Two Genesis Creation Stories

Genesis 1 has seven days of creation. Genesis 2-3 has only one.

Genesis 1 has the creation of humanity as a single event on day six, after the creation of animals. Genesis 2-3 has the creation of humanity as two seperate events. Adam is created before the animals, which are created before Eve.

Bulldog said:

I have seen some Theistic Evolutionists here say that there are actually two creation stories in Genesis with contradicting details. Could somone explain this to me.

If this is true, then I belive it proves a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is the best.

Click to expand...

In addition to the internal details, the two stories use forms of Hebrew from different centuries (just like Shakespeare's English or even the English of the early 20th century is different in style and vocabulary from ours).

The form of Hebrew used in Gen. 2:4b ff. is older than that used in Ge. 1:1 to 2:4a.

This means the stories were written by different writers and the second story was written before the first story was.

Bulldog said:

I have seen some Theistic Evolutionists here say that there are actually two creation stories in Genesis with contradicting details. Could somone explain this to me.

If this is true, then I belive it proves a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is the best.

Click to expand...

1. There are two (well, really 3) separate creation stories that contradict. One is Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a. The second is Genesis 2:4b - Genesis 5. The third is Genesis 5:1 thru Genesis 8. The contradictions are a clear indication that they are not met to be read literally, because to do so conflicts with Rules 5 and 7 of how to interpret. Call the stories A, B, and C.

Contradictions:
1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).
3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.
4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit. C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings". A and B do not mention such offspring.

Names:
1. "Adam" and "Eve" are not words that are used only as names like "Tom" or "Sally" for us. Instead, "adam" in Hebrew means "dirt" or "earth" and "eve" means "hearth". When the names of characters in stories are those of general characteristics, such as "Pride" or "Death" or "Sower" or "Samaritan", we know we are dealing with allegory and symbolism, not history. We have a story of Dirt and Hearth.
2. Names for God. Genesis 1 to 2:3 uses "Elohim" as the word to identify God. Suddenly, the name for God shifts to "Yahweh" and stays that way thru Genesis 3.

Numerology:
The 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 are organized into 2 three day divisions with each day having 2 major creation events. This fits with the numerology of the time (historical context) where the numbers 2, 3, 6, and especially 7 were thought to have mystical significance. As history, just how likely is it that there were 2 and only 2 major creation events on each day? This is creation story is structured around the numbers, and history does not do that. History is much messier. Of course, creation is structured to culminate in day 7, which is the Sabbath. Since Genesis 1 was written after Israel was a worshipping community, Genesis 1 is not history but artificially devised to give justification for observing the Sabbath.

Singing:
Although written in English as prose, all of the Torah (the original language being Hebrew) is structured to be sung and is still sung by Cantors in Jewish synagogues every Sabbath. Some of the phrases, such as "morning and evening" in Genesis 1, repeat because they are there to give the correct meter to the song.

Lucaspa’s apparent contradictions, my answers in italic:

1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.

God uses A LOT of names throughout the scriptures. How is this a problem?

2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).

Read carefullly, this account does not state that it happens in one day.

3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.

There is nothing here to argue with the order in Gen. 1. The focus has shifted, and the story is told in less of a list form, but examined carefully there is no contradiction.

4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.

Gen. 1 says “let the land produce living creatures.” That fits with Gen. 2
Gen 1:27 is a statement that God created us all in His image. No problem. You and I are included in that statement, even though we weren’t there!
The issue of how Eve was formed is further revealed, not contradicted in Gen. 2

5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it.

Because it hasn’t yet happened at that point.

B is internally contradictory.

Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit.

Spiritual death was instant, the processes of physical death were triggered at once but took time to happen in full.
God’s use of the fruit of the tree of life is His choice, and we don’t know “what if” there had been no fall, because God knew it would happen and prepared for it.

C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings". A and B do not mention such offspring.

This is not really a creation story, and I don’t have time to get into it just now. Have a look at the various threads on Nephilim if you want to get really confused ( like me ) on that one!

Names:
1. "Adam" and "Eve" are not words that are used only as names like "Tom" or "Sally" for us. Instead, "adam" in Hebrew means "dirt" or "earth" and "eve" means "hearth". When the names of characters in stories are those of general characteristics, such as "Pride" or "Death" or "Sower" or "Samaritan", we know we are dealing with allegory and symbolism, not history. We have a story of Dirt and Hearth.

