Biblical Creation: two Creation stories in the Bible?

Great Debates
61

I think the reason is clear - man is made, then (according to my interpretation- see below) animals are made; and then woman is made.

If all of this happened on day 6, it is just simple logic that it all happened in a single day. If it did not, then Genesis 1 must be wrong, because Genesis 1 has the creation of both men and women happening on day 6!

The point is I think obvious - I am not sure where the problem is. Either this stuff, from the creation of man through to the creation of women, happened on day 6 - or Genesis 1 is wrong. One or the other it has to be.

Here is the version you linked to:

“18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.”

God makes man. God says, and I quote from your version, “I will make a helper…”. In other words, God says he is going to make a helper (the verb form is “will”, stating intentionality), and then he makes the animals - including birds.

If the quote is to have the meaning you wish to assign it, it would have to have God saying “I have made a helper …”. But it does not.

Read the verse again - even according to your translation (which is not the same as many others), God expresses his intention to create animals in 2.18. God will make a helper. He has not already done so.

The meaning is quite un-ambiguous.

I think the “consistant” reading is a big stretch, myself.

I agree about the civility … Let’s all keep it that way … :slight_smile:

62

I am not saying you are wrong - to be honest, I don’t know very much about Biblical sacrificial rituals - but if your meaning is correct, what possible meaning does this verse have? Did Biblical Jews commonly eat their ordinary, non-sacrificial dinners in the Temple? :confused:

[At last, a reason to use this emoticon: a fun Biblical debate! ;j ]

PS. I agree that doing anything to the Dome would be foolishness.

63

Ok… to this point we have agreement. :slight_smile:

Ahh… disagreement. :slight_smile: See, I don’t think it does say that “then he makes the animals”.

Here’s my interpretation, based on my reading:

God creates everything in the order, sequence, time periods, etc. as set forth in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2:18 God says, as you indicate, “I have to make a helper for Adam.” I don’t read Genesis 2:19 as indicating that God then proceeded to make animals to possibly be helpers for Adam, but rather, that the account is saying (and it starts out with “Now God had formed”) God had previously, ie. as set forth in Genesis 1, created animals. They were all brought forth to Adam to be named, but none of them were suitable to be helpers. It’s like Genesis 2:19 is explaining why, in 2:18 God says he has to make a helper… it’s because no helper was found in the beasts that had been previously created.

Perhaps this will help:

God: It’s not right you being alone, Adam; I must make you a suitable helper. Now, I already made these animals, but among them there is no suitable helper. So I will put you to sleep and make you a companion from your rib.

That’s my interpretation of the reading. Right or wrong, who knows. But that’s what the text has always meant to me and, for some reason, it’s always seemed very simple and plain that that’s what it means! Obviously other people read the same text and have other interpretations seem simple and plain to them. (like you and others in this thread, for example).

Well, I don’t think anything around here is ever “quite un-ambiguous.” :slight_smile: The reason the quote doesn’t have to say I have made a helper is because, as I have said above, I read it as God saying in 2:19 that the reason he still has to make a suitable helper is because none was found amongst the animals he already created. Thus, I don’t think there’s any part of 2:18 whatsoever that expresses any intention to create animals. I think 2:18 expresses an intention to create a “helper,” 2:19-20 expresses a reason that a new creation is necessary (ie. when the animals were brought before Adam none was a suitable helper), and 2:21 expresses how God created Adam’s helper. I agree that in 2:18 God has not already done so.

And I think the “inconsistant” reading is a big stretch, at least in regards to the suggestion that 2:18-21 suggests animals being created between Adam and woman. But the civility is nice, and at least I think I can understand what it is you are trying to say. At least this doesn’t appear to be a debate where we’re both just saying “you’re wrong”, but hopefully understanding where the differing opinions are coming from.

We may have to agree to disagree on this point and see where else this debate may take us.

