two different creation stories?

[JMM]

I mentioned briefly in another thread that there are actually two accounts of creation in Genesis, and that their order of events is entirely different from each other. A newbie on our forum named B.A.C. disagreed with me, and challenged me to clarify what exactly I thought was different about the two accounts. Since this discussion could have derailed that thread (which was about evolutionary issues), I decided to start this thread to specifically discuss what I perceive as differences between the creation account of Genesis 1:1-2:3, and the account of Genesis 2:4-25.

First of all, in Genesis 1:25-27, humans were created AFTER the animals, while in Genesis 2:18-19, humans were created BEFORE the animals.

In Genesis 1:27, Adam and Eve were created at the same time. In Genesis 2:18-22, Adam was created first, THEN the animals, and THEN Eve from Adam's rib.

In the first chapter, plants are created on the third day before humans are created on the sixth. This order seems to be reversed in Genesis 2:4-7.

As I mentioned in the other thread, even if these accounts do contradict each other a little bit, this does NOT mean that the Bible is flawed, or that God did not create everything. I explained why in that thread:

I really don't think that it matters. These creation accounts are clearly metaphorical, written in hymnic, poetic, and symbolic language (like their counterparts in Revelation). The two accounts are like two parables, describing different things. The main point that God is revealing in these accounts is that He created everything.

The way I see it, the best way to look at the early chapters of Genesis is that the author was explaining in language and concepts that made sense to him the divine revelation that he was receiving. To attempt to fit the creation hymn of Genesis 1 into a modern scientific framework is a fruitless endeavor. It should not be taken literally, but it should be understood as the author’s response, based on culturally-determined language of observation and put into poetic form, to the inspiration he received from his encounter with God. The abiding truths that we take from it are that God exists and that He is responsible for the existence of the universe, including us. To insist on a literal interpretation of those passages, leading to a belief in a 6000 year-old universe, is simply missing the point.

With that having been said, I invite B.A.C. and anyone else with an opinion on this, to discuss the alleged differences in the two creation accounts, which I mentioned above.

 

[researcher]

I believe the people in Gen. chapter 1 are different from Adam in Gen. chapter 2. I believe they were probably made before him, and that Adam was put on earth as a type of Messiah (Rom 5:14) to rule over them, possibly as a replacement for Lucifer/Satan since he rebelled (Eze 28:13, Eze 31:16).

Adam would have been the first "spiritually" living man as were his descendants (Gen 3:20)and the Spirit of God would have rested on them which is why they lived so long (Gen 5:4-32, Gen 6:3) To the other people living prior to Adam, Adam and his offspring would have been like gods to them.

IMO.

 

[John]

In Genesis 1:27, Adam and Eve were created at the same time. In Genesis 2:18-22, Adam was created first, THEN the animals, and THEN Eve from Adam's rib.

I like to look at it like God created Adam and Eves souls and then the bodies.

 

[Dave Slayer]

It appears as if there are two seperate and different creation accounts. However, Genesis 2, I believe, is only talking about the garden of eden and not the rest of the world. In the garden of eden, God created all animals and fowl from the dust of the ground so that Adam could name them. Also perhaps so Adam could see God make the animals so the devil couldn't come by later convincing Adam that he made the animals. So, what appears to be the "second" account, is only telling what happened in the garden of eden.

Here is a good article on the subject:

http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html

 

[stovebolts]

As far as the "two" creation stories, I think Wikepedia actually does a decent job outlining the differences between the Elohist and the Yawist texts.

As the Elohist and Yawistic bent and how it relates to Genesis 1 and 2, Do a study on the Names of God, Under Judaism 101. I think this ideology lends to the idea that at least Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have a different theological emphasis, a different faucet of God's nature per se on creation.

The most important of God's Names is the four-letter Name represented by the Hebrew letters Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei (YHVH). It is often referred to as the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name. Linguistically, it is related to the Hebrew root Hei-Yod-Hei (to be), and reflects the fact that God's existence is eternal. In scripture, this Name is used when discussing God's relation with human beings, and when emphasizing his qualities of lovingkindness and mercy. It is frequently shortened to Yah (Yod-Hei), Yahu or Yeho (Yod-Hei-Vav), especially when used in combination with names or phrases, as in Yehoshua (Joshua, meaning "the Lord is my Salvation"), Eliyahu (Elijah, meaning "my God is the Lord"), and Halleluyah ("praise the Lord").

