Two Creation Stories

[stlekee]

In the first 2 pages of the bible there are 2 stories about the same thing, put together in a way that makes you stop and think.. 'what's up with that'. You are now on the path towards spiritual truth, enjoy the adventure.

 

[search the scriptures]

Gen 2:4 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,

An after the fact more detailed account of the creation of man, as well as the formed earth or "how/details of" :

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

At that point in time :

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

where? :

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

etc...

 

[SMey24]

I can see why one would think there are two different creation stories. If you read the two stories literally, it’s hard to not think they contradict each other. In Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 the 1st day God created light which he called day, he called darkness night. The 2nd day God created a dome and called it sky. The 3rd day*God created dry ground and called that land, he also commanded vegetation. On the 4th day God created two powerful lights, the brighter for day and the other for night, he also created stars. The 5th day God created all living creatures that swim in the ocean and every kind of bird.* On the 6th day*God created tame animals, wild animals, reptiles and humans(man and woman). On the 7th*day God did not create anything*for he was finished with his work, he rested.* In Genesis 2:4 to 2:25 the man is created first so God makes the Garden of Eden where he fills with trees and fruit trees and rivers so he can put the man in the garden.* Then God made animals and birds so he could have a suitable partner for man, but they were not the right partner for man so then God created woman. These two accounts don’t seem to agree for many. Reasons being, in the first account the creator is a transcendent being, bringing the creation into existence referred to as God. In the second account he is referred to as Lord God. Also in the first account, heavenly activity is the focus, but in the second account, man is the focus. How God creates is also different in these two stories. In Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 he creates by speaking but in Genesis 2:4 to 2:25 he creates by forming with his hands. There also may be questions about the number of days it took for God to create. Did he create in six days or one? Another difference is that plants were created before man in the first account, but in the second account the man appeared before plants. Also in the first account the animals are created before men, but in the second account the man is created before the animals.

There are many differences between these two stories, but this does not mean the stories contradict each other. Often the bible has verses that may contradict each other but it doesn’t mean the bible’s stories are contradicting. I hope this is making sense, it can be quite confusing. One must read the context of the two stories and understand the creation from both of the stories. The bible is not a scientific text, the scientific method was unknown in biblical times. Science is based on proven facts and reasons, the Bible is not. God is, and has a higher knowledge than us humans. For example dogs might understand us humans in some degree but there are some things they don’t understand about us because our knowledge is at a higher level than theirs. Again, I hope Im not confusing you. Therefore, there are dimensions in God humans may never know because he is at such a higher level. For us to understand everything about God is not realistic. This relates back to why we may not fully understand the creation stories or have questions about the two. Even though society tends to base everything on science nowadays we have to try to not look at the bible as a scientific text. We have to be able to look past why it doesn’t make sense scientifically and focus on what the purpose of the two stories are.

So in trying to answer your question God does not create the same thing twice. The stories are just two ways of explaining how God creates. Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day and Genesis 2:4 to 2:25 is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, it was never meant to be an independent creation account, there are to many missing elements for that to be the case. These two stories are related. The first story is needed for the second story to take place. In Matthew 19:4-5, the Lord Jesus combined quotations from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. He declared: “He who made them from the beginning made them male and female [1:26], and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh [2:24]. This is an example of how God later relates the two stories. We should not look at Genesis as how God made the universe but rather that all things are of God’s creation.

 

[Thief]

Did anyone actually think about post#11?

Or is everyone already stuck on what they believe?

 

[sojourner]

So you've written off Genesis?

As history? Yes. As story? No.

 

[sojourner]

Did anyone actually think about post#11?

Or is everyone already stuck on what they believe?

No need to. Its exegetical value is nil. Post #10 is worth much more reading time, and is without doubt the best post of the thread.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Why are there 2 creation stories? How could God create the same thing twice? What is the point for Genesis 1 and 2????

This is the pattern by which He creates. Read Jeremiah, it is fascinating as evidence that the Creator of Life never stopped creating; even is, and the pattern is the same, 1-3 ... the rest of the Tanach follows suit. But for lack of interest these days to what IS actually the enjoyment of Life that we are given to tend to, most miss it, despite that they *are* acknowledging it. Very strange that way.

 

[Muffled]

No need to. Its exegetical value is nil. Post #10 is worth much more reading time, and is without doubt the best post of the thread.

It is not history. It is a God given account of what transpired. There is no justification for allegorizing these passages. God never says He is telling us a story.

As for Post 10, it is largely intellectual speculation. If God was not saying anything that hadn't been said before, that does not prove that Moses simply co-opted existing accounts as though it were the word of God. Reason tells me that anyone who is that close to God doesn't have to rely on second hand information.