God gives new names often in His word when something is being told about the person, sometimes an important life changing event, eg. Abraham or Jacob. No problem. By the way, Eve means life.

2. Names for God. Genesis 1 to 2:3 uses "Elohim" as the word to identify God. Suddenly, the name for God shifts to "Yahweh" and stays that way thru Genesis 3.

You already said that, see above.

Numerology:
The 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 are organized into 2 three day divisions with each day having 2 major creation events. This fits with the numerology of the time (historical context) where the numbers 2, 3, 6, and especially 7 were thought to have mystical significance. As history, just how likely is it that there were 2 and only 2 major creation events on each day? This is creation story is structured around the numbers, and history does not do that. History is much messier. Of course, creation is structured to culminate in day 7, which is the Sabbath. Since Genesis 1 was written after Israel was a worshipping community, Genesis 1 is not history but artificially devised to give justification for observing the Sabbath.

Numerology is a non-Christian mystical philosophy, and as such not a suitable study for Christians imho.

Genesis is older than you admit. The accuracy of the handed-down scripture and the devoted recording of it later ensure we can trust it. This is the story from the beginning of time. You are getting it upside down.

Singing:
Although written in English as prose, all of the Torah (the original language being Hebrew) is structured to be sung and is still sung by Cantors in Jewish synagogues every Sabbath. Some of the phrases, such as "morning and evening" in Genesis 1, repeat because they are there to give the correct meter to the song.

The words are there because God put them there. He may have chosen to make it beautiful for the singer in the process, but the meaning is important and He would not have altered that just to make it sound pretty.

Phew Lucaspa, you wear me out!
I am not your intellectual equal, but I do believe God is clear enough for even me to understand this.
Many blessings,
Susana

BTW were you a mod before - I only just noticed. Congrats.

The Lord is my banner said:

Lucaspa’s apparent contradictions, my answers in italic:

Click to expand...

And my comments in bold



1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.

God uses A LOT of names throughout the scriptures. How is this a problem?

It's a question of the overall pattern of use by each writer. The anonymous writer of the second story is called "J" or the "Yahwist" because s/he (?) consistently uses YHWH to refer to God. Other contributors to Genesis do not. The writer known as E (for Elohist) never uses YHWH in Genesis, and not in Exodus until the scene when the name is revealed to Moses. These differences in patterns of name use, (as well as many other differences in word use and writing style) help to document who wrote what.



2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).

Read carefullly, this account does not state that it happens in one day.

It says "in the day" (singular) "that God created heaven and earth"


3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.

There is nothing here to argue with the order in Gen. 1. The focus has shifted, and the story is told in less of a list form, but examined carefully there is no contradiction.

A shift in focus does not usually require a shift in sequence.

4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.

Gen. 1 says “let the land produce living creatures.” That fits with Gen. 2
Gen 1:27 is a statement that God created us all in His image. No problem. You and I are included in that statement, even though we weren’t there!
The issue of how Eve was formed is further revealed, not contradicted in Gen. 2

The creation of the woman in the second story means that male and female were not created together as in the first story. In the second story, woman is an afterthought, created for the male when no other animal was found to be a suitable helper. In the first story, the creation of woman is intended from the beginning.

5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it.

Because it hasn’t yet happened at that point.

B is internally contradictory.

Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit.

Spiritual death was instant, the processes of physical death were triggered at once but took time to happen in full.
God’s use of the fruit of the tree of life is His choice, and we don’t know “what if” there had been no fall, because God knew it would happen and prepared for it.

This is interpretation of the text, not the text itself. The text as written does not specify whether spiritual or physical death (or both) are intended. That is a matter to be decided through sound interpretation.

It is important to note, however, that even the best interpretation is not part of the written text. And it is incorrect analysis to treat it as if it were.


C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings". A and B do not mention such offspring.

This is not really a creation story, and I don’t have time to get into it just now. Have a look at the various threads on Nephilim if you want to get really confused ( like me ) on that one!

Names:
1. "Adam" and "Eve" are not words that are used only as names like "Tom" or "Sally" for us. Instead, "adam" in Hebrew means "dirt" or "earth" and "eve" means "hearth". When the names of characters in stories are those of general characteristics, such as "Pride" or "Death" or "Sower" or "Samaritan", we know we are dealing with allegory and symbolism, not history. We have a story of Dirt and Hearth.

God gives new names often in His word when something is being told about the person, sometimes an important life changing event, eg. Abraham or Jacob. No problem. By the way, Eve means life.