The first Name used for God in scripture is Elohim. In form, the word is a masculine plural of a word that looks feminine in the singular (Eloha). The same word (or, according to Rambam, a homonym of it) is used to refer to princes, judges, other gods, and other powerful beings. This Name is used in scripture when emphasizing God's might, His creative power, and his attributes of justice and rulership. Variations on this name include El, Eloha, Elohai (my God) and Elohaynu (our God).

With these two names (descriptors) for God in mind, we see that in Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God (Strongs 430, Elohiym) created the heaven and the earth.

It is Elohiym that creates and rules, and this theme repeats itself throughout Genesis 1.

In Genesis Two, we see the relationship between YHVH, creation and man, as well as the relationship between man and his environment.
Net Bible: 2:15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. Likewise,
2:19 The Lord (YHVH) God (Elohiym) formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

In verse 2:18, we see that man does not have a suitable companion, in verse 19, we see God creating Animals, something that man could not do. Thus, man finds his place among YHVH and creation. As YHVH brings the animals to man so that they can be named. I think this is important because the Hebrews viewed the world as it related to them in their daily world. Just as God had many names, which were attributes of God, when YHVH brought the animals to man, man named the animals by their attributes. This can be seen in their ancient alphabet, for A, which is known as Aleph in Hebrew, is drawn as an oxes head, which represented strength.

I believe that when man first came across the ox, he saw how strong and powerful it was compared to him. But man also saw that he had a special relationship with YHVH, even though both man and beast were formed out of the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:19) man held a special place in the eye of YHVH.

It was here, among the realization of where man fit into the world, that man realized that he was alone (Note God knew it first), and man experienced loneliness, and YHVH creates woman out of man as a "suitable companion". Throughout the whole creation account , everything is "Good", until it comes to man being alone. Per Genesis 1, after all had been created, including woman, God said that it was "Very Good".

Note on "Good". Good does not mean perfect, for Christ was perfected through suffering. *(Hebrews 2:10)

 

[Imagican]

Ah, we find astute readers who are ABLE and willing to READ for themselves.

Step forward and read what is offered concerning Noah: "Noah was a JUST man and PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS". Ask the average traditionalist what this means and watch them start scratching their heads. Hmmmmmmm. well, ,,,,, ah,,,,,it means that,,,,,,,,,,,Hmmmmmmmmmm.

What it means is that the decendants of Adam and Eve had gone OUTSIDE their bloodlines and ALL but NOAH had done so, (all but Noah and HIS family). And that is WHY God chose Noah and STARTED over with HIM. For HE was STILL of the CLEAR bloodline of Adam and Eve.

Just as God STARTED to 'begin again' with Moses in the desert, He had ALREADY done so before with Noah. That is why the flood NEED NOT have been a 'world wide' flood, but one that one encompassed those that had STRAYED from their 'bloodline'. A LOCAL flood, more or less would have been sufficient to destroy those that had MIXED their bloodlines.

We can CLEARLY see that the Hebrews and Jews were COMMANDED not to intermingle their blood with that of others. The principle is the SAME. What differentiates Jew from Gentile? Is is NOTHING other than the 'blood'.

Blessgings,

MEC

 

[researcher]

Ah, we find astute readers who are ABLE and willing to READ for themselves.

Step forward and read what is offered concerning Noah: "Noah was a JUST man and PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS". Ask the average traditionalist what this means and watch them start scratching their heads. Hmmmmmmm. well, ,,,,, ah,,,,,it means that,,,,,,,,,,,Hmmmmmmmmmm.

What it means is that the decendants of Adam and Eve had gone OUTSIDE their bloodlines and ALL but NOAH had done so, (all but Noah and HIS family). And that is WHY God chose Noah and STARTED over with HIM. For HE was STILL of the CLEAR bloodline of Adam and Eve.

Just as God STARTED to 'begin again' with Moses in the desert, He had ALREADY done so before with Noah. That is why the flood NEED NOT have been a 'world wide' flood, but one that one encompassed those that had STRAYED from their 'bloodline'. A LOCAL flood, more or less would have been sufficient to destroy those that had MIXED their bloodlines.

We can CLEARLY see that the Hebrews and Jews were COMMANDED not to intermingle their blood with that of others. The principle is the SAME. What differentiates Jew from Gentile? Is is NOTHING other than the 'blood'.

Blessgings,

MEC

Good points.

 

[samuel]

One creation, One story, learn to read your Bible properly.

