There are Two Creation Stories in Genesis

[GenemZ]

Oh God......

 

[Dale]

If in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth....I assume they were both made together..or one right after the other?
So if there was no heaven...where was God before heaven was made? I know he said he always was...but it's hard to understand the concept of always being there without a beginning.

Littlek: “So if there was no heaven...where was God before heaven was made?”

I believe that Genesis refers to the physical heavens, the sun, moon and stars. The spiritual heaven has always existed. Thanks for your interest.

 

[Dale]

There are two creations in the Bible however I argue they are backwards in order.

To see this you have to start with Genesis 10:31 and the move to Genesis 11:1 and ask yourself, what is wrong with this picture? There is nothing wrong and no contradiction it's just that events in Genesis are neccesarily written in Chronological order.

Moving to Genesis 1:1 and reading we see that here God created the heaven and earth. Some people argue a gap after 1:1 and 1:2. There is a gap and what is in the gap starts in Genesis 2:4 and continues to Genesis 4:26. Theres a lot to ponder here but something very interesting to noticed is that in Genesis 3 Adam and Eve are banished from the garden however they are told to eat of the tree of life and live forever. Now look the geneologies of Genesis 4 and see how old those generations are.

Now several things went wrong here and the Master of the Sea flooded the earth. There is a lot of discussion on the earth being flooded and a lot of scripture pointing to this and I can explain more later if people want to understand why I say that. Returning to Genesis 1:2 and reading through Genesis 2:3 and now skipping to Genesis 5 to see the new creation and its geneologies. These are the generations to replenish the earth in Genesis 1:28. The ones made in the likeness of God.

Ok. Two important takeaways here. The first creation was made from the dust of the earth and has the breath of life in them and second creation was made in the likenesses of God and are made in His image.

This is a great picture of salvation. The first creation, a fallen man, a new creation made in the image and likeness of God and the earth flooded as if it was baptized, etc.

Here is something interesting. Go to Genesis 7: (13-14). Notice who entered first on the "selfsame day". These are the ones "after thier kind". These are the ones from the second creation. Now look at verse 15 and 16 and see what entered later. This was the remains of the first creation, the ones with "the breath of life" these are the ones of the first creation. They are kept separate. These are the clean and unclean.

There a lot more on this.

jhwatts: “There are two creations in the Bible however I argue they are backwards in order.”




Neither creation story is literal, they are both parables. In that sense, there is no correct order, just as there is no correct order to the parables of Jesus. The important point is not to list parables as first, second, third, etc. , but to see what we can learn from them.

I don’t get your point about the day Noah entered the ark.
I also don’t get your point about the languages after Noah, either.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 NIV

That’s a great way for the Bible to start. Surely you don’t want to change the location of that verse?

 

[jhwatts]

jhwatts: “There are two creations in the Bible however I argue they are backwards in order.”


That’s a great way for the Bible to start. Surely you don’t want to change the location of that verse?

I dont.

jhwatts: “There are two creations in the Bible however I argue they are backwards in order.”

Neither creation story is literal, they are both parables. In that sense, there is no correct order, just as there is no correct order to the parables of Jesus. The important point is not to list parables as first, second, third, etc. , but to see what we can learn from them.

How do you know they are parables and not literal?

I think they are very symbolic but representative of things that actually happened.

jhwatts: “There are two creations in the Bible however I argue they are backwards in order.”

I don’t get your point about the day Noah entered the ark.
I also don’t get your point about the languages after Noah, either.

Genesis 7: (13-16)

13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.

The point here is that one day, what I am calling the second creation, the creation made in the likeness of His kind and His image. (See Genesis 1: (2-31)) enters the ark first and then the animals from the first creations enters next. These enter later and go unto Noah. Notice Verse 15 uses the term breath of life. This corresponds to the first creation (See Genesis 2:4 - Genesis 4:26).

In short, the animals from each creation are kept separate. This also is the difference between clean and unclean. Unclean belongs to the first creation and also when you hear unclean spirit it mean a spirit from the first creation.

 

[coffee4u]

Neither creation story is literal, they are both parables.

