Two accounts of creation or one in Genesis?

Faith & Science Conversation
21

I’ve read your sources in the original, so I didn’t need references.

Just reading what you quote about Artapanus it’s plain that he was writing fiction: Moses didn’t invent boats, he didn’t invent Egyptian weapons, he didn’t teach philosophy to the Greeks. And Abraham didn’t teach anyone astrology.

Artapanus is writing what we would call propaganda, playing an ancient game of one-up-manship by claiming that all the important things came from his people – a lot like how in Star Trek Chekov is always claiming the Russians invented everything.

1 Like
22

St Roymmond, dialoguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon (im sure you are familiar with the meme). The real problem here is that you show no interest in anything other than fluffing your feathers and leaving faeces on the board…that appears to be your strategy in the absence of referenced support!

You spend so much time plucking bits out of posts on this forum, you completely miss the point!

Now i will get back to the point…I said, “There is evidence Abraham brought knowledge from Ur of the Chaldees to Egypt”!

23

No, there isn’t, there’s historical fiction serving as Jewish propaganda.

The fact that you can’t tell the difference between history and fiction is not my problem.

24

im sorry what???

You are now claiming two stories from what source? Does the NET bible even make such a claim or is it in fact describing the differences in the two chapters of the same creation?

Take a look at the following image…even the NET bible heading for what you call a second creation tells us…this is a more in depth account of the creation of Adam and Eve!

Even verse 4…in the same verse, changes the order of the creation account…so which is it for you in verse 4, earth first or heavens first? I think you are creating more problems for yourself with this line of reasoning to be honest…it gets tangled the second you read verse 4 as your claim for two creations.

Your preference in seeking respite in the modern NET bible actually blows the 2 creation story out the window in one fell swoop…verse 4

image
image908×485 94.5 KB

note the margin reference for verse 4 in the NET…It references Genesis Chapter 1!
tn See the note on the phrase “the heavens and the earth” in [1:1](javascript:{}); the order here is reversed, but the meaning is the same.

I don’t know anything about the writing of the NET… it’s not a bible that I read because I mostly use BibleHub translations and the default is the BSB and when I need further help, I use the Interlinear (NET is on biblehub i know that) Having said that, I wonder if any of the scholars used in writing the NET, believed there are two separate creation periods given the title shown in the image above immediately preceding Chapter 2:4 and in particular what is contained in the 3 verses immediately prior to the heading?

BTW, none of this fixes the problems with Christ’s adherence to the original 7-day Creation. Christ kept the 4th commandment…remember the sabbath day to keep it holy…in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth. You cannot use the argument of “Mosaic tradition”…Cain and Abel sacrificed to God and Cain killed Abel when his offering of fruits of the field was rejected…so clearly the sacrificial laws of atonement were well known immediately after Adam and Eve left the garden of Eden!

God clearly rejected Cain’s offering for two reasons…disobedience due to human moral reasoning (King Saul did the same thing when Samuel said “to obey is better than to sacrifice” 1 Sam 15:22 / Hebrews 11:4 ) and, God had already explained to them that they must present offerings of sheep and goats because it reminded them of the future coming of the Messiah to save his people “from the wages of sin is death” Romans 6:23. This is one of the first evidences we have of the sanctuary service sacrificial system. i believe that is more than enough evidence to show that Sinai was a reaffirmation of this requirement.

The misunderstanding in interpretation here lies in the fact that Genesis Chapter 2 is not focusing on the original Creation…that has already been done in Genesis Chapter 1, its focuses on Adams home in the Garden itself and His need for a companion. I do not see any reason to read a second creation into this

I would note again…it still doesn’t resolve the issue of Christ keeping the Sabbath and John the revelator telling us Rev 14:12 “The patience of the saints are those who keep the commandments of God (clearly 10 commandments) and have the testimony of Jesus”!

25

I posted the note. Did you miss it? I will post it again:

image
image991×906 213 KB

Adam, I am still waiting for you to answer which came first: man or plants?