64

Realhoops, here’s what I’m bringing to the argument (aside from an awareness that modern Biblical criticism sees Gen 1:1-2:4 and Gen 2:5-4:24 as two distinct stories from two sources):

Genesis 1 gives the account of God’s creation, in six days according to the narrative. Gen 2:1-4 puts a coda on that, by stating that on the seventh day God brought a finish to his work of creation and rested – and set aside the seventh day as a day of rest. (This ties in with the Sabbath as an integral part of creation, which I believe to have been a key point of the basic story.)

Genesis 2:5 picks up on the story, focusing in on the creation of man, very briefly described in 1:26-29. What I assume is that this account is an ongoing narrative, not “filler” on the previous story – God and/or Adam do X, Y, and Z in the order given in the narrative.

Okay, given that, 2:4 seems to be saying, "Okay, fresh start on this story. Here’s what God did in the day when He made the earth and heavens. I’m very well aware that “day” can be used metaphorically, such as “In Solomon’s day the Temple was built” does not mean that Solomon only reigned or “had” one day. But the point there would seem to me, why insist that the six days of Genesis 1 are literal and the one day of 2:4 is not? 6 != 1, by anybody’s definition, unless either the 6 or the 1 is being used figuratively (and why one and not the other, in that case?).

Now in one translation of 2:4-5, the phrase “in the day when God made the earth and heavens” modifies the “This is the story of the origins of the heavens and earth” beforehand, in another, it’s a time-setter for the material that follows about there not yet being plants on the earth. Which is right? How can we tell?

And in either case God’s next step is to create man, in 2:6-7, and then to create a garden in Eden and cause trees to spring up in it. In this second story, the focus-on-man one, that’s the first mention of plant life other than the statement that they weren’t around “in the day” of creation.

After describing Eden a bit, the next point the author makes is to have God plunk Adam down there, in 2:15. After telling him which trees to eat from and which one not to eat from, God then decides that Man’s going to be lonely, so He creates animals from the soil, in 2:19. And Adam names them in 2:19-20. Then he creates Eve.

Now on the assumption that this is a historical narrative, telling what God did and in what order (which is what a literal reading requires), the net result is that the order of creation is Man, plants, wild animals, Woman. This contradicts the story in Genesis 1, where plants are created on the third day (1:11-12), then water creatures and birds on the fifth day (1:20-22, and animals on the sixth day (1:23-24) before the creation of man and woman, together, later on the sixth day (1:26-27).

While I can accept that Genesis 2 could be expanded detailing work on the rough-cut broad-brush story of man’s creation in 1:26-27, the conclusions are inescapable: either one or both stories are not to be read as literal narrative, or the two stories have contradictions between them as regards timing.

Since I do not feel that faith in God requires a naive acceptance of the Bible as a narrative, verbally inspired to be read literally as the ultimate truth about what He did and does, I have no problems in accepting these as two myths in the strict anthropological sense of the word – sacred stories embodying religious truths in symbolic language, not “made-up falsehoods” as the word has come to carry the pejorative meaning of.

I can, however, respect those who feel that it should be read as literally inspired truth, so long as they do not derive from this view a right to violate those commandments which Jesus said to hold uppermost in an effort to insist on other, more “background” stuff from it. That’s a whole 'nother debate, however.

But trying to read Genesis 2 as though it were an illumination, a “more details on the sixth day” expansion, of Genesis 1 leads one inevitably into trying to reshape the literal statements to make them fit together. If Gen. 2, standing by itself, is not the literal sequential narrative that it appears to be, then why in the Name of All That’s Holy is it fitting that one demand that we read Gen. 1 as just that?

65

Oh, and just in passing, it may be of interest that there is first-person anecdotal proof right on this board that Eve was made of male body parts! :smiley:

66

How is it not a contradiction for Genesis 1:26-31 to have God creating man and woman on the same day (day #6), but for Genesis 2 to have man and woman created on different days?