And what scripture do you use to backup this position?

If it is indeed you saying that. If this came from another member can you please state who you are quoting?

 

[Dale]

You make the Genesis account unnecessarily complicated and hard to understand. What's wrong with its present order? I don't see much reasoning in your writing that would support your rearrangement of Moses' writing. You do believe that Moses wrote Genesis, don't you? Or do you subscribe to the theory of various documents of different writers, which are pieced togther by some editor? The New Testament refers to "Moses and the prophets," and I do too.

Why do you want change the order?

Bruce Leiter: “What's wrong with its present order?”

I agree, there’s nothing wrong with the present order.



Bruce Leiter: “You do believe that Moses wrote Genesis, don't you?”

The notion that Moses wrote the first books of the Bible is figurative.
For instance, tradition says that Moses wrote Deuteronomy but the last
chapter of Deuteronomy describes the death and burial of Moses.
This can’t be literal.

Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually
it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you
circumcise a child on the Sabbath.
John 7:22 NIV

Moses gave you circumcision--not that it came from
Moses but rather from the patriarchs--
and you circumcise a man on the sabbath.
John 7: 22 NAB

… because of this, Moses hath given you the circumcision—
not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers—and on a sabbath
ye circumcise a man;
John 7:22 YLT


Bruce Leiter: “Or do you subscribe to the theory of various documents of different writers, which are pieced togther by some editor?”

As one minister explained it to me, in those days you honored people by naming books after them. The names weren’t intended to be an accurate statement of who wrote them, in the modern sense.

If Moses is supposed to have given us the creation stories in Genesis, one question we could ask is how did Moses know about these events? You could reason that God told him about the creation on Mt. Sinai but the Bible doesn’t say this anywhere.

 

[jhwatts]

Bruce Leiter: “What's wrong with its present order?”

I agree, there’s nothing wrong with the present order.



Bruce Leiter: “You do believe that Moses wrote Genesis, don't you?”

The notion that Moses wrote the first books of the Bible is figurative.
For instance, tradition says that Moses wrote Deuteronomy but the last
chapter of Deuteronomy describes the death and burial of Moses.
This can’t be literal.

Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually
it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you
circumcise a child on the Sabbath.
John 7:22 NIV

Moses gave you circumcision--not that it came from
Moses but rather from the patriarchs--
and you circumcise a man on the sabbath.
John 7: 22 NAB

… because of this, Moses hath given you the circumcision—
not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers—and on a sabbath
ye circumcise a man;
John 7:22 YLT


Bruce Leiter: “Or do you subscribe to the theory of various documents of different writers, which are pieced togther by some editor?”

As one minister explained it to me, in those days you honored people by naming books after them. The names weren’t intended to be an accurate statement of who wrote them, in the modern sense.

If Moses is supposed to have given us the creation stories in Genesis, one question we could ask is how did Moses know about these events? You could reason that God told him about the creation on Mt. Sinai but the Bible doesn’t say this anywhere.

I don't believe in multiple authors but one reason (there are others) I change the order is simply the way the story appears to reads.

I say that the first creation is Genesis 1:1, Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:26.

I am going to rewrite the first few verses together without verse or chapter numbers.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

This is why. The heavens and earth were created and then the story of Eden begins.

 

[Dale]

This is totally false!! There is only one account of creation, Gen 1 is in chronological order, Gen 2 is a retelling with added details, it is a Jewish way of writing and not unusual. There are actually several stories of the Exodus---that in way means there were several Exodus's. The birth of Christ is told in 4 different ways---it is not 4 different Christs'. There were not an undetermined number of people created in Gen. There were only 2---Adam and Eve. And it is what Jesus and the diciples believed and taught.

Baloney. There is only one creation, God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed His breath of life into him, and he became a living soul. It is one account in 2 different chapters, nothing strange about it---because Jesus ' birth is told in 4 different books, doesn't mean He was born 4 different ways.

If you would look at the details of the first chapters of Genesis you would see that there is no way around the fact that there are two separate creation stories. They are not consistent with each other, they can’t both be literally true. They do have spiritual meaning.

Mmksparbud: “The birth of Christ is told in 4 different ways---it is not 4 different Christs'.”

Mmksparbud: “--because Jesus ' birth is told in 4 different books, doesn't mean He was born 4 different ways.”

If you knew your Gospels a bit better you would know that only two of the Gospels have a birth narrative, only two of them tell us about the birth of Jesus. The story of the birth of Jesus is told in Matthew and in Luke but not in the other two.

Mmksparbud: “There are actually several stories of the Exodus---that in way means there were several Exodus's. ”

I think you made that one up. There is only one Exodus story, although it is mentioned later several times.

 

[Dale]

You are under a false teaching. Gen clearly states that God stopped creating after the 6th day---there can be no more creations after that. You are contradicting the scriptures and teaching false doctrines.

You are exaggerating the significance of God’s rest on the seventh day. Genesis says that God rested. It does not say that God rested forever, or that He would never create again.

 

[mmksparbud]

You are exaggerating the significance of God’s rest on the seventh day. Genesis says that God rested. It does not say that God rested forever, or that He would never create again.

It says He ceased His business. He was done with creation of this earth. No reason to think He did not create somewhere else. But when God says everything was "functional." It was done, it was perfect. Nothing left to do. But you want top believe He created a second time on this earth after having finished and everything was perfect--you are free to do so. I am quoting the original language and He was so satisfied with that creation that He set aside one day a week to worship Him and in memory of Him as creator of this earth, which He later, with His own finger, wrote on stone as one of the 10 commandments. I am not exaggerating it's significance---God made it significant.

 

[mmksparbud]

If you would look at the details of the first chapters of Genesis you would see that there is no way around the fact that there are two separate creation stories. They are not consistent with each other, they can’t both be literally true. They do have spiritual meaning.

Mmksparbud: “The birth of Christ is told in 4 different ways---it is not 4 different Christs'.”

Mmksparbud: “--because Jesus ' birth is told in 4 different books, doesn't mean He was born 4 different ways.”

If you knew your Gospels a bit better you would know that only two of the Gospels have a birth narrative, only two of them tell us about the birth of Jesus. The story of the birth of Jesus is told in Matthew and in Luke but not in the other two.

Mmksparbud: “There are actually several stories of the Exodus---that in way means there were several Exodus's. ”

I think you made that one up. There is only one Exodus story, although it is mentioned later several times.

I know that. But He would have had to be born in each of them. So, 2 or 4---they are not multiple births. And His genealogy is told in 2 different books, Matthew 1 and Luke 3. I'll leave you to make a case about the differences---which does not mean 2 different births, of 2 different Christ's.
According to you because the Exodus is mention several different times, it must mean several different Exodus's---which obviously is not --- for either.

 

[mmksparbud]

Littlek: “So if there was no heaven...where was God before heaven was made?”

I believe that Genesis refers to the physical heavens, the sun, moon and stars. The spiritual heaven has always existed. Thanks for your interest.

That is referring to the heavens around this earth---in other words---this galaxy---there are millions of other galaxies.

 

[GenemZ]

I know there was no verse or chapters in the Hebrew text. Where are you getting that from?

There are two stories. Look at chapters 4 and 5. These are two different groups of geneologies They have different names, ages, one group talks about what they can do while the others dont. I'm not filling the blanks it's just obvious. Go look at the people in chapter 4 and then chapter 5 and you will see that many of them have different names. It's because the chapter 4 people are from the dust of the earth creation and chapter 5 are from the creation were the was made in the likeness of God. Go look. Why do you think there are two genealogies because there are two creations.

Genesis 4 is the genealogy of Cain's line.
Genesis 5 is the genealogy of Seth's line.

Seth was Abel's replacement. Cain murdered Abel.

 

[mmksparbud]

Genesis 4 is the genealogy of Cain's line.
Genesis 5 is the genealogy of Seth's line.

Seth was Abel's replacement. Cain murdered Abel.

