Two Creation Accounts or One?

[ViaCrucis]

The fact that the first 5 books were always recognized as being written by Moses until modern scholars decided to be creative and come up with a different version of what happened.

The Documentary Hypothesis actually takes seriously the critical analysis of the texts. A traditional assumption of Mosaic authorship is not sufficient grounds to dismiss the scholarly analysis of the texts.

Mosaic authorship, if taken too seriously, becomes awfully silly as one looks through the texts and sees that, for one, Moses is always spoken about in the third person, the texts actually record his own death, and so on. It's a bit like claiming that Jesus wrote all four Gospels.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[KWCrazy]

But they do contradict each other.

Only if you don't actually read them.

 

[KWCrazy]

IMO, you don't accept anything that contradicts your beliefs. This is known as cognitive dissonance.

No, we reject the notion that atheists understand the Scriptures more than Jesus. Jesus understood that Moses wrote the Torah.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The Documentary Hypothesis actually takes seriously the critical analysis of the texts. A traditional assumption of Mosaic authorship is not sufficient grounds to dismiss the scholarly analysis of the texts.

Mosaic authorship, if taken too seriously, becomes awfully silly as one looks through the texts and sees that, for one, Moses is always spoken about in the third person, the texts actually record his own death, and so on. It's a bit like claiming that Jesus wrote all four Gospels.

Modern scholars started with a false premise and then, based on that, they drew a false conclusion. They are mostly made up of atheists and agnostics who are driven by a strong desire to cast doubt on the word of God. The truth is there's no contradiction between the first two chapters of Genesis. The chapters just have a different focus. The first chapter is a broad overview of the world while the second chapter is a close-up detailed view of what happened in the Garden of Eden. There's no valid reason to doubt the tradition that Moses wrote the first five books of the Holy Bible.

 

[KWCrazy]

Genesis 2:
So the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them was completed. On the seventh day God had finished his work of creation, so he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because it was the day when he rested from all his work of creation. 4 This is the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth...

We learned how the universe was created in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 tells us about the creation of man and woman and their placement in the Garden of Eden. Genesis 3 teaches about the fall of man and the introduction of death and disorder into the world as a result of man's sin. These themes are very clearly evident by anyone who reads them. The notion that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory creation accounts only shows the ignorance of those who discuss things they don't even read.

Genesis 2 doesn't offer any contradiction from Genesis 1. It does, however, mention things which had been mentioned in Genesis 1.

 

[ViaCrucis]

They are mostly made up of atheists and agnostics who are driven by a strong desire to cast doubt on the word of God.

Christian scholars generally aren't atheists or agnostics.

Johann Karl Wilhelm Vatke - Wikipedia
Abraham Kuenen - Wikipedia
Édouard Guillaume Eugène Reuss - Wikipedia
Karl Heinrich Graf - Wikipedia
Antony F. Campbell - Wikipedia

But I mean the "atheists and agnostics" argument sounds really good on paper as a means of poisoning the well and to give the appearance of piety.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I believe Adam wrote Genesis 1 and 2.

And since Adam lived for 950 years, he could very well have written it two to three hundred years later.

I don't think so, but this is more a reading comprehension test, than it is a discussion about penmanship.

You are free to make up such histories at your leisure, but you are ignoring reality as you do so.

 

[Aryeh]

I believe Adam wrote Genesis 1 and 2.

And since Adam lived for 950 years, he could very well have written it two to three hundred years later.

I don't think so, but this is more a reading comprehension test, than it is a discussion about penmanship.

According to the Book of Enoch, you are close.

These stories were oral tradition, and the Hebrews (unlike other nations/empires at that time... there were during Adam,) were oral based. There may have been something written from Adam, or his other children.

But, it was allegedly Enoch who, when he was caught up, was shown prophecy and secrets. He wrote it down (or had it written down,) brought it down to Lamech, and then was "caught up" again not to be seen again.

Lamech, of course, gave it to Noah - who also talked to God.

But, most all of the writings are in "The Book" of Enoch, and other apocrypha. If you take it, then a great part of Hebrew history, law, culture, and worship was before Moses.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are free to make up such histories at your leisure, but you are ignoring reality as you do so.

And you can do better?

 

[AV1611VET]

According to the Book of Enoch, you are close.

I don't subscribe to the book of Enoch.

And right now, I'm more interested in just two chapters out of the Bible:

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't subscribe to the book of Enoch.

And right now, I'm more interested in just two chapters out of the Bible:

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2

Does it really matter since both versions are fictional?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I don't subscribe to the book of Enoch.

And right now, I'm more interested in just two chapters out of the Bible:

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2

Do you believe the Bible when it says that man was created before the plants?

Gen 2:5-7
5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
NASU

 

[AV1611VET]

Does it really matter since both versions are fictional?

Even if they were ... yes, it would matter.

Reading comprehension is not restricted to non-fiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if they were ... yes, it would matter.

What do you mean "if", there is no "if" about it. And why?

Reading comprehension is not restricted to non-fiction.

That's true. It is rather amazing how creationists keep themselves from understanding their own holy book.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What do you mean "if", there is no "if" about it. And why?


That's true. It is rather amazing how creationists keep themselves from understanding their own holy book.

Its the only way they can continue to believe it is without self contradiction. No matter what contradictions are shown them, they just continue to say there is no contradiction. Which means that their faith depends on not understanding what it says, really.

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you mean "if", there is no "if" about it. And why?

Because we're dealing with reading comprehension and paradox resolution here.

That's true. It is rather amazing how creationists keep themselves from understanding their own holy book.

And yet they're born-again creationists.

Imagine that.

They know how to prioritize, don't they?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because we're dealing with reading comprehension and paradox resolution here.

The resolution is easy. You were already given the solution.

And yet they're born-again creationists.

Imagine that.

They know how to prioritize, don't they?

No, they simply can't stand the truth.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[AV1611VET]

Its the only way they can continue to believe it is without self contradiction. No matter what contradictions are shown them, they just continue to say there is no contradiction. Which means that their faith depends on not understanding what it says, really.

That's kinda rich, coming from those who won't answer the second question in my challenge.

You know better, don't you?

If you (correctly) answer, "twice," then you're saying there's a contradiction where no contradiction exists.

Those are called "paradoxes," and as I have said before, other translations remove even the paradoxical aspect of Genesis 2, yet you guys still scratch your heads over it.

In short, this isn't about any contradictions in Genesis.

This is about willing to suspend reading comprehension in an effort to find a contradiction.

Just like you guys are willing to suspend general relativity to say Joshua was geocentric.

 

[KWCrazy]

Do you believe the Bible when it says that man was created before the plants?
Gen 2:5-7
5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
NASU

Have you asked your pastor about this? I'm sure he could set you straight. God is describing how the plants came to be made on day three before there was rain and before the sun had formed. Then a mist came out and watered the earth; the start of the hydrology cycle. These things were in place on day four. Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground on day six. Going forward, he put man in a garden He had already planted; meaning that Eden was a fully formed environment when God put man there. All of this is consistent with chapter one and merely goes into greater detail about what was happening. You read this without understanding; like the lost do. Don't listen to them. They can teach you nothing. They seek to discredit what they don't understand.

 

[KWCrazy]

Because we're dealing with reading comprehension and paradox resolution here.And yet they're born-again creationists.
Imagine that.
They know how to prioritize, don't they?

Perhaps we simply refuse to be dis-educated by the ignorant and the unsaved about the meaning of God's word. Likewise, I'm not going to trust my 8 year-old granddaughter to translate French for me. I believe this is known as the blind leading the blind. You can learn NOTHING about the Bible from an atheist.