But God does not actually name Adam. The text simply refers to "ha-adam" = "the man". It is true, "adam" can also be a name, but Genesis does not depict God giving this name to the creature he made. Nor is there any point prior to the geneology of chapter 5 where it is necessary to refer to the man by name. Nor does God name the woman. The man names her in chapter 4 after the birth of Cain. This is consistent with his naming of all the other creatures and, therefore, can also be understood as a generic naming of the sex which gives birth rather than as the naming of an individual.


2. Names for God. Genesis 1 to 2:3 uses "Elohim" as the word to identify God. Suddenly, the name for God shifts to "Yahweh" and stays that way thru Genesis 3.

You already said that, see above.

Numerology:
The 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 are organized into 2 three day divisions with each day having 2 major creation events. This fits with the numerology of the time (historical context) where the numbers 2, 3, 6, and especially 7 were thought to have mystical significance. As history, just how likely is it that there were 2 and only 2 major creation events on each day? This is creation story is structured around the numbers, and history does not do that. History is much messier. Of course, creation is structured to culminate in day 7, which is the Sabbath. Since Genesis 1 was written after Israel was a worshipping community, Genesis 1 is not history but artificially devised to give justification for observing the Sabbath.

Numerology is a non-Christian mystical philosophy, and as such not a suitable study for Christians imho.


Numerology is a timed-honoured Jewish method of studying the scriptures.

Hebrew numerology and other tricks
Dating back to Talmudic times, the Hebrew letters have not only been celebrated as holy, but also venerated as an actual tool for spiritual mastery. Traditionally, the two most preferred techniques have been gematriyah and notarikon. In gematriyah, words with dissimilar meanings but equal numerical values (since each Hebrew letter also has a number associated with it) are probed for their hidden linkages.



In notarikon, words are broken down into sentences composed of initial letters. Thus, the first word of the Ten Commandments, ANoKhY ("I Am") alludes to the sentence Ario Nafshoy Katovit Yahovit ("I have written and given myself to you in this book").


From The Hebrew Alphabet: A Mystical Journey by Edward Hoffman, Ph.D, illustrations by Karen Silver (c)1998. Published by Chronicle Books LLC, San Francisco. Used with permission. Visit http://www.chroniclebooks.com

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/cul...es_Hebrew_TO/HebrewLetters/MysticalHebrew.htm

Click to expand...

Genesis is older than you admit. The accuracy of the handed-down scripture and the devoted recording of it later ensure we can trust it. This is the story from the beginning of time. You are getting it upside down.[/I]

Oral tradition can hand down a story with great accuracy or sometimes not. This does not change the dating of the written text.

Singing:
Although written in English as prose, all of the Torah (the original language being Hebrew) is structured to be sung and is still sung by Cantors in Jewish synagogues every Sabbath. Some of the phrases, such as "morning and evening" in Genesis 1, repeat because they are there to give the correct meter to the song.

The words are there because God put them there. He may have chosen to make it beautiful for the singer in the process, but the meaning is important and He would not have altered that just to make it sound pretty.

God did not choose the words of the bible. God chose the writers and inspired them to write. The writers chose the words.

Gluadys said most of what I was going to. I'm just going to add a couple.

God uses A LOT of names throughout the scriptures. How is this a problem?

Click to expand...

Not in Hebrew. The Hebrews had a few words that they used for God. Remember, God doesn't have a name. The closest you get to a name is "yahweh" which is "I am" from the Burning Bush. As Gluadys points out, it's not as though they are being mixed up from verse to verse. It's not like Genesis 1:1 uses Elohim and Genesis 1:3 uses Yahweh. If that were happening, I would agree with you. But instead, the uses of the terms for God are very segregated. Look up Documentary Hypothesis on the web.

Read carefullly, this account does not state that it happens in one day.

Click to expand...

Genesis 2:4b says in English "in the day that God created the heavens and the earth." The word in Hebrew is "beyom" and is a modification of "yom" to signify within a 24 hour period. Interestingly, I have recently discovered that "beyom" is also used in Genesis 2:3 to refer to the 7th day. This gets around the problem of having that last "day" be indefinite. The writers made it a 24 hour time period.

There is nothing here to argue with the order in Gen. 1. The focus has shifted, and the story is told in less of a list form, but examined carefully there is no contradiction.

Click to expand...