Correct. After the death of Abel, the whole genealogy changes. From there on, Seth has become the inheritor. It was a patriarchal society. Inheritance is from 1st born male to 1st born male. Seth lost his place as the inheritor when he was exiled from the family. And since the next in line would have been Abel, it now became Seth. From there on, Cain was never mentioned in the genealogy to Adam. It was Adam to Seth.

 

[jhwatts]

Genesis 4 is the genealogy of Cain's line.
Genesis 5 is the genealogy of Seth's line.

Seth was Abel's replacement. Cain murdered Abel.

Absolutely. These are two different lines and two different genealogies.

What is interesting about the Genesis 4 genealogies is that this Adam was told to eat of the tree of life before he was banished from the garden and he also partook of the tree of knowledge. When you look at those people in Genesis 4 you notice there are no ages associated with them and you also can see that this chapter begins to describe the product of their knowledge. They made cities, made music, crafted metal, etc.

The chapter 5 genealogies are totally different. These have ages associated with them and they seemed to be more spiritual and connected with God not technological or materialistic. Enoch walked with God and was taken with him. What is interesting is that these are the genealogy of the later creation. These are the one we see in Luke 3 that is part of the lineage of Christ not the Genesis chapter 4 ones. Also if read Jude you will see that Enoch was 7th from Adam and so this is the Enoch in chapter 5 too. The Enoch in chapter 4 I think is 5th from Adam, and he is not the 7th I know. Jude is not point toward those in Genesis 4 but those in Genesis 5.


If you really want to get down in the weeds. Notice that in chapter 5 it is made clear that man was made male and female. This is also made clear in Chapter one as is the creation of the chapter 5 genealogies.

What is really interesting in Job 14:1, 25:4, and 15:14, a point is made that some men was born not by a woman. Especial in Job 14:1, when was man born not by a woman. We see in Genesis that Adam was made and not born by a woman. This is the only record but dont be so sure he was it, again notice God made it clear man was made male and female.

Something is up here with man not being born of a woman.

Interesting.

 

[mmksparbud]

Absolutely. These are two different lines and two different genealogies.

What is interesting about the Genesis 4 genealogies is that this Adam was told to eat of the tree of life before he was banished from the garden and he also partook of the tree of knowledge. When you look at those people in Genesis 4 you notice there are no ages associated with them and you also can see that this chapter begins to describe the product of their knowledge. They made cities, made music, crafted metal, etc.

The chapter 5 genealogies are totally different. These have ages associated with them and they seemed to be more spiritual and connected with God not technological or materialistic. Enoch walked with God and was taken with him. What is interesting is that these are the genealogy of the later creation. These are the one we see in Luke 9 that is part of the lineage of Christ not the Genesis chapter 4 ones. Also if read Jude you will see that Enoch was 7th from Adam and so this is the Enoch in chapter 5 too. The Enoch in chapter 4 I think is 5th from Adam, and he is not the 7th I know. Jude is not point toward those in Genesis 4 but those in Genesis 5.


If you really want to get down in the weeds. Notice that in chapter 5 it is made clear that man was made male and female. This is also made clear in Chapter one as is the creation of the chapter 5 genealogies.

What is really interesting in Job 14:1, 25:4, and 15:14, a point is made that some men was born not by a woman. Especial in Job 14:1, when was man born not by a woman. We see in Genesis that Adam was made and not born by a woman. This is the only record but dont be so sure he was it, again notice God made it clear man was made male and female.

Something is up here with man not being born of a woman.

Interesting.

Job is full of rhetorical questions. Questions which the only answer is no. Love the book of Job, makes you know how small we are and how great God is.

 

[GenemZ]

Absolutely. These are two different lines and two different genealogies.

Seth was the line of Christ. Cain was not. Its not rocket science..... That is why they were divided up.

 

[GenemZ]

Absolutely. These are two different lines and two different genealogies.

What is interesting about the Genesis 4 genealogies is that this Adam was told to eat of the tree of life before he was banished from the garden and he also partook of the tree of knowledge. When you look at those people in Genesis 4 you notice there are no ages associated with them and you also can see that this chapter begins to describe the product of their knowledge. They made cities, made music, crafted metal, etc.

