A Question of the Creation of Mankind.

[monti]

The story of the creation of mankind makes no sense to me at all. It shows god to be a bumbling forgetful idiot.

Keeping in mind that these are said to be the words of god himself.

We are taught about the creation of man by our priests and teachers at a very early age. But they fail to tell us that there were THREE separate creations of man/woman i.e. the gods created man/woman three times! Lets us look at these three separate creation accounts and ask ourselves why would an all powerful creator have to do this ‘miracle’ more than the once only we are led to believe by the bible clutching church leaders? The first creation of mankind comes in the form of both male and female and at the same time, in chapter one of Genesis;

(1)

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
So God created man [kind] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”. Genesis 1:27.KJV.

So here we have a male and a female made by the Gods (plural), and made in the image of the Gods. God now looking at all his creation is pleased with his self and takes a rest on the seventh day, (Genesis 2:2-3.KJV). But look at what Gods thoughts are when wakes up from his rest just two verses on and realises something is missing from his creation;

“there was not a man to till the ground”. Genesis 2:5. KJV.

On this realisation God goes to creation number two;
(2)

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”. Genesis 2:7. KJV.

So where did the male from Genesis 1:27.KJV, disappear to?
And staying with Genesis chapter two God again realises that something else is missing so goes to creation of a third human being;
(3)

“But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man”. Genesis 2:20-23. NKJV.

So where did the female from Genesis 1:26-27.KJV, disappear to?

 

[Tumah]

Are you serious or are you just banging the teapot?

Edit: Note to self- Yiddish phrases don't translate well.

 

[monti]

Are you serious?

That is the way they appear in the bibles Old Testament.
If I have read them wrong or out of order of verse, I am sure you will correct me.
So up until this point, of course I am serious.

 

[Tumah]

Well, its always cute when someone thinks so highly of themselves that they think they've come up with some novel idea that's just going to blow everyone out of the water when they hear it.

Anyway, the first chapter is concerned with giving a general description of each day of creation. That includes man's creation on the 6th day.

Chapter 2 gives more information on what happened on that 6th day, since what occurred then is of particular importance. That is why 2:4 starts off "these are the outcomes of the heavens and the earth when they were created..." In other words, not a new creation, but what resulted in that creation. So we start from the beginning of the day:
v5. - none of the plants had yet sprouted because Man wasn't there to work the ground.
v7 - G-d creates Man
v21 - G-d creates Woman

Congratulations! Now you know more detailed information about what took place in verse 1:27. And now you also understand why the verse first says "...He created him... He created them". First Man was created. Then Woman. First there was a "him", then a "them".

 

[monti]

Well, its always cute when someone thinks so highly of themselves that they think they've come up with some novel idea that's just going to blow everyone out of the water when they hear it.

like this reply do you mean

Anyway, the first chapter is concerned with giving a general description of each day of creation. That includes man's creation on the 6th day.

Chapter 2 gives more information on what happened on that 6th day, since what occurred then is of particular importance. That is why 2:4 starts off "these are the outcomes of the heavens and the earth when they were created..." In other words, not a new creation, but what resulted in that creation. So we start from the beginning of the day:
v5. - none of the plants had yet sprouted because Man wasn't there to work the ground.
v7 - G-d creates Man
v21 - G-d creates Woman

Now you know more detailed information about what took place in verse 1:27.

Not really. Those creations are either, separate creations of two sets of male and female or they are the result of two different compilers trying to tell the same story (in my opinion).
The Sumerian text actually give a better explanation and indeed to my mind, a more believable one. But I am only concerned with what the Christian bible states and I cannot agree with what you say, simply because you have attempted to explain away this problem by rewriting them out of the biblical sequence.
I find that attempt very "cute" though, you must think very highly of yourself.

 

[technomage]

The story of the creation of mankind makes no sense to me at all. It shows god to be a bumbling forgetful idiot.

You've made it pretty clear that you're disparaging of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. I promise you, the world is not going to end if you decide to stop being a one trick pony and talk about something else.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The story of the creation of mankind makes no sense to me at all. It shows god to be a bumbling forgetful idiot.

Yeah, most creation mythologies are somewhat vague and metaphorical. Do you have a problem with mythology in general, or just the kind contained in the bible?

 

[technomage]

The Sumerian text actually give a better explanation and indeed to my mind, a more believable one.

That's because with the Sumerian text, you're dealing with one text, not two source texts compiled into one document.

Tumah's given a good explanation from a fideist/traditionalist point of view. OK, you've made it pretty clear you don't accept the traditionalist view. So you criticize traditionalist views ... well, a lot of people do, and do it a lot better than you do. If you want people to be impressed, either pick up your game and actually learn something about the text, or take a number with all the other skeptic wannabes.