Susannah, birds are made on Day 5 in Genesis 1, before humans. On day 6, land animals are made on day 6 before humans. Now, you can argue that the focus shifted so that the land animals could come after Adam, but there is no way you can get birds made on Day 5 be made after Adam! There is no way that shifting the focus should shift the sequence of creation that much.

Gen. 1 says “let the land produce living creatures.” That fits with Gen. 2
Gen 1:27 is a statement that God created us all in His image. No problem. You and I are included in that statement, even though we weren’t there!
The issue of how Eve was formed is further revealed, not contradicted in Gen. 2

Click to expand...

Gluadys dealt with this one nicely. In Genesis 1 God doesn't say "Let the land bring forth Adam". So where is your tie in to Adam being made from dust in Genesis 2? Gluadys dealt well with male and female being made together in Genesis 1, while in Genesis 2 there is a considerable time gap and God makes the birds and beasts one by one and then lets Adam try them out to see if they are a helpmeet. How long does such a trial take? At least several minutes, maybe several days. After all, wouldn't it take at least several days before Adam decided a dog wasn't the companion he was looking for?

Because it hasn’t yet happened at that point.

Click to expand...

Then why doesn't A continue to the point that it does happen? Remember, Genesis 1:28 has God giving humans (plural) dominion over the earth and telling them to be fruitful and multiply. Well, you can't do that unless there are men and women, can you? No mention of a Garden, either. In Genesis 2, the Garden is there before God makes woman. Where is the Garden in Genesis 1?

Spiritual death was instant, the processes of physical death were triggered at once but took time to happen in full.

Click to expand...

But that makes God a liar. However, I give you points for a new interpretation of having both types of death included. The reason God is a liar is that God doesn't say "you will die spiritually in the same day but you will only initiate physical death". Instead, if the death in the verse is both deaths, then God says that Adam will die both deaths "in the same day".

God’s use of the fruit of the tree of life is His choice, and we don’t know “what if” there had been no fall, because God knew it would happen and prepared for it.

Click to expand...

Remember, Adam and Eve are not forbidden to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life. Of course, that to you means they were going to life forever. However, if the fruit will overcome God's curse of physical death, that means the Tree of Life is more powerful than God! Are you sure you really want to go down that path and have that Tree able to overcome God's will?

C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings". A and B do not mention such offspring.

This is not really a creation story, and I don’t have time to get into it just now. Have a look at the various threads on Nephilim if you want to get really confused ( like me ) on that one!

Click to expand...

The point is that lifespan was not limited before then. Genesis 6:3 "My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." That's nice, but then why does Noah live 950? In Genesis 6 we get a different reason for the introduction of death in the world.

God gives new names often in His word when something is being told about the person, sometimes an important life changing event, eg. Abraham or Jacob. No problem. By the way, Eve means life.

Click to expand...

The point is that Abraham and Jacob are names in a normal sense. They do not have meanings as something else. But "adamah" and "eve" do have meanings as something else. Something symbolic. That's how you know we are dealing with allegory.

Numerology is a non-Christian mystical philosophy, and as such not a suitable study for Christians imho.

Genesis is older than you admit. The accuracy of the handed-down scripture and the devoted recording of it later ensure we can trust it. This is the story from the beginning of time. You are getting it upside down.

Click to expand...

Hebrews used numerology and it is Hebrews that wrote Genesis. So they constructed Genesis 1 around their numerology. Genesis was written after Exodus. The Exodus happened first to convince the Hebrews that Yahweh existed and created -- He created Israel. Genesis 1 was written about 500 BC and Genesis 2-3 is an older date from an oral tradition. It looks to be about 900 BC or older.

The words are there because God put them there. He may have chosen to make it beautiful for the singer in the process, but the meaning is important and He would not have altered that just to make it sound pretty.

Click to expand...

Susanah, are you saying that God directly dictated the Bible? This is not part of orthodox Christianity. Christianity only holds that God inspired the Bible, not wrote it directly. Now you are sounding like the Muslims who say God dictated the Quran to Mohammed.

[q]But instead, the uses of the terms for God are very segregated. [/q] this is because of the context, the first is about the creation of animals, and the second is about the creation of the first beings with souls. As such the aspect of the creator being referred to is different

[q]but there is no way you can get birds made on Day 5 be made after Adam! [/q] the second part of gen 2 isn't a creation story, it's a story about the rise of man, as such the naming of each animal was for man whilst the creation of each was number of days prior.