[ol]
[li]Early in Day 6, from Genesis 1: God creates land animals[/li][li]Later in Day 6, from Genesis 1: God creates humans, both male and female.[/li][li]At some point, day unspecificed, from Genesis 2: Man names the animals and seeks unsuccessfully among them for a helpmate.[/li][li]At some point, day unspecified, from Genesis 2: Man not having found a helpmate from among the animals, God creates woman.[/li][/ol]
I agree that there is nothing in the internal logic of Genesis 2 to suggest that the creation of the man, the man’s naming of the animals, and God’s creation of the woman from the man’s rib all happened in one day. In fact, just going by Genesis 2 alone, this seems unlikely. It’s just that, for points #2 and #4 to not contradict, those two events must have happened on the same day, Genesis 1’s Day #6, on which day Genesis 1 says both male and female humans were created.

67

Thanks for the response Polycarp. As always, I enjoyed reading your thoughts, and I do think I have a better understanding of where you’re coming from.

I guess my personal opinion and personal belief concerning Genesis 1 and 2 is that Genesis 1 is a sequential narrative because it actually says this happened on this day. I just don’t see that same indication in Genesis 2, so I’ve never considered it a “sequential” narrative. And I think you can “literally” read the account in Genesis 2, as a matter of grammar, etc., without attaching a sequential narrative interpretation to it without being intellectually dishonest or anything. For example, if Genesis 2 started out with “On the Sixth day, when God created man, here is what happened in sequence…” then I think it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that Genesis 2 is not a sequential narrative. Even if it actually said “God created man. THEN, God created animals. THEN, God created birds. THEN, God created woman,” I’d agree that the only honest approach would be sequential. But I think the basic language used in Genesis 2 (with the understandable difficulties in translation over time, etc.) can be read, in an intellecutally honest manner and in a literal sense, as merely being a further explanation of certain parts of Genesis 1. I think the specific time demarcations in Genesis 1 are what makes it have to be read as sequential, and the noticable lack of that in Genesis 2 is a big part of why I don’t read Genesis 2 in the same way.

Does this mean I think you are wrong? OH on the contrary! It just means I think you have a well-reasoned opinion that I think is intellectually honest. I simply have a different opinion that I think (and I hope you would agree) is also possible and intellectually honest.

68

The problem with your version is that it seems all out of its proper order.

  1. God expresses a desire to make a helper;

  2. God parades various animals before Adam;

  3. None are suitable (Whew! :stuck_out_tongue: ); so

  4. God makes a woman.

If the statement in 2.18 was intended to mean, “I’m gonna make a helper, something I have not made yet”, surely it ought to come after the parade of animals, not before! Otherwise, what is the point of the identity parade? The passage clearly implies that both God and Adam thought one of the animals might be suitable - see 2.20. When he said “I’m gonna make Adam a helper”, he didn’t yet know an animal would not do - so why not say, “I’m gonna find Adam a helper” instead? If animals had actually already been created, it should read like this:

  1. God says “I will find Adam a helper”

  2. God parades already-created animals. None are suitable.

  3. God says, “Oh-oh! Looks like some new creation is necessary!”

  4. God creates woman.

The most logical reading of the text as it exists without the above re-write is that God creates first the animals, and then, when that doesn’t work, he makes woman. For which we all ought to be grateful, I am sure … but which messes with the sequence in Genesis 1.

Of course, being God, he may know the experiment with the animals will not work - but then, why did he bother? :confused:

I myself don’t have any problem with this being inconsistant, because I think the stories were intended to convey moral points, not be an explanation for how stuff was actually created.

69

Why is it a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to say that sometime on Day 6 Adam named the animals and there was no helper among them, so God created woman? Why is it “unlikely” from Genesis 2 that all this happened on one day? I guess I just haven’t seen anything from the text of Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 that indicates this is unlikely or could not have happened on the same day, or is contradictory.

My point above was simply the question of whether the animals were created after Adam, and why I don’t think Genesis 2 has to be read to say that.

(Unfortunately, I have to head out into the snowy wilderness of the streets and make my way home for the day. I likely won’t be back here 'til tomorrow, so know I’m not ignoring whatever response you might make in the interim.)

70

Huh? You were the one who said:

71

Very interesting! And pertinent to this debate - the “Lilith” story clearly shows that many have noticed the discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2 in the past.