When you get tired of kicking other people's pet beliefs just because you can, perhaps you'll take some time to discuss your own beliefs.

 

[Tumah]

Not really. Those creations are either, separate creations of two sets of male and female or they are the result of two different compilers trying to tell the same story (in my opinion).
The Sumerian text actually give a better explanation and indeed to my mind, a more believable one. But I am only concerned with what the Christian bible states and I cannot agree with what you say, simply because you have attempted to explain away this problem by rewriting them out of the biblical sequence.
I find that attempt very "cute" though, you must think very highly of yourself.

1. Your opinion is noted and from my perspective, not relevant. I gave you an alternative option besides the two you mention that adequately answers the point you've brought here.
2. I am not a Christian, nor am I overly familiar with what the Christian bible says.
3. Aside from the fact that in Judaism there is a concept of limited chronological order in Scriptures, I have not taken anything out of order. The verses as I've explained them follow the order as they appear in Genesis: 2:5, 7, 21.

 

[Tumah]

When you get tired of kicking other people's pet beliefs just because you can, perhaps you'll take some time to discuss your own beliefs.

I assume when you say this, you are referring to his ability to do so because of freedom of speech. Because in terms of his actual ability...it doesn't seem like he can at all.

 

[technomage]

I assume when you say this, you are referring to his ability to do so because of freedom of speech. Because in terms of his actual ability...it doesn't seem like he can at all.

Ah, but Tumah, I noted that he has the ability--I made no claims as to his skill. Or have you never heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Monti seems to want to be the Dunning-Kruger poster child....

 

[columbus]

Perhaps the original redacters of what is now called Genesis put two contradictory accounts as the first two chapters so that sophisticated readers would realize that it isn't really history, but interesting old stories.

Tom

 

[technomage]

Perhaps the original redacters of what is now called Genesis put two contradictory accounts as the first two chapters so that sophisticated readers would realize that it isn't really history, but interesting old stories.

That's the usual hypothesis.

Considering some of the stuff I've read from Greek and later Babylonian sources, there seems to have been a dynamic tension between literalists and metaphoricists even then. One classic example that many on this forum will be familiar with is the division between the Pharisees and the Saducees: the Pharisees tended towards an expansive view of the Torah, and the Saducees that too a strict literalist view. (The Pharisee/Saducee split was not quite a metaphorical/literal split, but there were elements of that in with their other disagreements.)

A lot of folks back then took the myths as just that--interesting and relevant cultural stories, but not to be taken literally.

 

[ametist]

There are some various 'rumours' or interpretations there were man kind present and living on earth 'before' the creation of Adam and even that there were more than one Adam created.
Consider the possibility First man which has 'features of wholeness' is not chronologically the first physical man.

 

[technomage]

There are some various 'rumours' or interpretations there were man kind present and living on earth 'before' the creation of Adam and even that there were more than one Adam created.
Consider the possibility First man which has 'features of wholeness' is not chronologically the first physical man.

Doing so not only violates Occam's razor, but adds more confusion to an already confusing interpretation. Better far, imho, to interpret the text metaphorically and stop insisting on a literalism that does not match the evidence.

 

[ametist]

what evidence you have in first case or in the case of my rumours?
it depends on you to make your own scrutiny, have your experience and taste your fate or test your faith.
both being the same ;-)

 

[technomage]

what evidence you have

One needs no evidence for an opinion, and what I expressed above is an opinion. Or are you asking what evidence I have that the text cannot be interpreted literally without contradicting historical and scientific information?

 

[ametist]

you initiated the idea of evidence into topic. frm there I went on beause I think there is always evidence.. somewhere. thats why I invited to the scrutiny and to the experience..but if you are convinced that historic and scientific evidence is all you need to understand your existence in a given time that wouldnt require any further implied interest to this topic. it would just be a rumour..a tale.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I promise you, the world is not going to end if you decide to stop being a one trick pony and talk about something else.

We don't know that! Maybe he is The Gatekeeper, responsible for keeping the Elder Gods at bay by posting inanities all over the internet. Maybe it is his blatant mediocrity that keeps them from devouring the earth.

 

[monti]

Yeah, most creation mythologies are somewhat vague and metaphorical. Do you have a problem with mythology in general, or just the kind contained in the bible?

Good question. It is not a case of me "having a problem" with the bible or mythological stories in general. I believe mythology has some seed of truth or at least moral to them as does for instance the Wizard of OZ and other fairy stories. The bible story is slightly different from my stand point because on the face of it, as it has come down to us and the way it is taught to us from childhood makes no sense. There is a believable story in both the Old and New Testaments (particularly the old) historically at least.