[q]The writers made it a 24 hour time period.[/q] actually the other context used for yom also include those of our own word 'day'. Which, just as in hebrew, can mean period of work. Just as 'morning' means the beginning of a period of work, and 'evening' means the end of a period of work.
[q]Instead, if the death in the verse is both deaths, then God says that Adam will die both deaths "in the same day".[/q] actually the words are 'dieingly die', which doesn't mean die both ways but rather to age.

[q]That's nice, but then why does Noah live 950?[/q] because the limitation of 120 hebrew years to live was created as part of a further curse on humanity for being so inequities when we had a limit of 1000 years. Your vitriol is unwelcome, may it be that you learn not to wallow in it; I love you bro, it's hard to see you so full of bitterness.

[q]The point is that Abraham and Jacob are names in a normal sense. They do not have meanings as something else. [/q] all hebrew names had meaning as something else, including yashwah.

[q]Hebrews used numerology [in] Genesis.[/q] is that true? do you have evidence? i know a sect of Hebrews that belive in numerology now, but i'd love to see some evidence of it from 500bc, as i'm quite interested in the numerology of the ancient hebrews but was un-aware of evedence that it was actually part of the culture during the transcribing of the first five books.

[q]Susanah, are you saying that God directly dictated the Bible? This is not part of orthodox Christianity[/q] yes it is.

[q]Now you are sounding like the Muslims who say God dictated the Quran to Mohammed[/q] i'm prity sure that someone calling himself 'god' did.

[q]however, if the fruit will overcome God's curse of physical death, that means the Tree of Life is more powerful than God! [/q] No, as God's curs was that they would start to age, if they where to find their way to the branch of life then it would be a bad thing: what with the already proven inequity of humanity, but it would not defy that they had started to age.

Jesus is the branch of the tree of life, through him we can extend past our self-destructive nature and partake of the tree of life.

The point to the "contradictions" between the two accounts is that both are told as story. This is something that we, with our fondness for factually-accurate narrative, miss. God did not intend (IMHO, at least) to give us a detailed account of exactly how He went about creating the world or humans either, but rather to stress some highly significant points that are the foci of the two stories. Neither is to be understood as a lead story from the Eden Times with all the details told precisely as they occurred, but rather as the sort of true story we might tell a child -- and with the same purpose of "educating by story," of getting across some fundamental points.

There are skeptics' accounts of how these stories resemble Babylonian creation myths and other such stuff. It's true, but with a point -- they're told as they are to contradict the Babylonian stories current in the Middle East, much as somebody would make a point of disagreeing with a misconception or false story today.

Among those key points:

1. God made everything. There was no "demiurge," the assistant to a High God in some Gnostic accounts -- the Lord of All created all. Nothing is the work of some questionable and lower figure. Marduk is pictured as wrestling with Tiamat, the monster of the deep, in the Babylonian creation story -- God makes the monsters of the deep.

2. He creates by His Word. God says "Let there be ---" and as a result whatever He says comes into being. Various myths have their creator gods "down in the muck" shaping the chaotic mess into specific things -- God simply creates by His Will and His Word. (Notice that this underlies the ideas developed in John 1:1-14.)

3. He creates in ordered sequence. Things come into existence in accordance with a divine plan, and in the sequence which He intended. It's not an all-at-once event.

4. He calls everything good. This is perhaps the point most often missed by Christians -- no matter how we may have abused His creation, everything that He made was good. Matter is not evil; life is not evil; nothing that He made is intrinsically evil.

5. He creates the Sabbath. The six days of Creation are perhaps the most misunderstood part of the whole scenario. The point underlying them is one of great importance to the Jewish faith. God created a day of rest and refreshment in prayer to Him, as an integral part of the process of Creation. He set aside the seventh day for rest, and hallowed it by Himself resting from creation on it. We're not so much supposed to read the story as that He took a particular six-day period to accomplish creation, but rather that His creation included the Sabbath as an integral part of the created world.

6. He created man in His image. No matter how far we stray from His ways, there is a spark of what He is inherent in what we are.

7. He created man from the dust of the Earth. It was noted above that "Adam" means dirt -- technically this is true, but it's also the word for "man" in the sense "human being" (as opposed to "ish" for man = adult male). Interestingly, the Latin-derived English words have the same relation: humus and human. Specifically, ADM references the red clay soil, familiar to many Southerners in America and the basis for Edom, which had the same soil -- Esau's name is changed to Edom, a cognate of Adam, in token of this. And the point here is the relationship to the created world which we have as embodied people, rational animals, as opposed to bodiless spirits.

