Huh? Your Britannica reference doesn’t even address the question!
Do you actually have any evidence that it was debated before the fourth century? I don’t recall if Origen discussed it; if he did that would move it into the early third to mid century.
Of.course it does…read it again and use your brain to.extrapolate…i mean lets face it, you habe concocted anentire theology from chapter 2 verse 4 that somehow excludes the rest of the entire bible. Whether you like it or not, Christ died physically on the cross as atonement for the wages of sin. The bible clearly says, sin brought pain and suffering (including in childbirth), thorns and weeds and that christs death paves the way for salvation and restoration.
We know restore to mean return something to a like new state. That is rather problematic theolgically for your world view is it not? The gospel goes much father than just the incarnation. Unless you know the why, the history, the gospel is an empty shell, you theology and indeed your entire religion (it cant be called christiantiy in the above sense) is unsupported myth. You are claiming that christ didnt die to remove pain and suffering…you also have another problem…
After christ second coming, does evolution continue? …
Actually you.know what, ill ask this as a new thread.
It is sad that you appear unable to take a position on which came first: plants or animals.
Perhaps later you can make a determination.
" 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."
That’s your reference. There’s nothing about when plants were created.
Really? By referring to a debate on which account it belongs to? Wow.
Okay, I’m changing my idea – that could be interesting.
Since his “published reference” didn’t even talk about the issue, I’d say don’t hold your breath.
Yes, I will continue to breathe.
I have seen this many times: a person’s views disagree with the scriptures but the disagreement is too difficult to face — obfuscation becomes the refuge.
“If two streams, are written, biblically which one did Christ die for and why?” The Bible contains multiple streams of thought on many topics. For example, there is the poetic and the prose account of Barak’s battle in Judges 4 and 5. They are complementary to each other; both were included when the book of Judges was compiled. But there are differences that help to understand them. For example, the reference to the stars fighting against Sisera in 5:20 is, in context, a poetic image of the forces of nature opposing him (in particular, the storm that bogged down the chariots, putting the more heavily armed Canaanites at a disadvantage relative to the Israelites and sending Sisera directly to Jael). The two accounts are not contradictory, nor is the reference to the stars a pagan remnant that later scribes failed to cover up. But they are different, filling in different details and presenting things differently. Likewise, Chronicles gives a parallel account to much of the rest of the OT, especially Samuel and Kings. The existence of these parallel accounts is not mentioned in the rest of the Bible; why should it when a competent reader in the ancient Near East would recognize these right away.
Note that I am not endorsing the mythical J, P, E, D, etc. But Genesis 1:1-2:3 is one account of creation and 2:4-25 is a second account. This does not mean that Moses could not have written both together, nor that he could not have taken two creation accounts already known in Hebrew tradition and joined them together. But it does mean that there is a break in the narrative, with most of chapter 2 going back over the creation of humans from a rather different perspective than ch. 1. (Although some people suggest that Adam and Eve are a later representative pair subsequent to the initial creation of humans referenced in ch.1. Speculation on “pre-Adamites” goes back well before geologic evidence of the age of the earth,) Putting those two accounts together helps us to understand what both of the passages are and aren’t teaching.
It is not clear what you want to be reconciled about Genesis 3:16-19, nor why you think that Christ would be dying only for one account. Both Genesis 1 and 2 should be read together, along with the rest of Scripture, to understand what they are teaching.
There are two different creation accounts with slightly different details. There is also a thing scholars have noticed and called it “biblical seams” and “text source hypothesis” which seems to imply the first story of creation is “Elohimist” and the second one is “Jahwehist” text sources. One uses elohim referring to the type of being and the second one uses Yahweh as the accommodating title that being uses when revealing himself to what became the Jews.
This is an old hat argument that has already been shot down outside of this forum. It doesnt explain the dilemma.
Back to the idea of two creation accounts…i think if one reads the two versions of the same creation account in gen 1 and gen 2, one will note that chapter two simply focuses in on the creation of man. Its quite simple to notice that. Its not an unusual literary technique.
The truth is trying to claim two creations is reading into the text something that isnt there and certainly isnt supported by biblical themes.
See the main bible theme is about God creating, satan corrupting that creation, and the plan of salvation playing out.
Two different creations doesnt fit into the main biblical theme. The only reason TEism tries to insert one in there is because they think the theme of the plan of salvation isnt important enough to discredit such a view.
The big problem lies in those parts of salvation called redemption and restoration.
God redeems then restores us back unto Himself. He fixes what was broken. I do not agree that fixing that was was broken is in anyway supportive of evolution as a means of creating. It also has another problem as mentioned earlier…what happens to evolution after the second coming of Christ?
Are we really going to change tac suddenly an agree it stops? Are trees in the new earth going to be spiritual like mankind and therefore evolution isnt needed anymore? Is secular science in agreement with that idea? I doubt it.
You.people.claim God is bound bynscience…then voila, suddenly after the second coming He isnt and evolution stops? Inconsistency unravels the belief.
Again, we come to the main disagreement. You read them as “accounts” and most of us EC folk read them as God revealing who he is and his relationship to us, and us to God’s creation. We can probably agree on that to some extent, even if we disagree that they are historical scientific accounts of the creation process. It is plain in the reading that they describe a different order and perspective of creation. The first shows a watery world, the second a garden in the midst of a desert environment. Different names for God. Different order of creation. Different imagery. No doubt the original audience had no problems with it, as they recognized the genre and meaning behind the stories, as they grew up hearing them around the cooking fires and campfires.