The answer: Lilith was the woman created in Genesis 1. Eve, the woman created in Genesis 2.

There is still the little problem of having animals created after man though … Hmmmm. :dubious:

72

My bad. I did not mean to say that at all. I meant to try to keep my discussion focused on the order in which the events of Genesis 2 were to have happened and whether anything in there necessarily contradicts with the account in Genesis 1. My apologies for that slip.

73

I certainly can’t argue with the fact that Genesis 2 could have been written as you have suggested. All am I trying to do is make the argument that as it is written it is not necessarily inconsistent. The argument I am making is that there does not have to be just one way to write the events in Genesis 2 to have them mean that the animals were created before Adam, not after.

Although I am in a hurry right now, I’m sure you’d agree that there is all sorts of “great” literature that uses the methodology of stating a “conclusion” (I must make a helper), then indicating “why” (I paraded these animals and none were suitable), then going into more detail of how the conclusion was carried out. I teach a legal writing course at a local law school, for example, and that is substantially similar to how we teach young lawyers to write:

State your position/conclusion first; then demonstrate how or why you reached that conclusion.

I in no way am trying to suggest your reading is necessarily wrong or that the text could not have been written as you suggested to also convey the meaning I have attached to the text. My only goal is to demonstrate that, as written, it is not necessarily inconsistent.

Again, we can agree that we (or men, anyway) are grateful that he made women! :slight_smile:

Anyway, I’m not sure I have much more to add to this discussion. I think I’ve said about all I can along the lines of trying to demonstrate why Genesis 2 could be read as consistent with Genesis 1, based on a plain reading and ordinary grammar/writing techniques. Not the only way it can be read, to be sure, but merely in an attempt to suggest that while you can make the case that the two stories are inconsistent, they are not necessarily so. I’ve enjoyed the civility in this thread and I’ve enjoyed kicking these ideas around with you. If I have anything else meaningful to add, I’ll be back!

74

Realhoops,
What do you make of the fact that the seeming contradictions between the two stories also coincide with a corresponding change in narrative style and dialect?

What if you were reading a text which contained a story in say, Chaucerian English which was immediately followed by a very similar story in Shakespearian English? Would you assume that the author simply changed styles and eras on a whim, or would you guess that it might be two different versions of the same story from different eras?

75

Realhoops, to respond to your previous comment to me, I certainly can and do respect your position. But a literal reading of Genesis 2 makes it appear to be a chronological narrative, and my contention is that one cannot on the one hand insist on chronological specificity for Genesis 1 and the toledot’ linkages between that and the Noah and Abraham accounts and on the other reject it in a portion of the continuing story of God’s relationship with Adam and Eve that seems to be written in chronological sequence in order to make it jibe with the previous chapter. Certainly what you propose is a valid possible reading – but it’s not a literal reading, which I was given to understand was what conservative evangelicals generally insist on, in the absence of definite indication of poetic license being taken in a given passage. (Personally, I think that “definite indication” saturates the style of the first chapter, but that’s me.)

In other words, while the two stories can be made consistent by a reading of Gen. 2 as non-chronological but amplifying Gen. 1, that’s a violation of the rules by which Gen. 1 is insisted on as accurate reportage. And it’s my contention that one cannot have it both ways. Either the early chapters of Genesis are a literal chronological account with internal contradictions, or they’re not. Don’t change the rules for interpretation on us at chapter breaks.

I hope that doesn’t sound too belligerent – but I trust you see my point in it! (And you are most enjoyable to exchange views with, sir!)

76

As big of a waste of time as it is reading let alone contributing to this thread, I honestly can’t help myself.

Anyway, how do the christians reconcile the god’s creation of the fowl in the two creation stories.

Out of the waters? Gen 1: 20-21

“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

or out of the earth? Gen 2:19:

“And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”

I’m sure they will worm their way out of it somehow.

77

In case it wasn’t clear from your reading of the thread, chad, some of “the Christians” don’t try to “reconcile” the two varying accounts of God’s creation of fowl, but take it as a given that the stories are non-literal mythical accounts of how a very real God operated in Creation.