 

[sojourner]

It is not history. It is a God given account of what transpired. There is no justification for allegorizing these passages. God never says He is telling us a story.

As for Post 10, it is largely intellectual speculation. If God was not saying anything that hadn't been said before, that does not prove that Moses simply co-opted existing accounts as though it were the word of God. Reason tells me that anyone who is that close to God doesn't have to rely on second hand information.

Did you read the post? There's every justification for allegorizing these passages, because that's what the stories are.

Post #10 is well thought-out and articulated, accurately reflecting the nature of the Hebrew Bible and the way in which it has always been conceived. There is no "speculation" to the fact that 1) this is how the writers/redactors conceived their work, 2) this is how the audience has always received the work, 3) this is operative theology by which the texts are understood.

What you wish the texts were does not make them so.

 

[Thief]

No need to. Its exegetical value is nil. Post #10 is worth much more reading time, and is without doubt the best post of the thread.

Actually no.
Post#10 refers to Genesis as a mix of items carried from one generation to the next.
Most of what we know is delivered in this way.
Post#10 holds Genesis only to that regard no more.
To say that Genesis is just another story is ...shallow.

Did you really have objection to my viewpoint?....or were you hoping a simple denial would be sufficient?

 

[sojourner]

Actually no.
Post#10 refers to Genesis as a mix of items carried from one generation to the next.
Most of what we know is delivered in this way.
Post#10 holds Genesis only to that regard no more.
To say that Genesis is just another story is ...shallow.

Did you really have objection to my viewpoint?....or were you hoping a simple denial would be sufficient?

My objection is simply this:
your argument does not work, because there is nothing in the textual criticism to suggest that the stories are, in any way, progressive or continuous. They compliment each other, but they do not "build" on one another. They are two completely different theological discussions of the creation myth. The second one was produced first, and the first one actually came second.

On the one hand, the creation myths are just stories -- that is, they do not attempt to relate historical fact. They present a theological truth through the use of allegory. It's a literary device. On the other hand, they are powerful theological statements, which does make them deeper than "just stories."

 

[Thief]

My objection is simply this:
your argument does not work, because there is nothing in the textual criticism to suggest that the stories are, in any way, progressive or continuous. They compliment each other, but they do not "build" on one another. They are two completely different theological discussions of the creation myth. The second one was produced first, and the first one actually came second.

Chapter Two follows Chapter One.

On the one hand, the creation myths are just stories -- that is, they do not attempt to relate historical fact. They present a theological truth through the use of allegory. It's a literary device. On the other hand, they are powerful theological statements, which does make them deeper than "just stories."

And are you attempting to take away Scripture?
The 'story of creation' is a lie?

My method allows acceptance of scripture....as is.
Whether you believe in science or not.

 

[sojourner]

Chapter Two follows Chapter One.

Yes, I'm fully aware of that. I'm also aware that, for whatever reason, the redactor put the stories in an order that is not chronological with regard to the writing of them.

And are you attempting to take away Scripture?
The 'story of creation' is a lie?

No, merely that the story of creation is not -- was never meant to be -- historical fact.

My method allows acceptance of scripture....as is.

The methodology I use is based upon solid textual criticism. What, exactly, is your methodology?

Scripture, "as-is," is chronologically out of order. How does your methodology address that fact?

 

[Thief]

Yes, I'm fully aware of that. I'm also aware that, for whatever reason, the redactor put the stories in an order that is not chronological with regard to the writing of them.

No, merely that the story of creation is not -- was never meant to be -- historical fact.

The methodology I use is based upon solid textual criticism. What, exactly, is your methodology?

Scripture, "as-is," is chronologically out of order. How does your methodology address that fact?

First....Do you regard Genesis as the result of a conversation between God and Moses?

Genesis is the first book of Moses....right?

 

[sojourner]

First....Do you regard Genesis as the result of a conversation between God and Moses?

Genesis is the first book of Moses....right?

BZZZZZZT!!!

Moses didn't write anything. Genesis is the result of at least four authors from at least four different traditions.

 

[gnostic]

Genesis 1 is more in line with the Old Babylonian myth of Marduk, in Enuma Elish, while the Genesis 2 and the Flood myth resemble more with the Sumerian Eridu Genesis and with the Epic of Atrahasis.

In Genesis 1, like Enuma Elish, have specific order of creation, but part from the creation of man, man's role is minimal, and little detail is given in the creation. All Genesis say is that man and woman was created in God's image. Nothing about created from the materials of the earth (like dust, clay or soil). In Enuma Elish it mere stated that they sacrifice one god, Qingu, and from his blood Ea created the first humans.

