Why is there a first and second story of creation?

[twosid]

I bought a Catholic bible. What's the scoop with the first and second story of creation?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Each myth focuses on conveying a different message about God, Creation, and humanity.

 

[Knowledge3]

The ECF's are the way to accurate and orthodox understanding of God's divine creation of the world.

 

[twosid]

The what?

 

[foxsta]

The ECF's are the Early Church Fathers....

 

[BAFRIEND]

There are different authors. I think five identified by style in the Pentateuch. For the same reason, the ten commandments are also written differntly in two different books.

Hope that helps.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Several parts of Genesis are pagan myths rewritten to correct their theology. Jesus used a similar approach in some of his parables. For example, the parable of the workers is based on a story where those hired for the last hour are so grateful that they do a whole day's work in one hour, causing the landowner to pay a full day's wage. Jesus changed the story to make the workers no more productive than the others, making the point that one doesn't have to work extra hard if one comes to Christ late in one's life.

In the same way, Genesis 1 alters a Babylonian myth to emphasize the difference between God and the Babylonian gods. In the original, several gods create the world through sexual acts. In Genesis, one God creates through an act of will. In the original, the Sun and Moon were divine beings. In Genesis, they are merely lights. In the original, creation was evil and humanity was a mistake. In Genesis, creation is good and humanity is created in the image of God.

 

[Globalnomad]

And by the way, it has nothing to do with a Catholic Bible. There are not many differences between a Catholic Bible and a Protestant one, and the two creation narratives are identical in each.

 

[Markh]

I do wish that people would say "this is my opinion" rather than as if they were stating theological facts or the Church's teachings.

Many fathers of the Church would tell you that Moses wrote the Pentateuch- I would agree with these holy fathers.

As for the babylonians- well, if creation is true and the flood (even if just a regional one as scientists say occurred) then it is pretty likely that even those outside of the covenant would have stories passed down. Moses did not take from them, but they held some of the truth.

For example, if I told you about the death of Julius Caeser, I would tell you an account based on history passed down to me- it might have some innacuracies. If God spoke to my mate Joe and told him the true account- would it mean that Joe had copied me simply because his true account has similarities to mine- of course not, as it was divine revelation!

I think the idea that Genesis is a myth is extreemly dangerous and in fact fairly heretical- "myth" implies we are talking of a fictitious story. Yet Dei Verbum the Vatican 2 document informs us that the bible is the true word of God which is totally inerrant. Of course, things can be true on different levels- genesis might not be true if it is read as a science book but it certainly is true if it is an allegorical account of the creation of the world.

Catholics are bound by Humane Generis to believe the fundamental moral points of genesis- if we start talking of genesis as a "myth" it sounds as if we are saying that it contains no value or can be laughed at. This is complete rubbish! Genesis is the true word of God just as much as the resurrection accounts! or the institution of the Eucharist!

Now the 2 stories, as far as I remember, the first is from God's view and the second is from a different view. I can't remember exactly, but Fr Edward Holloway has a few books on genesis- http://www.faith.org.uk

 

[anawim]

I bought a Catholic bible. What's the scoop with the first and second story of creation?

The first chapter seems to focus on God as creator, and the second chapter focuses on God as father. He is both at one and the same time, but each tells the same story from a different aspect of who and what God is.

 

[FullyMT]

I do wish that people would say "this is my opinion" rather than as if they were stating theological facts or the Church's teachings.

Many fathers of the Church would tell you that Moses wrote the Pentateuch- I would agree with these holy fathers.

As for the babylonians- well, if creation is true and the flood (even if just a regional one as scientists say occurred) then it is pretty likely that even those outside of the covenant would have stories passed down. Moses did not take from them, but they held some of the truth.

For example, if I told you about the death of Julius Caeser, I would tell you an account based on history passed down to me- it might have some innacuracies. If God spoke to my mate Joe and told him the true account- would it mean that Joe had copied me simply because his true account has similarities to mine- of course not, as it was divine revelation!

I think the idea that Genesis is a myth is extreemly dangerous and in fact fairly heretical- "myth" implies we are talking of a fictitious story. Yet Dei Verbum the Vatican 2 document informs us that the bible is the true word of God which is totally inerrant. Of course, things can be true on different levels- genesis might not be true if it is read as a science book but it certainly is true if it is an allegorical account of the creation of the world.

Catholics are bound by Humane Generis to believe the fundamental moral points of genesis- if we start talking of genesis as a "myth" it sounds as if we are saying that it contains no value or can be laughed at. This is complete rubbish! Genesis is the true word of God just as much as the resurrection accounts! or the institution of the Eucharist!

Now the 2 stories, as far as I remember, the first is from God's view and the second is from a different view. I can't remember exactly, but Fr Edward Holloway has a few books on genesis- http://www.faith.org.uk

According to something I read by Keating a few years ago, there are multiple forms of the word "myth." While we generally think of a myth as something not true, it really just means story. In this way, most of the Old Testament, as well as the Gospels and Acts, can be called myths, stories. That does not mean they are not true.
Also, Humani Generis decries the idea that we did not come from Adam and Eve, as well decrying the idea that God did not take part in the evolution of the Universal Creation if it did happen.
The Bible is certainly errant in certain facts, which is one of the "usual" reasons why Protestants do not accept the Deuterocanon.


To the O.P. I remember learning that there are two Genesis writers. One who writes using YHWH, and the other Elohim, as terms for God. Scott Hahn writes briefly about the characteristics of each in "A Father Who Keeps His Promises."

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I do wish that people would say "this is my opinion" rather than as if they were stating theological facts or the Church's teachings.

Many fathers of the Church would tell you that Moses wrote the Pentateuch- I would agree with these holy fathers.

As for the babylonians- well, if creation is true and the flood (even if just a regional one as scientists say occurred) then it is pretty likely that even those outside of the covenant would have stories passed down. Moses did not take from them, but they held some of the truth.

For example, if I told you about the death of Julius Caeser, I would tell you an account based on history passed down to me- it might have some innacuracies. If God spoke to my mate Joe and told him the true account- would it mean that Joe had copied me simply because his true account has similarities to mine- of course not, as it was divine revelation!

I think the idea that Genesis is a myth is extreemly dangerous and in fact fairly heretical- "myth" implies we are talking of a fictitious story. Yet Dei Verbum the Vatican 2 document informs us that the bible is the true word of God which is totally inerrant. Of course, things can be true on different levels- genesis might not be true if it is read as a science book but it certainly is true if it is an allegorical account of the creation of the world.

Catholics are bound by Humane Generis to believe the fundamental moral points of genesis- if we start talking of genesis as a "myth" it sounds as if we are saying that it contains no value or can be laughed at. This is complete rubbish! Genesis is the true word of God just as much as the resurrection accounts! or the institution of the Eucharist!

Now the 2 stories, as far as I remember, the first is from God's view and the second is from a different view. I can't remember exactly, but Fr Edward Holloway has a few books on genesis- http://www.faith.org.uk

A myth is a literary genre which can convey either truth or falsehood like any other genre. Like parables, myths are fiction that convey messages.

It is unfortunate that we don't have a better word to describe the genre considering the word's sometimes negative connotations.

 

[Carrye]

This is a great book on the topic: In the Beginning by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger