The "second" creation story.

[Dreamscar]

Hello,

I''m new here and have a quick question that hopefully get's an easy answer.

I'll preface by saying that I believe in evolution.


In the second creation story (Gen 2:4-25) does anyone else find it absurd to believe that God would create man alone first, try to pair him up with animals to find him a "suitable helper" and only after that decide that a woman was necessary?

Man has no way to procreate without a woman. Why does no one see that in God's infinite wisdom he would not have tried to pair a man up with animals before making a woman--the only way for him to procreate?

 

[Papias]

Yes, especially considering that before he makes the woman, he makes all the animals - which it seems were being made male and female. So reading the story literally means that God makes a male and female chimp, which look a lot like humans and have over 96% of their DNA the same, looks at the pair of chimps, and still doesn't realize that a human female is a good partner for a human male.

Taking it literally portrays God as a little thick for not recognizing that, as well as other things (like implying that God can't just create a woman, but needs to do the whole anesthesia/surgery/cloning thing instead).

It seems that the second creation story is just an Origin metaphor - a fun answer to the question of why there are men and women.

Papias

 

[Dreamscar]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I was more posing this question for Creationists who assume the entire Genesis narrative to be literal history.

 

[juvenissun]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I was more posing this question for Creationists who assume the entire Genesis narrative to be literal history.

Gen 2 is literally true with the reference of Gen 1. There is no 2nd creation. So read Gen 2 this way: Assume Gen 1 is true, then what's wrong with Gen 2?

 

[SkyWriting]

Hello,
I''m new here and have a quick question that hopefully get's an easy answer.
I'll preface by saying that I believe in evolution.
In the second creation story (Gen 2:4-25) does anyone else find it absurd to believe that God would create man alone first, try to pair him up with animals to find him a "suitable helper" and only after that decide that a woman was necessary? Man has no way to procreate without a woman. Why does no one see that in God's infinite wisdom he would not have tried to pair a man up with animals before making a woman--the only way for him to procreate?

My preliminary answer is that procreation was not the intended goal. Assuming it was is a naturalistic perspective.
This early age of creation is a different place that you naturally find absurd. As usual, one can only explore what's
going on by assuming it's true and correct to start with.

 

[Papias]

SW wrote:

My preliminary answer is that procreation was not the intended goal.

So are you saying that Adam wasn't made with testicles?

Papias

 

[shernren]

Yes, especially considering that before he makes the woman, he makes all the animals - which it seems were being made male and female. So reading the story literally means that God makes a male and female chimp, which look a lot like humans and have over 96% of their DNA the same, looks at the pair of chimps, and still doesn't realize that a human female is a good partner for a human male.

Taking it literally portrays God as a little thick for not recognizing that, as well as other things (like implying that God can't just create a woman, but needs to do the whole anesthesia/surgery/cloning thing instead).

It seems that the second creation story is just an Origin metaphor - a fun answer to the question of why there are men and women.

Now I may be an evolutionist*, but I just don't think this is the only way (or even the best way) to take this text literally. The standard answer is that in parading the animals before Adam, God demonstrates to Adam that none of the animals are to be his mate. The key phrase to unpack is here:

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. (Gen 2:20, ESV)
​

"Not found", by who? By God? If we are to believe the "God as a little thick" interpretation, God is creating these animals as mates for Adam - two by two. Really? (Papias himself says that it seems the animals were being made two by two.) You'd think it would occur to God the moment He made a female anything to go with a male anything that He should make up an Adam 2.0. (Okay, I've made the obligatory male-basher joke, can I let loose a few misogynist ones now?)

That absurdity alone makes it clear that, if we begin with "God as a little thick", of course we end up with nothing more than "a fun answer to the question of why there are men and women". Except that it isn't really much of an answer either, is it? How exactly does "Hey Adam, so would you hook up with a tigress" explain why "a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife"? (Answer: beware thee the in-laws.) It doesn't. Unless you want to suggest that my standards should be so low that any woman will do for me, as long as she was not one of those animals named by Adam and found wanting by God.