Although the creation of human in this Babylonian version bear little resemblance to Genesis 1, what is striking about Enuma Elish is, like the Genesis 1, man was created last. The order of creation in Enuma Elish is this:

1. Light.
2. Firmament (separation of Earth from Heaven).
3. Sun, Moon, planets and stars.
4. Animals.
5. Humans.

Enuma Elish is older than any composition of the Genesis.

With Genesis 2, man was created out of the earth - dust or soil - which was given life from the breath of God. In the Babylonian version, particularly the Epic of Atrahasis, a group of humans was created from clay, mixed with the blood of one dead god (like in Enuma Elish), and brought to life from the breath of Ea. There are other creation stories in Sumer, where humans were created from the earth, specifically the myth of Ea and Ninmah, and in the Song of Hoe.

The Flood stories are found in both, Eridu Genesis and in the Epic of Atrahasis, but strangely absent in Enuma Elish.

My point is that the Sumerians and Babylonians have various versions of the creation of man. Some of them may be related, but they are part of collection of myths. Just as the Genesis may have 2 different traditions of myths in one book. And it look more and more certain that the Hebrew version(s) may have been adopted and adapted (modified) the Babylonian version to suit their own religion.

What is clear about the Genesis creation story is that Genesis 1 and 2 were written at different periods.

The part on Abraham leaving the Chaldee Ur, seemed clearly to be written in the Priestly tradition, because Chaldee, Chaldea and Chaldeans didn't exist in the 2nd millennium BCE, geographical names that really didn't appear until mid-1st millennium BCE.

Sources:

1. Eridu Genesis - The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature
2. Epic of Atrahasis - Atrahasis and Human Creation (a different translation can be found in Myths From Mesopotamia, translated by Stephanie Dalley.)
3. Enuma Elish -Enuma Elish, the Babylonian Creation Epic Tablet I (this is translation is also found Myths From Mesopotamia, translated by Stephanie Dalley.)
4. Enki and Ninmah - The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature

 

[Thief]

BZZZZZZT!!!

Moses didn't write anything. Genesis is the result of at least four authors from at least four different traditions.

And the forty days and nights up on the mount are also a myth?
I suppose you don't believe in anyone?

I have seen a copy of Genesis that does not bear the name of Moses.
Neither does it carry the title Genesis.
And it makes literal assertion that Chapter Two is a retelling of Chapter One.

The story line is retold in modern English.
And it seems a bit more vague in detail...more so than King James.
Is this the book you use?

 

[thedope]

In Genesis 1, like Enuma Elish, have specific order of creation, but part from the creation of man, man's role is minimal, and little detail is given in the creation. All Genesis say is that man and woman was created in God's image.

It is written god created man in (his own image), = "both male and female", creative principle.
The other account is a wholly different specie as regards to man. Man fashioned from dust and wo-man, a subservient kind of man, once again removed from first substance.
It looks like the sanctification of patrimony or the justification for patriarchy. I agree they are different perspectives.

 

[sojourner]

And the forty days and nights up on the mount are also a myth?

Yep.

I suppose you don't believe in anyone?

What does that have to do with the mythic nature of the stories?

I have seen a copy of Genesis that does not bear the name of Moses.
Neither does it carry the title Genesis.
And it makes literal assertion that Chapter Two is a retelling of Chapter One.

The story line is retold in modern English.
And it seems a bit more vague in detail...more so than King James.
Is this the book you use?

I use the NRSV almost exclusively in my study and exegesis.

 

[Thief]

Yep.

What does that have to do with the mythic nature of the stories?

I use the NRSV almost exclusively in my study and exegesis.

And this version of the story includes details.....

Day Six...God created Man (and everything else that walks)
Set him free on the earth....
Go forth be fruitful and multiply.....male and female.
No names...no law...no restrictions...dominate all things.

The creation process stops.
Day Seven God rests.
All that is created has been created and nothing more shall be created.

THEN....Chapter Two....
A brief description of an alteration.
The event includes....
Ideal living conditions.....and longer life for cause of it.
Anesthesia....for a deep sleep...
Surgery...the extraction of a body part.
Cloning...as that body part is used to generate a copy of the original.
And genetic engineering...so the copy becomes female rather than male.

Adam is a chosen son of God.
Adam was given his twin sister for a bride.
Eve had no navel.

The garden event was an act of manipulation.....not creation.
And it was performed to alter the course of Man.

Apparently...on Day Six....
Man was behaving too much like animal and something needed to be done about it.

And God is behind all of it.
And changing His name makes no difference.