The chapter 5 genealogies are totally different. These have ages associated with them and they seemed to be more spiritual and connected with God not technological or materialistic. Enoch walked with God and was taken with him. What is interesting is that these are the genealogy of the later creation. These are the one we see in Luke 9 that is part of the lineage of Christ not the Genesis chapter 4 ones. Also if read Jude you will see that Enoch was 7th from Adam and so this is the Enoch in chapter 5 too. The Enoch in chapter 4 I think is 5th from Adam, and he is not the 7th I know. Jude is not point toward those in Genesis 4 but those in Genesis 5.


If you really want to get down in the weeds. Notice that in chapter 5 it is made clear that man was made male and female. This is also made clear in Chapter one as is the creation of the chapter 5 genealogies.

What is really interesting in Job 14:1, 25:4, and 15:14, a point is made that some men was born not by a woman. Especial in Job 14:1, when was man born not by a woman. We see in Genesis that Adam was made and not born by a woman. This is the only record but dont be so sure he was it, again notice God made it clear man was made male and female.

Something is up here with man not being born of a woman.

Interesting.

OK did you have a point we can benefit from, from what you just said?

 

[Dale]

___ That's why there are so many problems even within the church -people interpret scripture differently and atheist use it against the existence of God and say that the Bible contradicts itself.
I see Genesis 1 and 2 as the same account. One is a tiny bit more detailed and a narrative /summary of the other.
The writers from 4 to 5,000 years ago were not obligated, nor even felt they had the need to be perfectly aligned in detail or the sequences of events. Unlike the educated people of today, who have formed their own way to be or try to be accurate in detail and sequences of events and correct placement of sentences of events.

Would God allow it, since scripture is the inspired Word of God? Knowledge is man's downfall, so why wouldn't he sense Genesis 1 and 2 are the same accounts? And considering how God does things, it may be deliberate to thwart those of the future who are filled with knowledge.

Sheila, welcome to Christian Forums.

Sheila Davis: “ Knowledge is man's downfall, so why wouldn't he sense Genesis 1 and 2 are the same accounts? And considering how God does things, it may be deliberate to thwart those of the future who are filled with knowledge. ”


I don’t understand your negative attitude toward knowledge.
All I’m asking you to do is to take an honest look at what the first two chapters of Genesis actually say.
Some of those who quote those chapters have an agenda other than finding the truth.

You stumble day and night, and the prophets stumble with
you. So I will destroy your mother —
my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. “Because
you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests;
because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will
ignore your children.
Hosea 4:5-6 NIV

I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are
full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to
instruct one another.
Romans 15:14 NIV

 

[Dale]

___ That's why there are so many problems even within the church -people interpret scripture differently and atheist use it against the existence of God and say that the Bible contradicts itself.
I see Genesis 1 and 2 as the same account. One is a tiny bit more detailed and a narrative /summary of the other.
The writers from 4 to 5,000 years ago were not obligated, nor even felt they had the need to be perfectly aligned in detail or the sequences of events. Unlike the educated people of today, who have formed their own way to be or try to be accurate in detail and sequences of events and correct placement of sentences of events.

Would God allow it, since scripture is the inspired Word of God? Knowledge is man's downfall, so why wouldn't he sense Genesis 1 and 2 are the same accounts? And considering how God does things, it may be deliberate to thwart those of the future who are filled with knowledge.

Sheila Davis: “That's why there are so many problems even within the church -people interpret scripture differently and atheist use it against the existence of God and say that the Bible contradicts itself. ”


Here’s a caution for you. More people have left Christianity because of creationism than any other reason, except sexual morality. I have talked to some of them. When someone grows up as a creationist and then finds out that creationism doesn’t work, it looks like religion is a dead end, at least to them.

There is a church within walking distance of my home where the pastor preaches that there is creationism and there is atheism, and nothing else. Apparently liberal Christianity, and any nonliteral interpretation, is a fraud and a farce. I’ve seen the same man stand in the pulpit and say,
“What happened to all the young people we used to have?”