And the story doesn't even explain a single thing about animals, either. I've heard plenty of etiological stories about giraffes (some found in biology textbooks) which explain how a horse or a deer or somesuch had to keep stretching its neck to reach something high up. But if I begin with "God as a little thick", I end up with the first (and last) etiological story to ever tell me that a giraffe was really God trying to make a woman. Don't rag too much on God. The Israelites would have been plenty thick to accept such a story into their oral storytelling repertoire, let alone their holy Scriptures.

I think it's quite clear to see that it is in fact Adam who needs to be taught how to love his wife. This is the only pre-marital counseling he's ever going to get. See, God has told Adam to work and keep the garden, and by extension that applies to the animals. And on the one hand this injunction applies to Eve too: he is to love her and to keep her, in (what will be an example of) a picture of Christ's love for the church. On the other hand, God needs to make it clear that Eve is not just to be herded or shouted around at like the other animals. She is a human just as he is.

So what does God do? He shows Adam all the other animals, to get him to both appreciate God's wondrous creation and long for his own companionship. For amongst all the majestic creatures of God there is not found a helper fit for him - not by God, of course, who knew exactly what He was creating and why, but by innocent Adam learning his first lesson in love. Then, having awakened Adam's longing, God engages a little medical drama: He puts him to sleep, draws out a rib, and from it fashions a woman for Adam. Of course, He didn't have to clone Adam, but He didn't have to not clone Adam either, right? When Adam wakes, he sees Eve, and realizes that she is both another creation to steward and keep and really an integral part of him in a way that no animals are.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh, and God begins a profound mystery not by coming across as a little thick but by effectively teaching Adam that Eve is his both to lead and to love. Even in a story to be interpreted non-literally, I am not willing to let go of the idea that God is wise and just and loving, and that He only knows and does the best for His children.

*An evolutionist, by the way, should be one who accepts evolution as the best current scientific framework for investigating the origins of biodiversity. The believer in evolution should seem just as silly to the evolutionist as anyone believing in creationism.

 

[Dreamscar]

Gen 2 is literally true with the reference of Gen 1. There is no 2nd creation. So read Gen 2 this way: Assume Gen 1 is true, then what's wrong with Gen 2?

What? I've obviously posed the problem with Genesis 2 in the original post.

 

[Dreamscar]

My preliminary answer is that procreation was not the intended goal. Assuming it was is a naturalistic perspective.
This early age of creation is a different place that you naturally find absurd. As usual, one can only explore what's
going on by assuming it's true and correct to start with.

In the first creation story God tells the first man and woman to be fruitful and multiply. Where does that fit in with your understanding of God's intended goal?

Maybe you should define what you think the intended goal was and when that deviated?

 

[Dreamscar]

And the story doesn't even explain a single thing about animals, either. I've heard plenty of etiological stories about giraffes (some found in biology textbooks) which explain how a horse or a deer or somesuch had to keep stretching its neck to reach something high up.

I think the etiological portion of this story applies to God bringing the animals to Adam to "see what he could call them". No, that's not anything about specific animals, but it is still etiological.

But if I begin with "God as a little thick", I end up with the first (and last) etiological story to ever tell me that a giraffe was really God trying to make a woman. Don't rag too much on God. The Israelites would have been plenty thick to accept such a story into their oral storytelling repertoire, let alone their holy Scriptures.

It's not necessarily that the Ancient Hebrews would have been thick, but more ignorant and less concerned with details that we obsess over today. My point being that attempting to understand this passage of scripture (and all of the OT in general) in light of our own presuppositions is going to lead us to a nonsensical vantage point, i.e., man being created with no testicles.

I think it's quite clear to see that it is in fact Adam who needs to be taught how to love his wife ... and God begins a profound mystery not by coming across as a little thick but by effectively teaching Adam that Eve is his both to lead and to love. Even in a story to be interpreted non-literally, I am not willing to let go of the idea that God is wise and just and loving, and that He only knows and does the best for His children.

Wonderful!

I absolutely agree with you. I think if other people could see that not only is all of the theological information that is revealed in Genesis out-of-the-box but also the same information regardless of a literal or figurative interpretation, they may not have such a problem with a figurative interpretation of the Bible. That's really hoping, I understand.

