My Genesis 2 Challenge

[AV1611VET]

For those of you who say Genesis 2 is another account of creation, are you admitting that the Bible says God created man before He created the apes?

 

[HTacianas]

For those of you who say Genesis 2 is another account of creation, are you admitting that the Bible says God created man before He created the apes?

No one is saying anything of the sort. Those who say there are two creation accounts in Genesis are saying that there are two creation accounts in Genesis.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For those of you who say Genesis 2 is another account of creation, are you admitting that the Bible says God created man before He created the apes?

...uh, no, I admit that Genesis 2 (and 3) is a representational, spiritualized 'polemical story' aimed right at the heart of all of those backward mythologies that were held by the surrounding cultures and nations existing during the time in which it was written. Of course, Genesis 1 does the same thing, but from another angle altogether.

See Conrad Hyers for more on this.............................. Blessings, AV!

 

[Ken Rank]

For those of you who say Genesis 2 is another account of creation, are you admitting that the Bible says God created man before He created the apes?

Genesis 1 is an overview, a generalization... a broad stroke of the pen in terms of information. Genesis 2 gets more specific and begins to deal with how and when and why and all that stuff. There is no conflicting information at all between the two.

 

[A_Thinker]

For those of you who say Genesis 2 is another account of creation, are you admitting that the Bible says God created man before He created the apes?

I see Genesis chapter 1 as the general creation ... and Genesis chapter 2 ... as the creation of the garden of Eden.

Genesis chapter 1 says that God created the animals BEFORE He created man.

Genesis chapter 2 says that in the events of the Garden of Eden, ... God formed representatives of each of the creatures He had had previously created, ... and brought them before Adam to name.

This was obviously two at a time, and not the General creation, because Adam recognized that there was a male and female version of each.

 

[Colter]

For those of you who say Genesis 2 is another account of creation, are you admitting that the Bible says God created man before He created the apes?

No, the books were redacted, edited and rewritten, combining stories together.

 

[DavidPT]

Anyone that thinks there are two creation accounts here, rather than one, are simply confused is all. It's not even logical that there could be two entirely different creations here.

Here's some of my reasoning why there couldn't possibly be two creation accounts between the two.

Genesis 2:21 And 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;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

What does this obviously and undeniably tell us, especially in light of verse 23? It tells us that until the LORD God first caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman---that there was no such thing as a woman at this point, meaning of the human species. A woman is obviously a female, so that means until God did these things first with Adam and one of his ribs, there was not yet any such thing as the female human species. There was only the male human species until this occurred.

And Adam himself proves it as well by what he said here----And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. IOW she is a female of the human species, obviously and undeniably.

Let's now look at Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

This is obviously talking about the human species. A male is obviously meaning a man. A female is obviously meaning a woman. Genesis 2 tells us there was no such thing as a woman of the human species until God made one from Adam. Adam said she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Why would Adam have said that if a woman or women(as in plural), meaning female/s, were already created via a previous creation, meaning the 6th day in Genesis 1? How can both accounts not be referring to the same events? It's not even remotely logical that there could be two entirely different creations between Genesis 1 and 2. One can't have the female human species already existing and not existing, at the same time, where we learn from Genesis 2 that the female human species didn't even exist as of yet until God made a female from the man.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone that thinks there are two creation accounts here, rather than one, are simply confused is all.

I agree.

I believe Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 make up what is called a "frame story."

The purpose of this thread is to try and get those who say they are two contradictory accounts to realize that they are [siliently] admitting that the Bible says God created man before He created apes.

And that's a road I don't think they want to go down.

After all, they are opening the door for others to say, "The Bible says man came first, not the apes; therfore evolution is a lie of the devil that is not supported by Scripture."

 

[VirOptimus]

I agree.

I believe Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 make up what is called a "frame story."

The purpose of this thread is to try and get those who say they are two contradictory accounts to realize that they are [siliently] admitting that the Bible says God created man before He created apes.

And that's a road I don't think they want to go down.

After all, they are opening the door for others to say, "The Bible says man came first, not the apes; therfore evolution is a lie of the devil that is not supported by Scripture."

Humans are apes by definition so to say that humans came before apes is a logical impossibility.

 

[DavidPT]

I agree.

I believe Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 make up what is called a "frame story."

The purpose of this thread is to try and get those who say they are two contradictory accounts to realize that they are [siliently] admitting that the Bible says God created man before He created apes.

And that's a road I don't think they want to go down.

