The "second" creation story.

[juvenissun]

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.

All you said happened on Day 6.
Why does this need a second creation account?
Again, Gen 2 elaborates what happened on Day 6 in a very significant way. There is no repetition, no contradiction.

 

[philadiddle]

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.

Let's try this recap again:

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: [Makes a vague sweeping assertion about nothing]

Others: [Call Juv on the fact that he hasn't said anything with substance]

Juv: [Makes a comment about Adam having to get food after he leaves the garden and in no way relates this to the question in the OP]

As Dreamscar said, you need to read the OP and try to understand what is being asked. 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.

 

[Dreamscar]

All you said happened on Day 6.
Why does this need a second creation account?
Again, Gen 2 elaborates what happened on Day 6 in a very significant way. There is no repetition, no contradiction.

You're being incredibly thick. In this thread, I have never once tried to make the assertion that there is a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Stop trying to solve a problem that has never been brought up here.

To help you out by using your own words, we're talking about the elaboration of the story in Genesis 2 and nothing about the repetition or contradiction involved between the two stories of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

 

[juvenissun]

You're being incredibly thick. In this thread, I have never once tried to make the assertion that there is a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Stop trying to solve a problem that has never been brought up here.

To help you out by using your own words, we're talking about the elaboration of the story in Genesis 2 and nothing about the repetition or contradiction involved between the two stories of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

OK. So, there is no problem. Very good.

 

[Dreamscar]

OK. So, there is no problem. Very good.

 

[philadiddle]

Don't worry about it, I don't think he's really a creationist anymore. He's just trolling you.

 

[juvenissun]

Don't worry about it, I don't think he's really a creationist anymore. He's just trolling you.

Refreshing. What is the requirement of being a creationist?

How about a person who don't think Gen 2 is a "second" creation story?

 

[Dreamscar]

Hey juvey,

If you don't think the two creation stories are different renditions of the same story, why does the first creation story use elohim exclusively and the second story use Yahweh exclusively? If it was the same writer and merely an elaboration of the first, why completely change the term for "God"?

 

[philadiddle]

Refreshing. What is the requirement of being a creationist?

How about a person who don't think Gen 2 is a "second" creation story?

A requirement of being a creationist is to actually believe creationism. You don't seem to anymore. I can't remember the last time you tried to seriously defend the view. You just hide behind generalizations and ignore the questions being asked.

Can you please point to the last conversation on this board where you made an honest effort to defend creationism?

 

[juvenissun]

Hey juvey,

If you don't think the two creation stories are different renditions of the same story, why does the first creation story use elohim exclusively and the second story use Yahweh exclusively? If it was the same writer and merely an elaboration of the first, why completely change the term for "God"?

I have no objection that if Gen 1 and Gen 2 were written by two authors. It does not change the story. The Bible has many many authors. So what?

I don't know why one uses Elohim and the other one uses Yahweh. Could you tell me the reason?

 

[juvenissun]

A requirement of being a creationist is to actually believe creationism. You don't seem to anymore. I can't remember the last time you tried to seriously defend the view. You just hide behind generalizations and ignore the questions being asked.

Can you please point to the last conversation on this board where you made an honest effort to defend creationism?

Funny. I don't know this.
I am a creationist. (What is that?)
Is that enough? What should I do in specific, to defend creationism? Am I doing that in this thread? Why not?

Oh, I guess this might be what you meant: I use questions to answer question. It does not mean I avoid the question. I simply go one step ahead and answered the question in a better way.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hey juvey,

If you don't think the two creation stories are different renditions of the same story, why does the first creation story use elohim exclusively and the second story use Yahweh exclusively? If it was the same writer and merely an elaboration of the first, why completely change the term for "God"?

Could be a different writer, or because the POV has changed. Or other reasons.

 

[philadiddle]

What should I do in specific, to defend creationism? Am I doing that in this thread? Why not?

To demonstrate you were a creationist I would expect you to try to defend a defined view with actual reasons, instead of dancing around vague assertions about nothing and ignoring direct questions.

You still haven't answered the question in the OP, so no, you are acting like a troll in this thread, you aren't acting like a creationist.

Oh, I guess this might be what you meant: I use questions to answer question. It does not mean I avoid the question. I simply go one step ahead and answered the question in a better way.

Now you're lying, you didn't answer questions with questions. Here it is again:

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?

Now please try to answer those question (notice the "?" at the end of them) without saying "Genesis 1 is the same account" because that does not apply to the question, nor does it answer the questions with a question.

 

[juvenissun]

To demonstrate you were a creationist I would expect you to try to defend a defined view with actual reasons, instead of dancing around vague assertions about nothing and ignoring direct questions.

You still haven't answered the question in the OP, so no, you are acting like a troll in this thread, you aren't acting like a creationist.

Now you're lying, you didn't answer questions with questions. Here it is again:

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?

Now please try to answer those question (notice the "?" at the end of them) without saying "Genesis 1 is the same account" because that does not apply to the question, nor does it answer the questions with a question.

These two are very easy and superficial questions. I did not bother to answer them. I went directly to answer the harder one in the background.

So, OK, direct answer to the two questions:

1. There is nothing wrong to have Adam worked for a while and then make him a helper. What is the absurdity about?

2. Adam does not need to have any offspring at the beginning. It is still a question whether he has children even after Eve is made for him. So, what should anyone see that Adam is troubled initially by having not a woman?

-------

This issue does not attract any more attention. It is time to quit.

 

[MKJ]

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

I think Eugenia might have suggested something similar to this, and also that after the Resurrection, Christ was neither male nor femle.

However, the whole idea was declared heretical by the Church Eriugena was very influenced by some of the neoplatonic thinkers and really saw the story of creation in terms of a kind of departure from perfect unity and then a return to it.

I think Gregory of Nyssa also held views like this, and Maximus the Confessor.

This idea also means that sexual procreation is a result of the fall. That view is held I believe even by some fathers who did not believe division of the sexes was a result of the Fall and some Eastern Christians still take this view. I've not seen it recently in a Western context but some medievals believed that.