A basic problem with the cited source in the original post is that it provides a false dichotomy. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a description of creation. Genesis 2:5-25 is a second description of creation, with debates both on how much 2:4 refers back or forwards and on the extent to which the second description is talking about the same events as the first or a later component of creation. So it’s not very credible to claim that there are not two accounts.
But that doesn’t mean that they are late, contradictory creations thrown together by an incompetent redactor. The authors and editors judged it appropriate to write it the way it is; our task is to seek to understand it rather than imposing our views on it, whether those imposed views are from young-earth creationism or critical skepticism.
2:4 refers to the day of creation - one day. If it refers back to ch. 1, it is calling the six or seven days of creation one day; if it refers forward to the rest of ch. 2 it is referring to those events, which both include things from multiple days of ch. 1 and would require more than a day to complete, as one day. Either way, the young-earth insistence that the days of Gen. 1 must be one literal week creates problems when we look at 2:4. On the other hand, if we consider the features of the text itself, along with the ancient Near Eastern context, we will see that chronology is unlikely to be the purpose of Genesis 1-2 at all. .
Outside of this forum this seems to be one of the dominant beliefs. I heard about it outside of thisZ other than young earth/old earth creationist I don’t meet to many that disagree.
it seems that in your ancient age, your eyes are dimming…take a look at a screenshot of the Brittanica article I quuoted… (its in the very first paragraph, so the only way to miss it is to not even read the article i quoted)
you are quoting your idea from the Documentary Hypothesis…
which Julius Wellhausen popularized in the twentieth century. In a nutshell, the Documentary Hypothesis purports that the Pentateuch of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) was not written by Moses in 1405 BC—as has been traditionally believed—but rather, was formally pieced together in the late 500s BC by combining the writings of different authors, from different places, from different periods of time.
As such, Wellhausen believed the Pentateuch does not stand as a reliable documentation of history, and he points specifically to the opening chapters of Genesis as a proof text for how there were, indeed, two authors and two different accounts that became represented in the final edition of the book.
https://www.austingentry.com/2-creation-accounts-in-genesis/
Genesis 2:19 is a literary summary about what the lack of a corresponding human for Adam would mean, just as Genesis 1:26-28 summarizes the creation of male and female together. Cassuto’s observation means we have to be careful to see what the Bible is actually trying to do and be careful not to place on its intent more than it is doing. When we read the Bible as doing more than it is affirming, we may create a problem or expectations where one does not exist. Reading carefully and keeping an eye on options for what an author may be doing may prevent us from becoming trapped in a problem of our own making in asking the Bible to do something it is not attempting to do. Are the Creation Accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 Different Stories? - DTS Voice
There are different emphases in the two chapters…but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1 Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? - Apologetics Press
If we need to drag up the reasons why this doesnt work all over again, I will start by saying that making the claim there are multiple authors in Genesis in order to discredit the Genesis account begins to dismantle all of Christianity. The trustorthiness of the Bible unravels in the very first book and it only gets worse, any reference to Genesis in later books of the bible are also immediately discredited.
The bible isnt a book one can pluck the eyes out of for their theology…it relies on consistency and is intimately interlink throughout its pages. Those who claim the old testament isnt relevant are fools.
Anyone who claims you need to know the Old Testament to have Jesus as their Savior is not too clever either.
Adam. I’ll be honest with you. I don’t read your posts. I don’t waste time reading things by YECist on science or theology concerning things like contextual analysis of the Bible. I don’t because I already been there and have done that. So I already know, whatever it is you are tossing out is just simply not worth my time to read. I know this is a good practice, but every few dozen or so I’ll read a handful and look at sources if I don’t already know them and every single time, with 100% accuracy, and I don’t mean 99.999999% but 100% they are simply wrong and they are wrong not just because of how I feel or read the Bible, but wrong because it fails at science and the dozens of biblical scholars, theologians and teachers I heed counters them.
So I know you posted something. I read a line of it. Then commented. I understand if you don’t want to read it. But know this. I’m not in this group for people like you. I’m in other groups where i am there to debate or discuss things with those adamant about pseudoscience and bad theology but that’s just simply not why im in here. I’m sure you’re real some of this, or maybe not. Either way don’t hold your breath waiting for another response clarifying this. This will probably be my last comment ever directed specifically at you and not just part of the general discussion.
Who’s talking about “two different creations” other than you?
I’ll note in passing that when we used the term “account” in ancient near eastern literature it didn’t mean there was any historical foundation.
Even if the second story is taken literally there need be no contradiction: it is not a recounting of anything in the first story but is relating later events after the Creation “week”.
Given that after hearing a summary description of a certain ancient near eastern literary genre I could recognize that the opening Creation account fits that genre, of course the original listeners would recognize it!
That’s something YECists tend to forget: that the original audiences would have recognized quickly what genre was being used, and not a one of them would have thought, “Oh, this is telling us science”.
Yes, I read the article. It doesn’t mention the debate. Yes, it mentions the fact that there are two accounts of Creation, but that is not what the debate is about: the debate is over which account verse 2:4 belongs to, a debate that goes back to at least the fourth century.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
What does that seem to tell us. ← (No question mark. ; - )