I have the same understanding of this passage, but I got to the point in a more non-literal way. I do see how you could still see this as a literal text and achieve the same end result. Thanks.

I'm more trying to play Devil's advocate and broaden minds.

 

[Harry3142]

To understand Genesis 1,2,&3, we need to focus on whom the author was addressing. And in this case, he was addressing a people who had just spent years living among another people who worshipped well over 40 different gods and goddesses. They also had their own creation story.

According to the egyptian creation epic, the gods and goddesses spent the first five days creating other gods and goddesses. Every animal, including human beings, was created on the sixth day as almost an afterthought, and then 'dumped' on this planet.

So first Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 dealt with the multiplicity of gods and goddesses. According to that myth, the sun, the moon, the stars, and all the animals seen around them were representations of gods and goddesses, many times in combinations of human and animal forms. The first creation story systematically 'stripped' everything visible of its divine attributes. The sun, moon, and stars were merely objects in the sky which gave us light and heat, and the animals were merely animals, rather than representations of a certain god or goddess. By the time that the first creation story was completed, the only divine being was seen as an invisible God who could never have an idol made of him, because no one knew what he looked like.

The second creation story (Genesis 2:4-25) dealt with the egyptian concept that mankind was nothing more than another animal. In this story man was given the authority to name all the other species of animals (a symbol of power over them at that time); he could converse with God directly, unlike any other specie of animal; he had a certain place where he was to live (The Garden of Eden), which God had prepared for him. And, unlike every other specie of animal, he had the capacity to choose whether he would obey God's commands or not (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).

Continuing into chapter 3 of Genesis, we see how this ability to choose played out. Both Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of knowledge, and thereby became cognizant of good and evil. They had lost their innocence, and alone among the species recognized that there were acts which were to be seen as evil, and other acts which were to be seen as good.

The story itself in Genesis 3, is based on the egyptian myth of Ra versus Sebau. Sebau was the serpent god of egyptian mythology, and a sworn enemy of mankind. Ra engaged him in battle, defeated him, hacked off his front legs, and bound his hind legs together, forcing him to crawl on the ground on his belly. This was adapted into God's merely willing that the serpent should be forced to crawl on its belly, and have it automatically be realized.

But the goal of the author was not to tell his people why serpents didn't have legs; it was to tell them that at a definite point in their past their ancestors had acquired the ability to recognize acts not only as beneficial or detrimental to their welfare, but as good or evil when seen in the light of any society's welfare. Mankind, alone of all the species of animals, had come to the realization that there were acts which we needed to see as evil, while other acts we could see as good.

 

[Dreamscar]

I appreciate your post, but I'm not sure I see the point. It in no way referenced the original post's question in any way.

Also, most higher criticism scholars adhere to the idea that the first creation story is a direct parody of the Enuma Elish--the Babylonian creation myth--and the second story (as well as the flood narrative) correlates to the Epic of Gilgamesh--a Sumerian myth of origins. Would you care to elaborate on where you learned about how the Egyptian myth ties into the Ancient Hebrew's understanding of cosmology? I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but I've read quite a few books and journals about it and have never come across that specifically.

 

[SkyWriting]

SW wrote:
So are you saying that Adam wasn't made with testicles?
Papias

Not much to cover up, so no clothes needed.
An interesting thought. Alas, I have no access
to further details on the matter.

 

[SkyWriting]

.....box but also the same information regardless of a literal or figurative interpretation, they may not have such a problem with a figurative interpretation of the Bible. That's really hoping, I understand....

What you will find with the best of the literalists (ie. Chuck Swindoll) is that they enthusiastically embrace the "figurative" messages that God reveals to those who take the scriptures seriously as literal Truth.

 

[SkyWriting]

To understand Genesis 1,2,&3, we need to focus on whom the author was addressing. And in this case, he was addressing a people who had just spent years living among another people who worshipped well over 40 different gods and goddesses. They also had their own creation story.

According to the egyptian creation epic, the gods and goddesses spent the first five days creating other gods and goddesses. Every animal, including human beings, was created on the sixth day as almost an afterthought, and then 'dumped' on this planet.