By the way, the notes on the Oxford Edition of the NRSV are also helpful “This tradition, often identified as J, is different from 1.1-2.3, as evidenced by the different style and order of events…Animals are created after the first humans rather than before…” And I have asked you about the order of events, but you don’t seem to want to discuss what the scripture actually says.

1 Like
26

the fourth day - the Sun, Moon and stars were created. the fifth day - creatures that live in the sea and creatures that fly were created. the sixth day - animals that live on the land and finally humans, made in the image of God were created.

Chatgpt response to your question
According to the Bible, in the book of Genesis, man (Adam) was created by God on the sixth day of creation.

Look to be honest, ive heard all this tripe before…its nothing more than dog barking up trees.

The version you subscribe to has even worse problems than mine…here is what your version claims about consequence of sin…

According to the lengthier Yahwist (J) narrative of the 10th century BCE (Genesis 2:5–7, 2:15–4:1, 4:25),…Immediately God recognized their transgression and proclaimed their punishments—for the woman, pain in childbirth and subordination to man and, for the man, relegation to an accursed ground with which he must toil and sweat for his subsistence. [(](Adam and Eve | Story, Meaning, & Facts | Britannica (unless you have paid subscription like i do its probably pointless giving you the link?)

My version has no issue with the above, however yours most definately does…because according to TEism, pain in childbirth and cursed ground are evolutionary and not a result of sin.

Atheists complain that morality demands God could not make women subservient to men…evolution has issues with this too id suggest. My version has no issue with it because in context we do not interpret it as women being chained slaves. Men are supposed to “honour their wives, respect them, and care for them”. I find support in my view here in that the bible blames Adam for bringing sin into this world…not Eve…

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

So mine is consistent…yours is not. That tells me quite plainly, yours is suspect! Inconsistencies in theology are easily found when bible themes are twisted to suit outside beliefs…ie evolution.

27

Another book that may be helpful is The Manifold Beauty of Genesis 1 (The Manifold Beauty of Genesis One | Kregel). It brings out multiple literary themes that continue throughout the Bible, and thus brings out the theological meanings in the text. One of the authors is a geologist, so quite aware of the scientific evidence, but that is not the subject of the book.

It’s important to distinguish between the fact that Genesis 1:1-2:3/4 and 2:4/5-25 are distinct accounts of creation (there is some debate whether 2:4 is more a summary of what came before or an intro to what comes next) and the claim that they are contradictory or thrown together by some late redactor. The sources that Adam cited show that the differences between them do not prove that Moses could not have written them both directly together. It would be quite possible for Moses to basically say: “here’s the big overview”. “Here’s a closer focus on humanity”. But the differences in the two passages are real and must be taken seriously, something that YEC sources generally fail to do.

Genesis 1 portrays all things as parts of God’s creation, playing their proper roles in His good design. Thus, the atheistic/deistic error, so often endorsed by young-earth and ID sources, that science is describing the absence of God must be rejected. God is at work in the things that happen “naturally” as well as in those that happen miraculously.

3 Likes
28

Wow, Adam, it is impressive how much you can write without ever answering the simple question of which came first: plants or man?

A one-word answer is all that is needed.

An answer will help us figure out which if the two creation stories you believe. An answer from you, not from a search of AI sources.

1 Like
29

Read my.post man…i.quoted the answer at the very beginning of it!

The reason why i provided a quote in answer is so that you cannot make the claim “Adam is making stuff up ro suit his own beliefs”. I didnt write the article by the BBC that i quoted!

David that idea simply doesnt work without first explaining why God would write two versions, then not mention this for the rest of the entire Bible.

If two streams, are written, biblically which one did Christ die for and why?

Also, how do you reconcile the other quote i gave above ie the yahwist version where God punished sin by giving pain in childbirth and cursed ground? (See even that version is hugely problemstic for evolution).
The reason why literalist reading of Genesis creation in chapter 1 maintain the position they do is not because of one text…go and read the rest of the bible and show me why chapter 1 is not the basis and your interpretation of chapter 2 is.

