Chapter 2 is a different creation story altogether. Compare it carefully to chapter 1 and you will see the incongruencies.

First of all, the chapter shifts linguistic style. You may not see that in an English translation, but scholars of Biblical Hebrew (and my mother was one) have noted and studied this stylistic difference.

Second, it starts by saying that this chapter takes place in the day before any green thing grew on the face of the earth. On that day, God took dust from the ground, molded it as clay, breathed into it (ie gave it the breath of God, or Spirit), and that was Adam. God then places Adam in the Garden, and brings out all the animals and lets Adam name them. Once it is clear that none is a suitable companion for Adam, God makes Adam sleep, takes out a rib, and fashions Woman.

Notice the problem? Chapter 2 states that Adam was created before plant life came forth - that is, well before day 6 in the Chapter 1 story, which is the day humans are created (plant life comes on day 5).

The story in chapter 2 (and in fact the story of generations from Adam to Noah, and the story of the great flood) is rooted in the mythology of ancient Babylon, which in turn is rooted in myths from the Sumerians and Chaldeans (note that Abraham himself is a Chaldean). Chapter 1, however, is a completely different story that is not rooted in any one specific locale or people. It is probably the later of the two accounts, in terms of when it was written. It was arranged prior to chapter 2, obviously, because it is poetic and provides a grand beginning to the book of Genesis (in the eyes of whatever men were responsible for compiling all these stories into one book).