8. He set Adam as gardener. This is significant -- we are (a) in charge of the world; only rarely will He intervene in His creation -- it's in our care. But (b) we're stewards, not owners of His creation, and accountable to Him for the use we make of it.

The alleged contradictions are details not relevant to the point of the story. Only if one insists on reading it as a verbatim reportage of His work do the differences in detail matter -- and who's the reporter? There was no human alive through most of Creation -- God Himself reports it, and it suited Him to do it as story, stressing over and over again the key points He wants to make. Note the formulaic way that Genesis 1 tells the story: "On the Nth day God said, 'Let there be ...' And there was ... And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the Nth day." As a much less exalted parallel, contemplate any children's story or song. The same singsong repetitiveness is placed in it as a mnemonic device, and a way to drive home the essential point(s) of the story or song. Every child knows what will happen when Goldilocks finds any given possession of the Three Bears: the Poppa Bear's whatever will be wrong one way, the Momma Bear's will be wrong in the opposite way, and the Baby Bear's thing will be just right. The Farmer in the Dell, Bingo, and so on -- they all use the same mnemonic formula, for the same reasons. God had some points He wanted to get across in these stories, and He resorted to the methodology of story-telling to make sure that we picked up on them.

Numerology:
The 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 are organized into 2 three day divisions with each day having 2 major creation events. This fits with the numerology of the time (historical context) where the numbers 2, 3, 6, and especially 7 were thought to have mystical significance. As history, just how likely is it that there were 2 and only 2 major creation events on each day? This is creation story is structured around the numbers, and history does not do that. History is much messier. Of course, creation is structured to culminate in day 7, which is the Sabbath. Since Genesis 1 was written after Israel was a worshipping community, Genesis 1 is not history but artificially devised to give justification for observing the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

this is a reasonable synopsis of the framework interpretation which was developed by kline and uphelded by conservatives. in fact the pca creation report allows for the interpretation when it denies the TE.

I thought I would take a spin through the forum this evening just to remind myself that there are some very strange views of our creator and His word. I guess all the highly trained theologians who are the regulars on this forum have concluded that the Bible is rife with contradictions. Too bad that God is not as bright as we are or He wouldnt have allowed this type of error to plauge us. Since all of your best sellers were such a smash hit, maybe you ought to write your own bible and correct all the errors that God made.

I guess all the highly trained theologians who are the regulars on this forum have concluded that the Bible is rife with contradictions

Click to expand...

Wrong guess. Nobody is saying that the Bible is itself "rife with contradictions." Just that a certain way of interpreting it (the literal, so-called scientific way) is. There are, however, non-literal interpretations that make a lot more sense, and which don't have those contradictions. That's why it has to be read in accordance with its genre, not trying to make it fit into a mould (the YEC mould) into which it will not go.

Too bad that God is not as bright as we are or He wouldnt have allowed this type of error to plauge us.

Click to expand...

I'd like to remind you that God did not write the Bible, and that has never been the position of orthodox Christianity (that directions leads to the Pit of Bibliolatry.) God inspired human writers to write the Bible, and they did in a way that fitted in with the world-view that they lived in. Which was pre-scientific and soaked in mythological imagery.

I am sure someone has already covered this but I'm going to chime in anyway

lucaspa said:

Contradictions:
1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.

Click to expand...

that is not contradiction, Yahweh has many different names. He has a name for each function just like humans. A man can be a father, husband, son, brother, uncle, soldier, co-worker etc. Understand?

lucaspa said:

2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).

Click to expand...

God created EARTH in one day, it does not say He created earth and all that is in it in one day.

Day 1: God created Light and Darkness/ Day and night
Day 2: God created Heaven
Day 3: God created Earth and Water, the earth brouth forth grass, herbs and fruits and they all had seeds in them. He did not create the seeds first.
Day 4: God created the Sun, Moon and Stars
Day 5: God created Sea creatures and birds
Day 6: Gid created cattle, land animals and man and woman (Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.)
Day 7: Sabbath. God rested.

lucaspa said:

Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day)

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Adam and Eve were in spiritual form, then they ate the fruit and became in the physical form. Now that they were in the physical form, they would die. They could not die before in their Glorified bodies.

lucaspa said:

Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. 6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings".

Click to expand...