 

[follower of Christ]

Actually there arent two stories at all.
One is the play by play action account in Genesis 1.
The other is an overview that fills in some blanks for us

 

[follower of Christ]

One creation, One story, learn to read your Bible properly.

 

[butxifxnot]

One creation, One story, learn to read your Bible properly.

It saddens me to see such confusion about Genesis...
no, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that Adam was only a type of Christ, and that God created a vast humanity before Adam and Eve...

Quite simply, Genesis 1 is the creation of the world, Genesis 2 is a close look at the 6th day when man was created: in the Garden, God created all the "kinds" of animals and one of each tree for Adam to see.

 

[butxifxnot]

That is why the flood NEED NOT have been a 'world wide' flood, but one that one encompassed those that had STRAYED from their 'bloodline'. A LOCAL flood, more or less would have been sufficient to destroy those that had MIXED their bloodlines.

Are you serious?

Genesis 7
19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.

2 “You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3 also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.

"All the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered," and you say it was a localized flood?
God told Noah to take two of every animal to "keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth" and you say it was a localized flood? There's no reason to save the animals if the flood is just a local flood: the animals could just retreat to higher ground!

 

[researcher]

That is why the flood NEED NOT have been a 'world wide' flood, but one that one encompassed those that had STRAYED from their 'bloodline'. A LOCAL flood, more or less would have been sufficient to destroy those that had MIXED their bloodlines.

Are you serious?

Genesis 7
19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.

2 “You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3 also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.

"All the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered," and you say it was a localized flood?
God told Noah to take two of every animal to "keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth" and you say it was a localized flood? There's no reason to save the animals if the flood is just a local flood: the animals could just retreat to higher ground!

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.


earth
H776
×Âרץ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.


Total KJV Occurrences: 2502
land, 1509
earth, 712
ground, 97
country, 92
countries, 48
lands, 34
world, 4
field, 1
nations, 1

Take your pick.

heavens
H8064
ש×Âמ׆ש×Âמי×Â
shâmayim shâmeh
shaw-mah'-yim, shaw-meh'
The second form being dual of an unused singular; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky

In line of sight, the sky only extends as far as one can see where they live.

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the land; and all the high mountains that were under the whole sky were covered.

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the land

Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the land a hundred and fifty days.

Gen 8:1 and God made a wind to pass over the land, and the waters assuaged;

Gen 12:1 Now Jehovah said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee:

 

[Imagican]

That is why the flood NEED NOT have been a 'world wide' flood, but one that one encompassed those that had STRAYED from their 'bloodline'. A LOCAL flood, more or less would have been sufficient to destroy those that had MIXED their bloodlines.

Are you serious?

Genesis 7
19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.

2 “You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3 also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.

"All the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered," and you say it was a localized flood?
God told Noah to take two of every animal to "keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth" and you say it was a localized flood? There's no reason to save the animals if the flood is just a local flood: the animals could just retreat to higher ground!

Yes, my friend, I AM serious. The same words that you have quoted were used to describe many of the plagues of Egypt. For, at the time these things were written, the ONLY means to describe something was the image that was SEEN. For those in Egypt at the time of the plagues, the locusts SEEMED to cover the ENTIRE planet, (as witnessed by the writters, they existed as far as the eye could SEE).

Now, do you suppose that those that witnessed the flood even KNEW that there were contintents BEYOND the scope of their knowledge? That there were islands such as Australia?

And how do you reacon that a YEAR at sea left Noah only MILES from where he began? Now THAT WOULD be a 'fluke'.

What one must be ABLE to discern is the REASON for the flood. Not whether it covered the ENTIRE planet or not. To those that the flood affected, it DID cover THEIR entire world. Regardless of the feeble attempts at traditionalists, there is NO ACTUAL evidence of a 'world wide flood'. That 'some SAY' that there is is NO evidence whatsoever. Some SAY that 'Bigfoot' exists regardless of the FACT that the man who INVENTED Bigfoot admitted to his hoax. Some SAY that the Loch Ness Monster exists regardless of absolutely NO actual evidence WHATSOEVER.
Some SAY that we NEVER visisted the moon. So you can see, SAYING something has NO bearning on the TRUTH.

If man ONLY existed in a certain AREA of the world, what would be the POINT in flooding the entire planet?

WHO did God desire to 'wipe out'?

Question: What does this MEAN: "For Noah was a just man and PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS"? Answer this and the you are a step closer to the truth.

Blessings,

MEC