So first Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 dealt with the multiplicity of gods and goddesses. According to that myth, the sun, the moon, the stars, and all the animals seen around them were representations of gods and goddesses, many times in combinations of human and animal forms. The first creation story systematically 'stripped' everything visible of its divine attributes. The sun, moon, and stars were merely objects in the sky which gave us light and heat, and the animals were merely animals, rather than representations of a certain god or goddess. By the time that the first creation story was completed, the only divine being was seen as an invisible God who could never have an idol made of him, because no one knew what he looked like.

The second creation story (Genesis 2:4-25) dealt with the egyptian concept that mankind was nothing more than another animal. In this story man was given the authority to name all the other species of animals (a symbol of power over them at that time); he could converse with God directly, unlike any other specie of animal; he had a certain place where he was to live (The Garden of Eden), which God had prepared for him. And, unlike every other specie of animal, he had the capacity to choose whether he would obey God's commands or not (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).

Continuing into chapter 3 of Genesis, we see how this ability to choose played out. Both Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of knowledge, and thereby became cognizant of good and evil. They had lost their innocence, and alone among the species recognized that there were acts which were to be seen as evil, and other acts which were to be seen as good.

The story itself in Genesis 3, is based on the egyptian myth of Ra versus Sebau. Sebau was the serpent god of egyptian mythology, and a sworn enemy of mankind. Ra engaged him in battle, defeated him, hacked off his front legs, and bound his hind legs together, forcing him to crawl on the ground on his belly. This was adapted into God's merely willing that the serpent should be forced to crawl on its belly, and have it automatically be realized.

But the goal of the author was not to tell his people why serpents didn't have legs; it was to tell them that at a definite point in their past their ancestors had acquired the ability to recognize acts not only as beneficial or detrimental to their welfare, but as good or evil when seen in the light of any society's welfare. Mankind, alone of all the species of animals, had come to the realization that there were acts which we needed to see as evil, while other acts we could see as good.

There is no good reason to assume that Gen 3 is based on an Egyptian myth. The Egyptian myth is just as likely to be based on the story told in Gen 3.
Just because one was published first, doesn't prove it was the source material for the other.

 

[philadiddle]

Also, most higher criticism scholars adhere to the idea that the first creation story is a direct parody of the Enuma Elish--the Babylonian creation myth--and the second story (as well as the flood narrative) correlates to the Epic of Gilgamesh--a Sumerian myth of origins.

I haven't heard scholars say it is a "parody" but rather it is an apologetic response to the other creation myths.

 

[juvenissun]

What? I've obviously posed the problem with Genesis 2 in the original post.

When referred to Gen 1, your problem can be considered solved.

 

[philadiddle]

When referred to Gen 1, your problem can be considered solved.

Nuh uh.

As usual you are clinging to generalities because you can't actually address the point. It's really getting old Juvy.

 

[Dreamscar]

I haven't heard scholars say it is a "parody" but rather it is an apologetic response to the other creation myths.

You're right, that was probably a poor choice of words.

 

[Dreamscar]

There is no good reason to assume that Gen 3 is based on an Egyptian myth. The Egyptian myth is just as likely to be based on the story told in Gen 3.
Just because one was published first, doesn't prove it was the source material for the other.

Although I don't know about the Egyptian myth per se, you are correct. Just because one can be dated earlier does not mean it was the original; however, there are significant clues in the Genesis narrative that are direct references to some of the other ancient myths.

For example, in Genesis 1:2 God's spirit "hovers" over the water. That word for "hovering", tehome is a double entendre. The name of the Babylonian goddess of water and chaos was Tiamat (pronounced tee-ha-mat). This was to show God's power over both the waters and the Babylonian goddess of chaos. It doesn't make much sense for the Babylonians to have created a goddess based on the pun of a word for hover, but it makes much more sense the other way around.

There are other examples like this that do not "prove" that Genesis was based on other cultural origins myths, but it does give a very good indication that they were. Which is more than the complete lack of evidence to suggest that all of the other creation myths were based on Genesis.