My Genesis 2 Challenge

[DavidPT]

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.

This thread is only relevant to Bible believers then, correct? And not relevant to atheists, correct? The latter doesn't even believe in one creation account, let alone two.

 

[AV1611VET]

I dont care about your beef with Nietsche.

In spite of your caption, or with respect to it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

AV, of course it doesn't "square" with evolution, and I don't think we should expect it too. In my view, or actually the view of Christians like those at BioLogos, these first few chapters in Genesis are representational accounts, poetic and metaphorical in nature.

If there's any "framing" going on, as you've suggested in another kind of literary way, it is that Genesis 2 and 3 (and 1) are written as cosmogonic accounts which are placed as an ontological prelude to the book of Genesis, all of which is structured within the parameters of ancient Jewish genealogies and legal thought. It's not 'history' as we often think of it today, but it is revelatory in nature and it sets up God's truth, however representational and poetic it may be. It's main intent is to inform us that God is Creator and Lord of His Creation, Lord of all of humanity. Moreover, as far my research tells me, Genesis 1, 2, and 3 aren't indicating "how" God made the world or how long it actually took; rather it's telling us who made Heaven and Earth and all that is in it. It's not science, nor was in intended to be.

But, when you insist that it could be, should be, might be compared to today's insights about Natural History and the progress of Evolution of life on earth, then you're in effect 'bending' the context to meet a modern purpose that it wasn't originally written to address.

And when you do that, it's enough to make some people want to read a MAD magazine backwards, and exclaim it as they do it!

 

[Heissonear]

...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!

I do not think so. Let the Spirit rather than man or intellect lead.

 

[AV1611VET]

This thread is only relevant to Bible believers then, correct?

It is relevant to:

For those of you who say Genesis 2 is another account of creation

Thus anyone who says that.

And not relevant to atheists, correct? The latter doesn't even believe in one creation account, let alone two.

Maybe I'm wrong, but atheists seem to be more vociferous about it than Bible allegorists.

 

[AV1611VET]

And when you do that, it's enough to make some people want to read a MAD magazine backwards, and exclaim it as they do it!

Okay, you get a rating point for this part!

 

[Heissonear]

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.

There are reasons people stiff arm the Bible. And dismiss it.

It is unfortunate one does such. The wealth and wonder of His Work, even the Bible are the most precious to attain and gain from.

Eye salve, white raiment, and gold are positions attainable. Of true fellowship walk with Him in His Bible.

 

[A_Thinker]

Moreover, as far my research tells me, Genesis 1, 2, and 3 aren't indicating "how" God made the world or how long it actually took; rather it's telling us who made Heaven and Earth and all that is in it. It's not science, nor was in intended to be.

But, when you insist that it could be, should be, might be compared to today's insights about Natural History and the progress of Evolution of life on earth, then you're in effect 'bending' the context to meet a modern purpose that it wasn't originally written to address.

Good points ... intention matters ...

 

[AV1611VET]

Good points ... intention matters ...

Actually the Bible does say how God did it, but not in academic parlance.

It says He "spoke" the universe into existence.

Children can understand it ... but not modern academians, who want to delve deeper into areas that are beyond their limited comprehension.

 

[Colter]

The contraditions between the two creation accounts that were merged together can be seen here:
2 Biblical Stories of Creation

 

[Aman777]

It looks like he gave the general chronology in chapter 1, ... and filled in some of the details in chapter 2 ...

Amen, you have discovered a hidden secret in Genesis. God the Holy Spirit told the entire story of the 6 Days of Creation in Genesis chapter 1. He then tells us of a FUTURE Day/Age, the 7th Day, in the first 3 verses of Genesis 2. God has but 7 Days/Ages since the 7th is Eternity.

At Genesis 2:4 to the end of Revelation 22, the Bible refers BACK to the Day/Age of God's 7 Day Creation, shown in the first 34 verses of Genesis. ie. Genesis 2:4 takes us back to the 3rd Day and shows that Adam was formed from the dust on the 3rd Day instead of the 6th. Genesis 2:4-7 Amen?

 

[Aman777]

The contraditions between the two creation accounts that were merged together can be seen here:
2 Biblical Stories of Creation

Pick out your favorite supposed "contradiction" and I will show you your error. It should clear up your confusion and show you the details which have escaped you so far.

 

[mark kennedy]

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?

Thats based on Genesis 2 having the divine article, the covenant name of God while Gen. 1 is Elohim (God Almighty). The names of God in the OT relect something about the relationship with God implied. He told Moses that the Patriarchs knew him as Elshaddai, but you know me as Yahweh. The covenant had expanded, Adam was in covenant as well.

 

[A_Thinker]

Actually the Bible does say how God did it, but not in academic parlance.

It says He "spoke" the universe into existence.

Children can understand it ... but not modern academians, who want to delve deeper into areas that are beyond their limited comprehension.

As a head of household, I can speak that the mortgage is paid, ... but I don't mind that, at the proper time, my children investigate (or become informed about) some of the things that went on behind my "speaking" ...

 

[Uber Genius]

therfore evolution is a lie of the devil that is not supported by Scripture."

Hmm, this is a non-sequitur.

Did you notice anything that appears out of order in the Gen 1 account, since order seems so important to your thesis?

 

[AV1611VET]

Thats based on Genesis 2 having the divine article, the covenant name of God while Gen. 1 is Elohim (God Almighty). The names of God in the OT relect something about the relationship with God implied. He told Moses that the Patriarchs knew him as Elshaddai, but you know me as Yahweh. The covenant had expanded, Adam was in covenant as well.

What does God's name have to do with it?

Who was Jesus' disciple? Matthew or Levi?

And just to be facetious to make a point: let's say a different person wrote each and every single word found in Genesis 2.

From kings to priests to farmers.

Not one single word would be any different than if Moses would have written it (which, by the way, he didn't).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

How is that?

Genesis 1 describes the world. Genesis 2 describes the garden where no plants had yet grown for man had not yet been put there to tend it.

Just another incorrect assumption on man’s part to think there is any contradiction.

 

[HTacianas]

How is that?

Genesis 1 describes the world. Genesis 2 describes the garden where no plants had yet grown for man had not yet been put there to tend it.

Just another incorrect assumption on man’s part to think there is any contradiction.

Google "J"and "El" texts of the bible.

 

[mark kennedy]

What does God's name have to do with it?

Who was Jesus' disciple? Matthew or Levi?

And just to be facetious to make a point: let's say a different person wrote each and every single word found in Genesis 2.

From kings to priests to farmers.

Not one single word would be any different than if Moses would have written it (which, by the way, he didn't).

The use of specific names reflects the overall message. It's called JEPD' for Jehovah', Elohim, Pentetauch, and the Deuteronomist. Deuteronomy is thought to have been written after the exile. The reason being the language used is thought to reflect the time period is was compiled. Genesis 2 isnt a seperate account, it's a continuation of the original creation and just overlaps a bit.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Google "J"and "El" texts of the bible.

No need. Try rereading genesis 2 and pay attention that it is the garden being discussed, not the world.

Yes, I am aware people want to turn the ONE true God into many.....