As far as the 'Heavenly Beings' goes, they are Fallen Angels. The "Giants" are Nephilim which came about by fallen Angels mating with Females of the earth.

lucaspa said:

"adam" in Hebrew means "dirt" or "earth" and "eve" means "hearth".

Click to expand...

In hebrew Adam also means Man and Eve means Life.

WildHeart75 said:

No it doesn't. Adam and Eve were in spiritual form, then they ate the fruit and became in the physical form. Now that they were in the physical form, they would die. They could not die before in their Glorified bodies.


As far as the 'Heavenly Beings' goes, they are Fallen Angels. The "Giants" are Nephilim which came about by fallen Angels mating with Females of the earth.


[/font]
In hebrew Adam also means Man and Eve means Life.

Click to expand...

very interesting wildheart!

So you take the quote "in our image" to mean that Adam and Eve were made just spiritually!

Can you back this up in anyway! Because it says God made them human, and that is physical and spiritual!

It says God made them in His image, God is not Human. Then after they eat of the fruit, He clothes them in skin. If they did not have skin before they ate of the fruit, then they weren't human.

Clothes them in animals skins, is how i understood it!

How can a spirit be naked?

And how does a spirit eat?

Just three points for you!

WildHeart75 said:

No it doesn't. Adam and Eve were in spiritual form, then they ate the fruit and became in the physical form. Now that they were in the physical form, they would die. They could not die before in their Glorified bodies.

Click to expand...

I thought adding to scripture what is not written in it was a no-no!

What was God doing in Gen. 2:7 with that dust of the earth if not making a physical form for Adam.

And note: the physical form was made FIRST!!. It preceded the giving of the breath of Life to animate it.

Sometimes to gain insight into the Bible, one must go outside of the Bible to texts considered to be part of the "Apocrypha" or "Pseudepigrapha". It also helps to look at the Talmud ,and possibly, believe it or not, the Koran.This is because a lot of Jewish traditons and stories mentioned in apocryphal texts are echoed in the Koran.It seems logical that if two branches of religion that don't agree on much ,yet, agree on a few obscure things, those things might actually be factual. It is called doing scholarly research , or doing your homework.

To fully understand the Bible, a JEWISH text, written by JEWS , about a JEWISH GOD , you need to have a working knowledge of Judaism , their texts,such as the Talmud, their traditions, oral , ritual and otherwise, their ideas and thier early literture that in some cases was not cannonized into what is now known as the modern day Bible.It can not be stressed enough the importance of doing this.Futhermore, It should be considered your duty as a Christian. How can you expect to do a good job in GOD's service , how can you expect to effectively witness and bring people to GOD's flock when you don't have a full working knowledge of GOD's text , known today as the Bible , and the expansive history from which it sprang?

The texts where it is written that Adam and Eve were not made of flesh before they ate the from the tree of knowledge , are

the Talmud and The First book of Adam and Eve.The text known as the first book of Adam and Eve was in circulation before Christ was born. It gives us a lot of insight into the book of genesis and answers many questions.It shouldn't be ignored because it wasn't included in the modern cannon. Here is an article about the first book of adam and eve from a site , .kivits.com/AandE.html,explaining more about the book and it's history , that has the book avaible for reading online.

The First Book of Adam and Eve details the life and times of Adam and Eve after they were expelled from the garden to the time that Cain kills his brother Abel. It tells of Adam and Eve's first dwelling - the Cave of Treasures; their trials and temptations; Satan's many apparitions to them; the birth of Cain, Abel, and their twin sisters; and Cain's love for his beautiful twin sister, Luluwa, whom Adam and Eve wished to join to Abel. historical biblical works that are traditionally considered by many to be fiction. Because of that stigma, these books were not included in the compilation of the Holy Bible.

However this book is a written history of what happened in the days of Adam and Eve after they were cast out of the garden. Although considered to be pseudepigraphic by some scholars, it carries significant meaning and insight into events of that time. It is doubtful that these writings could have survived all the many centuries if there were no substance to their contribution of insight into the early chapters of Genesis.

