The "second" creation story.

[SwPoIrRdIsT]

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.
quote]

G-d should have a right to change his mind as we do the same as he does. Is he perfect is not the question. its the idea we are not perfect and no telling what we will do next. However he is a quick learner.

I see it as adam was just not taking the plunge in what G-d wanted him to do. The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil was there in the midst of the garden before any other trees came out the of the ground. Was it that adam was doing it all right or all wrong? Comes woman

 

[juvenissun]

Nuh uh.

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

Not at all.

Gen 2 is a perfect footnote of Gen 1. This is the way to understand, old or new.

 

[Dreamscar]

Not at all.

Gen 2 is a perfect footnote of Gen 1. This is the way to understand, old or new.

That's being incredibly vague and not beneficial to anyone. Explain what you mean or don't post anything, please.

 

[philadiddle]

Not at all.

Gen 2 is a perfect footnote of Gen 1. This is the way to understand, old or new.

Let's recap here:

DS: 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?

Juv: Assume Gen 1 is true, then what's wrong with Gen 2?

DS: I've obviously posed the problem with Genesis 2 in the original post.

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

Phil: As usual you are clinging to generalities because you can't actually address the point.

Juv: Gen 2 is a perfect footnote of Gen 1.

DS: That's being incredibly vague and not beneficial to anyone. Explain what you mean or don't post anything, please.

Seriously Juv, you know that you aren't addressing the point so are you just trolling cause you feel like messing with people? After all the discussions I've seen you in where you don't actually have any points to make I'm beginning to think that you have come to accept theistic evolution and a proper understanding of creation in its cultural context but you have too much pride to admit it on this forum.

 

[Greg1234]

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?

Adam wasnt purely mortal when created, he wasn't specifically male or female (the separation came afterwards) and he wasn't as physical as seen today. Perhaps the predominantly physical basis stemming from your Darwinian affiliation is the fault.

 

[Harry3142]

That's being incredibly vague and not beneficial to anyone. Explain what you mean or don't post anything, please.

Unless you are the moderator of this board, you 'crossed the line' with this message. No person posting on this board has the right to tell another person that he is not to post.

 

[Dreamscar]

Adam wasnt purely mortal when created, he wasn't specifically male or female (the separation came afterwards) and he wasn't as physical as seen today. Perhaps the predominantly physical basis stemming from your Darwinian affiliation is the fault.

Would you like to explain where that idea comes from? I'm very intrigued as to where you found that.

 

[Dreamscar]

Unless you are the moderator of this board, you 'crossed the line' with this message. No person posting on this board has the right to tell another person that he is not to post.

I looked at the forum rules and didn't see anywhere on there that I can't ask someone who isn't contributing to the discussion to not post if they are still continuing to be vague and pointless.

 

[SkyWriting]

Adam wasnt purely mortal when created, he wasn't specifically male or female (the separation came afterwards) and he wasn't as physical as seen today. Perhaps the predominantly physical basis stemming from your Darwinian affiliation is the fault.

That's a very good explanation. That also explains why "Adam" translates as mankind. Adam walked with God in the Garden, so I knew something was different.

 

[SkyWriting]

I looked at the forum rules and didn't see anywhere on there that I can't ask someone who isn't contributing to the discussion to not post if they are still continuing to be vague and pointless.

That's correct. Such requests are to be taken at face value & ignored.

 

[Harry3142]

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.

Where were the Hebrews before they were freed? They were in Egypt, under egyptian teachings. This included the myths. So whether the egyptians themselves first obtained those myths from Sumeria or Babylonia is irrelevant to The Creation Story, because the Hebrews themselves were taught the myths by the egyptians.

For those of us who accept Moses himself as the author of this part of Torah, it makes even more sense to see the stories as I've decribed them. The Ten Commandments and Cecil B. DeMille notwithstanding, it is believed by me (as well as others) that Moses' lifetime actually corresponded to that of Hatshepsut (about 250 years earlier than Ramesses the Great). This would have put him as being alive when the serpent was still seen as a symbol of evil rather than the guardian of the pharaoh, which it was by the time of Ramesses.

As for presenting the animals to Adam, the only way you can read anything sexual into that passage is to put it there yourself. There is nothing in Scripture that would indicate that Adam was to do anything more than name the animals that he saw. At that time he wasn't even permitted to use them as food (that right isn't given mankind until Genesis 9).

But after he had completed the task of naming the other animals, God dealt with providing him with a companion fit for him. But any thought that Genesis 2 involved the suggestion of bestiality is far from what the story actually intends to tell us.

It is also suspected that Moses' original name was Thutmose, since Hatshepsut's father was Thutmose I and her husband was Thutmose II. A minor wife had given birth to a son (Thutmose III), but Hatshepsut herself remained childless. So she adopted the child we now call by his Hebrew name, Moses, and reared him in the royal court, where he was taught the egyptian myths in detail.