After all, they are opening the door for others to say, "The Bible says man came first, not the apes; therfore evolution is a lie of the devil that is not supported by Scripture."

Why would it mean God created man before He created apes? Couldn't they simply argue that God created apes in Genesis 1 before He created man in Genesis 1, and that in Genesis 2 when He created animals before He created that man, none of those animals included apes? Keep in mind, meaning from their perspective.

 

[AV1611VET]

Humans are apes by definition so to say that humans came before apes is a logical impossibility.

Then those who think Genesis 2 depicts the order of creation are going to have to drop that nonsense, aren't they?

 

[VirOptimus]

Then those who think Genesis 2 depicts the order of creation are going to have to drop that nonsense, aren't they?

I wouldnt know and wouldnt care. Genesis is creation myth and as all myths not meant to be read literaly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would it mean God created man before He created apes? Couldn't they simply argue that God created apes in Genesis 1 before He created man in Genesis 1, and that in Genesis 2 when He created animals before He created that man, none of those animals included apes? Keep in mind, meaning from their perspective.

As I understand it, they subordinate Genesis 1 to Genesis 2.

So Genesis 1, in academia's way of thinking, is not how it happened.

The technical term they are taught to use is: "contradiction."

 

[Aman777]

Humans are apes by definition so to say that humans came before apes is a logical impossibility.

False, since Adam was made the 3rd Day Genesis 2:4-7 and every other "living creature that moveth" was made the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21 Apes moveth, so it is impossible that they could have been Adam's ancestors.

The blood of Humans (descendants of Adam) was contaminated by the blood of prehistoric people because Noah's grandsons had NO other Humans (descendants of Adam) to marry. Genesis 6:4 If you don't believe me, then tell me who they married???

 

[AV1611VET]

I wouldnt know and wouldnt care.

Then please get your Bible out* and read Genesis 2 for yourself, and see if it squares with evolution.

* I'm almost positive you "wouldn't know and wouldn't cares" of the world secretly have a Bible in your house.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then please get your Bible out* and read Genesis 2 for yourself, and see if it squares with evolution.

* I'm almost positive you "wouldn't know and wouldn't cares" of the world secretly have a Bible in your house.

No bible in my house and wouldnt waste my time reading it if it where one there.

But I already know that genesis 1 and 2 are creation myths, they arent meant to be scientific texts and therefore its stupid treating them like they are. Literal interpretation is a very modern thing, the authors of theese myths would never treat them like that. They would also have a very different idea what "truth" means then you. A story may be true without being factual.

The ToE is a description of physical reality, the bible contain religious texts that deal with spritual things, not science.

 

[AV1611VET]

No bible in my house and wouldnt waste my time reading it if it where one there.

You'd rather waste your time reading Nietzsche, wouldn't you?

But I already know that genesis 1 and 2 are creation myths,

Hmmm ... meaning you heard someone say that and (for some reason) didn't check into it first?

BUT ... let's assume you really do believe that it's a myth (for Fried_rich knows what reason).

That makes it even worse.

Then you would definitely have to admit that the Bible puts apes before man.

 

[A_Thinker]

I agree.

I believe Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 make up what is called a "frame story."

The purpose of this thread is to try and get those who say they are two contradictory accounts to realize that they are [siiently] admitting that the Bible says God created man before He created apes.

Looking at Genesis chapter 2 again ...

The chapter essentially begins with a conclusion to what we see in chapter 1 ...

Genesis 2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.

Then, there is a detailed description of the creation of Adam ...

5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground — 7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

The creation of the garden of Eden ...

8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The naming of the animals ...

19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had 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. 20 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.

... and the creation of Eve ...

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. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, ...

"This, at last, is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man".


We may be trying too hard to find chronological exactitude in chapter 2. We should remember that this was written by Moses some unknown millennia later. It looks like he gave the general chronology in chapter 1, ... and filled in some of the details in chapter 2 ...

 

[AV1611VET]

Looking at Genesis chapter 2 again ...

You're preaching to the choir here, chief.

I know there's no contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

The two chapters make up a frame story (a story within a story).

This thread is for those who think otherwise.

 

[VirOptimus]

You'd rather waste your time reading Nietzsche, wouldn't you?
Hmmm ... meaning you heard someone say that and (for some reason) didn't check into it first?

BUT ... let's assume you really do believe that it's a myth (for Fried_rich knows what reason).

That makes it even worse.

Then you would definitely have to admit that the Bible puts apes before man.

I dont care about your beef with Nietsche.

But again, humans are apes, so your sentence is nonsense.