And i would suggest Christs physical death on the cross in order to pay the wages of sin is death (rom 6.23) is still an insurmountable problem. Christ died once for sin…thsts it. There are no steams in the gospel however the need for it is directly tied to the sin of Adam, pain in childbirth, and weeds and thorns (none of these are reconcilable with theistic evolutionary claims which also says death was already in this world because clearly, pain and suffering were not)

30

Why do you constantly deflect from questions by going back to science? Cobra asked you a direct question, indeed has had to repeat it, and you dodge.

He asked a question about the text of scripture, not about science. I’ve done the same in the past, and you never, ever actually deal with the text; t best you repeat talking points and dodge into your claims about the Sabbath. How about answering the question for a change?

2 Likes
31

No, you have not answered my question about which came first: plants or animals?

A one-word answer would have worked.

It seems you will not answer.

32

st Roymond,
I gave a very direct answer via a referenced quote. I have also explained exactly why i did it that way and to be honest, you are the reason. You come out with stripped down versions of posts and claim authoritative responses without a single reference in that what you say is mostly unreferenced/unsupported rubbish.

I gave the response from BBC…either read it, or not… i dont care the question was directly answered from a published source and for good reason…to get pigeons off the chess board and back outside where they belong!

33

I second this. It’s very definitely written for a general audience and doesn’t require any significant scholarly knowledge to follow.

I spent over an hour one day reading arguments back and forth on that. The scholarship was fun, and the citations as well (this has been argued since the fourth century or earlier).

Yes. I’d forgotten how different they are in the Hebrew. I see a shift in style already in verse 4, so I take it as the start of the second account, but starting in the next verse it just reads differently and also shifts vocabulary.

Nice summary statement!

3 Likes
34

You see how well i can bring this to a close…i gave a published reference in answer and now your snookered. You cannot use the claim…its just Adams words.

Take the anser given by the BBC and critique the BBC’s version. If you dont like the BBC one, how about chatgpt, its the same.

I dont make this stuff up and there is good reason for that. Im ready to talk about the mainstream version, which is the answer provided to you.

35

Most likely because the original hearers and later listeners recognized that they were two distinct stories without having to be told. Modern folks have to be told because once the two are translated into English the differences aren’t as obvious, though anyone paying attention will recognize that the events are in a completely different order, which tells us that the second account is not an expansion of the first, it stands on its own and comes later.

So do others. It’s because you fill your posts with stuff that isn’t even relevant and generally do so while avoiding an actual answer.

BBC? You mean your Britannica quote? It wasn’t even relevant to the question, which as Cobra keeps pointing out can be answered with one word!

1 Like
36

A one-word answer might have been under Discourse’s 11-character minimum reply limit. :grin:

1 Like
37

Who would do that?

38

According to the lengthier Yahwist (J) narrative of the 10th century bce (Genesis 2:5–7, 2:15–4:1, 4 Adam and Eve | Story, Meaning, & Facts | Britannica

As you are good at mathematics, that would be 600 years earlier than 4th century right? unless your claiming 4th century AD…then you are out by 1400 years!

Either way, given there is a version at least 1 millenia BC, the debate has been going on for much longer. (Or Brittanica is wrong…pseudo encyclopedia perhaps?)

39

Yeah, you “close” it by changing the subject and refusing to make a direct answer! That reference didn’t say a single thing about plants and you know it.

Dodging questions by changing the subject indicates you have a problem with comprehension; usually that happens when someone is being forced to face an issue of cognitive dissonance and/or is having doubts. Grad school for me involved a number of such situations and I learned that the way out of such a situation is to throw away your preconceived ideas and just deal with the text! After all, one reason God even gave us the inspired text is so we won’t run around proclaiming our own notions as true; if we do, someone can always drag us back to the text and tell us to look again!

1 Like
40

You can always add, “Duh” to the end. :grin:

Or “um” to the start. :innocent:

2 Likes