Knowing the myths, knowing that the Hebrew people also knew the myths, but knowing that one of his main responsibilities was to teach the people that there was only one God, Moses either attacked the myths head-on, as in the cases of Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, or 'turned' them to serve the purpose that he wanted, as in the battle of Sebau and Ra becoming the fall of man and the cursing of the serpent.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

I didn't intend to imply that the Egyptians were reading the Genesis coffee table book with pictures. I meant that they were based on the same set of facts about creation that humanity has kept in circulation in the rumor mill ever since the first generation. Throughout time these rumors have circulated about where humanity came from. The Egyptians documented some of theirs, and Moses had a very close relationship with God who either set him straight on which of the many versions was the correct one or else showed him how it all went down directly into his mind. The similarities with other creation versions are to be expected. They all stem from the same basis in fact.

 

[SkyWriting]

...At that time he wasn't even permitted to use them as food (that right isn't given mankind until Genesis 9)...

Rats. You just messed up my efforts to link evolution and the Bible again.
A guy can't even sit on his food chain and eat a tasty critter in peace.

 

[SkyWriting]

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?

I'll just go with the story line.
God wanted company made in his image.
God enjoys walking in the Garden with Adam. (He could be somewhere else if He desired.)
He saw Adam needed company as well. He could have Created more people but Adam choose to "Do it Myyyyyy way". God said FINE.

Just like my stepson. Fine. But you won't live like that under MY roof.
"I give you my blessing. Go forth and procreate" and learn about life where you don't HAVE to follow my rules. See-ya. Luv-ya!
Note that God does not "walk" in this new world like He did with Adam. It's a different place.
That's the Gen 1 Mankind story, explained in greater detail in Gen 2.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

...it is highly unlikely that Moses, with all of the biblical history recorded about him, would have borrowed creation history from a polytheistic civilization existing to his respective east, while he lived and served a monotheistic God in the respective west.
Does the Genesis creation account come from the Babylonian Enuma Elish? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Unless the other story was already partially correct. Granted, I seem to be the only one to consider this view.

 

[Dreamscar]

Where were the Hebrews before they were freed? They were in Egypt, under egyptian teachings. This included the myths. So whether the egyptians themselves first obtained those myths from Sumeria or Babylonia is irrelevant to The Creation Story, because the Hebrews themselves were taught the myths by the egyptians.

The problem with that is, as I've already explained, the Genesis narrative is incredibly similar to the Babylonian and Sumerian myths, not Egyptian. If it was specifically an apologetic (thanks Philadiddle) for the Egyptian creation myths, there would be many more references to the Egyptian gods and goddesses, not the Babylonian and Sumerian gods and goddesses.

For those of us who accept Moses himself as the author of this part of Torah, it makes even more sense to see the stories as I've decribed them. The Ten Commandments and Cecil B. DeMille notwithstanding, it is believed by me (as well as others) that Moses' lifetime actually corresponded to that of Hatshepsut (about 250 years earlier than Ramesses the Great). This would have put him as being alive when the serpent was still seen as a symbol of evil rather than the guardian of the pharaoh, which it was by the time of Ramesses.

Sure, I can concede that point. I don't know much about it other than it's still fairly controversial. I don't know that it would really swing the argument either way, though, because there's a strong argument against Moses actually writing the Genesis narrative to begin with.

As for presenting the animals to Adam, the only way you can read anything sexual into that passage is to put it there yourself. There is nothing in Scripture that would indicate that Adam was to do anything more than name the animals that he saw. At that time he wasn't even permitted to use them as food (that right isn't given mankind until Genesis 9).

But after he had completed the task of naming the other animals, God dealt with providing him with a companion fit for him. But any thought that Genesis 2 involved the suggestion of bestiality is far from what the story actually intends to tell us.

Sorry if you saw that in my post, but I wasn't trying to make any assumptions about bestiality. I was talking more about how it would seem that God wasn't entirely sure what he was doing when he made man with no way to actually procreate (if you read Shernren's earlier post, he actually explains it very well).

It is also suspected that Moses' original name was Thutmose, since Hatshepsut's father was Thutmose I and her husband was Thutmose II. A minor wife had given birth to a son (Thutmose III), but Hatshepsut herself remained childless. So she adopted the child we now call by his Hebrew name, Moses, and reared him in the royal court, where he was taught the egyptian myths in detail.

That's incredibly speculative. Moses' name in the Bible is actually a mix of both Hebrew and Coptic so to say that his name was changed from a traditional Egyptian name to a Hebrew name doesn't make much sense since his name isn't actually Hebrew.

Knowing the myths, knowing that the Hebrew people also knew the myths, but knowing that one of his main responsibilities was to teach the people that there was only one God, Moses either attacked the myths head-on, as in the cases of Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, or 'turned' them to serve the purpose that he wanted, as in the battle of Sebau and Ra becoming the fall of man and the cursing of the serpent.

Although I don't necessarily agree about it being Moses (it surely could have been) I do agree with you on the intent of the creation stories. I still have no idea where you're coming from with Sebau and Ra. The closest thing I could find was about Sobek, sometimes called Sebek, the god of crocodiles. Do you have an article?

 

[juvenissun]

Let's recap here:

DS: 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?