This book is simply a version of an account first handed down by word of mouth , *from generation to generation, linking the time that the first human life was created to the time when somebody finally decided to write it down. This particular version is the work of unknown Egyptian-Judaic scource . The lack of historical allusion makes it difficult to precisely date the writing, however, using other 'pseudepigraphical' works as a reference, it was probably firstly written down a few hundred years before the birth of The Messiah. Parts of this version are found in the Jewish Talmud, and the Islamic Koran, showing what a vital role it played in the original literature of human wisdom. The Egyptian author wrote in Arabic, but also later translations were found written in Ethiopic. The present English translation was translated in the late 1800's by Dr. S. C. Malan and Dr. E. Trumpp. They translated into King James English from both the Arabic version and the Ethiopic version, with a some what denominational slant, which was then published in The Forgotten Books of Eden in 1927 by The World Publishing Company. In 1995, the text was extracted from a copy of The Forgotten Books of Eden and converted to electronic form by Dennis Hawkins. It was then translated into more modern English by simply exchanging 'Thou' s for 'You's, 'Art's for 'Are's, and so forth. The text was then carefully re-read to ensure its integrity. A total of 79 chapters, some as short as a few verses.

*[ "the oral traditions or Torah Shebe-al Peh, believed to be devinely inspired, was transmitted from generation to generation without being written down". The Jewish Encyclopedia 'Oral Law' Page 361]

As you should be able to understand from the above article, this book does have merit. And as this book was in circulation before Christ, as were many of the apocryphal books, the verse that says not to add to the word of GOD doesn't apply to this book. However, the verse you mentioned also says to not detract from the word of GOD, which I believe is what happened concerning this text.

Now, Here are exerpts from the book itself which details how Adam and Eve were not made of flesh as we know it, but more like a "Glorified" body as described in revelation, which would be something of a combination of physical and spiritual as if woven together like cloth, totally impervious to decay and harm:

Book 1

4:2 And indeed, when Adam looked at his flesh, that was altered, he cried bitterly, he and Eve, over what they had done.

4:8 And Adam said to Eve, "Look at your eyes, and at mine, which before beheld angels praising in heaven; and they too, without ceasing. 9 But now we do not see as we did; our eyes have become of flesh; they cannot see like they used to see before." 10 Adam said again to Eve, "What is our body today, compared to what it was in former days, when we lived in the garden?"

13:7 But when I heard of your transgression, I deprived you of that bright light. Yet, of My mercy, I did not turn you into darkness, but I made you your body of flesh, over which I spread this skin, in order that it may bear cold and heat

6 Then God looked at them, and then fitted them for eating food at once; as to this day; so that they should not perish. 7 Then Adam and Eve came back into the cave sorrowful and crying because of the alteration of their bodies. And they both knew from that hour that they were altered beings, that all hope of returning to the garden was now lost; and that they could not enter it. 8 For that now their bodies had strange functions; and all flesh that requires food and drink for its existence, cannot be in the garden. 9 Then Adam said to Eve, "Behold, our hope is now lost; and so is our trust to enter the garden. We no longer belong to the inhabitants of the garden; but from now on we are earthy and of the dust, and of the inhabitants of the earth.

Samwatkins4 said:

Sometimes to gain insight into the Bible, one must go outside of the Bible to texts considered to be part of the "Apocrypha" or "Pseudepigrapha". It also helps to look at the Talmud ,and possibly, believe it or not, the Koran.This is because a lot of Jewish traditons and stories mentioned in apocryphal texts are echoed in the Koran.It seems logical that if two branches of religion that don't agree on much ,yet, agree on a few obscure things, those things might actually be factual. It is called doing scholarly research , or doing your homework.

Click to expand...

I agree with the importance of scholarship. But we also have to remember that the scripture is intended for everyone, not just those who have the time to devote to extensive study.

I found the citations very interesting. I take it that like much Jewish lore, these are intended as interpretations of the scripture. So a lot of this is midrashic, no?

I have always been intrigued with the Jewish penchant for apparently making up a story on the spot to act as an interpretation of scripture. Once someone took offence at that and pointed out that these stories come from Jewish oral tradition----and of course that is right. That is what the Talmud was originally, an oral tradition in light of which the canonized scripture was interpreted.

And of course there are many other sources as well. No one can know them all.

Personally I wonder to what extent these sources represent mainstream Jewish thought.

Are there other Jewish and pseudepigraphical sources that say differently?

Anyway you have cleared up where the tradition of Adam and Eve being spiritual creatures came from. I still don't find that this tradition is supported by the text. None of the citations deal specifically with Gen. 2:7 or 2:23 which both specify a material body.

This seems to be a late tradition stemming from a mystical worldview that is not the same as that of the biblical writer. I note that it came from an Egyptian source,---perhaps a form of Jewish gnosticism?