That said, because I love a challenge, consider Genesis 1:20 in several translations:

It would seem that only the seventeenth century translations and the (to me rather bizarre) Third Millennium Bible hold with the idea that the waters are supposed to be bringing forth the birds in the Genesis 1 account.

78

Realhoops’ interpretation hasn’t found a lot of acceptance in this thread, but for what it’s worth it strikes me as entirely natural and plausible.

I’m inclined to believe that what we have here is not two myths badly mated, but rather (what is intended to be) one account of creation presented from two angles, and by two “speakers.” First, the 6-day structure is set forth; then, without regard to specific days, we have an amplification of the drama surrounding G-d’s providing Adam with a mate.

Looks to me like we have this sequence:

  1. Day Three: vegetation created on Earth.

  2. Day Five: animals created.

  3. Day Six: Adam created. He is set down in the Garden, which is created on that day for him to till. Verse 19: “So Yaveh formed…” I take as “And Lo! Yahveh having formed…” (reminding us where the animals came from). Adam names the animals, and is SHOWN (it’s a lesson) that nothing in existence truly corresponds to him (beginning of prohibition against bestiality?). So, it getting close to suppertime, God makes a quasi-clone from Adam, varying some chromosomes to create–Woman!

Makes sense to me.

79

–and–

I can certainly understand the notion that there are stylistic differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (and much of the rest of Genesis, for that matter). I don’t necessarily attribute that to different authors, however, but rather just to the different purposes of different parts of Genesis.

I am not a bible scholar (IANABS?), and never attended parochial grade school or high school or anything like that. I actually didn’t really become a Christian until the last 10 years or so. I did not grow up going to church or studying any of this. So my understanding of the Bible comes from my own reading of the Bible and my own studies of what the Bible might mean.

I have always considered Genesis to be written by Moses, not by a number of authors. Although I can see what both of you mean by the “stylistic” differences between Genesis 1 and most of Genesis 2, I have never attributed that to different authors. Rather, my belief has always been that Genesis 1 is basically like an introduction to the various stories that are told throughout the rest of Genesis. I have always believed that Genesis could be broken into many sections, each of which begins with a phrase similar to “This is the account of…” So the first “section” begins with Genesis 2:4 and provides the story of what happened to God’s creation, including the introduction of sin.

I don’t know exactly what “rules by which Gen. 1 is insisted on as accurate reportage” you mean. All I have been trying to make a case for in this thread is the idea that you can read Genesis 1 and it provides a chronology of the creation; it provides you with an order in which things happened, as evidenced by the references to specific days. Beginning in Genesis 2 and for the rest of the Genesis we are given stories (or “accounts”) about various histories. The only “rule” by which I would argue that Genesis 1 provides a chronological ordering is the fact that it specifically refers to events occurring on specific days. That is not true at all in Genesis 2:4 et seq., so I don’t see any changing of the rules, so to speak.

The only “rule” I am trying to follow is to consider how the words can be read, giving them their plain literal meaning. I simply believe that you can read the events of Genesis 2, giving the terms their plain literal meaning, without considering it a chronological accounting; you cannot read the events of Genesis 1, giving the terms their plain literal meaning, without considering it a chronological accounting. I think I am following the same “rule” for both books, not changing the rules at chapter breaks (and incidentally, I think the relevant breaking point is more Genesis 2:4, where the “account” language comes up).

Thanks! I feel the same way. It’s a pleasure to make both of your acquaintances here.

Also, thanks for the support Scott!

I don’t imagine that many of us are going to have our minds changed by this debate. My intent on posting to this thread was really just to respond to the OP’s contention that the two accounts are “by no means compatible.” Heck, I don’t even really count myself as a “biblical literalist” in all instances; I just think that a literal reading of these two “stories” can be done in a “compatible” fashion.

80

This debate has been altogether too scholarly and gentlemanly! I demand this politeness cease at one! :stuck_out_tongue:

“Everyone who disagrees with me is a do-do head”. MUCH better. :smiley: THAT will surely convince everyone …