Juv: Assume Gen 1 is true, then what's wrong with Gen 2?

DS: I've obviously posed the problem with Genesis 2 in the original post.

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

Phil: As usual you are clinging to generalities because you can't actually address the point.

Juv: Gen 2 is a perfect footnote of Gen 1.

DS: That's being incredibly vague and not beneficial to anyone. Explain what you mean or don't post anything, please.

Seriously Juv, you know that you aren't addressing the point so are you just trolling cause you feel like messing with people? After all the discussions I've seen you in where you don't actually have any points to make I'm beginning to think that you have come to accept theistic evolution and a proper understanding of creation in its cultural context but you have too much pride to admit it on this forum.

Thanks for the summary. Now I have something to respond to:

Take DS's first accusation as an example:

2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
2:7 And 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.

2:5 and 2:6 describes the situation of Day 3 in Gen 1. If you like to have more detail, then it would be the first half of Day 3. Although I don't think it is necessary to stretch that.

2:7 would of course be on Day 6.

So, what is the problem? Would 2:5-6 make the situation of Day 3 more clear?

The reason to link what happened on Day 6 with what happened on Day 3 is to emphasize that Adam does not have to work for his food. Which is in contrast to what Adam will do after his life in the Garden is over.

Gen 2 is not trying to repeat what's done in Gen 1. It has several other critical new messages to pass on. To contrast Gen 2 with Gen 1 on the sequence of Creation is, in fact, stupid.

 

[Harry3142]

Rats. You just messed up my efforts to link evolution and the Bible again.
A guy can't even sit on his food chain and eat a tasty critter in peace.

Sorry about that.

 

[Harry3142]

That's incredibly speculative. Moses' name in the Bible is actually a mix of both Hebrew and Coptic so to say that his name was changed from a traditional Egyptian name to a Hebrew name doesn't make much sense since his name isn't actually Hebrew.



Although I don't necessarily agree about it being Moses (it surely could have been) I do agree with you on the intent of the creation stories. I still have no idea where you're coming from with Sebau and Ra. The closest thing I could find was about Sobek, sometimes called Sebek, the god of crocodiles. Do you have an article?[/quote]

The dating of Moses to the time of Hatshepsut was done by an egyptologist who could actually read heiroglyphic and heiratic writing, rather than merely being a tomb raider, as the earlier ones were. He translated the deiroplgyphs that had been carved on a wall to commemorate the conquests of Ramesses the Great (the pharaoh that many accept as the pharaoh of the Exodus). There in its own little 'box' was the recording of his besieging Jerusalem, demanding tribute from its people, and receiving that tribute.

This corresponded to the passage in Scripture (I kings 14:25-28) where a king identified as "shishak' had done this. 'Shishak' had been interpreted as being Pharaoh Shishank of Egypt, a lesser king who ruled later that Ramesses the Great. However, hebrew scholars realized that the name 'Shishak' wasn't an egyptian proper name, even one that was misspelled. Instead, it was a hebrew pseudonym; it means 'destroyer of cities', a fitting description of Ramesses the Great.

This redating of when Ramesses the Great lived in comparison to the nation of Judah 'pushes' the events of the Old Testament back circa 250 years. That puts them squarely in the middle of the Thutmose kings and Hatshepsut.

I have been told that there is a book titled Pharaohs and Kings which goes into this redating in more detail, but I myself have not read it. I obtained some of my information from the documentary on PBS titled Pharaohs, Prophets and Kings, in which an egyptologist read the actual heiroplyph which records Ramesses the Great's besieging of Jerusalem.

As for Ra and Sebau, I found it recorded as part of The Egyptian Book of the Dead (it was in the fifth paragraph). Hopefully you can gain access through this website:

www.africa.upenn.edu/Books/Papyrus_Ani.html

Sebau is referenced in the first paragraph under the title 'A Hymn of Praise to Ra'. But it was his hind legs that Ra removed and his front legs that were bound in chains; I had that backwards.

 

[Dreamscar]

Thanks for the summary. Now I have something to respond to:

Take DS's first accusation as an example:

2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
2:7 And 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.

2:5 and 2:6 describes the situation of Day 3 in Gen 1. If you like to have more detail, then it would be the first half of Day 3. Although I don't think it is necessary to stretch that.

2:7 would of course be on Day 6.

So, what is the problem? Would 2:5-6 make the situation of Day 3 more clear?

The reason to link what happened on Day 6 with what happened on Day 3 is to emphasize that Adam does not have to work for his food. Which is in contrast to what Adam will do after his life in the Garden is over.

Gen 2 is not trying to repeat what's done in Gen 1. It has several other critical new messages to pass on. To contrast Gen 2 with Gen 1 on the sequence of Creation is, in fact, stupid.

I think you need to actually look at the first post again. I said absolutely nothing about comparing the two together. Your answer gives nothing to the conversation about God's intent on creating Adam with no means to procreate and then seemingly deciding after Adam had met all of the animals that it would be a good idea to create woman, the only way he could actually procreate.

Again, I believe Shernren's post was actually very well thought out and qualifies as an end to that discussion.