Something I’ve always wondered:
Which account of the creation is literally true? Is that Genesis 1:1-31 or 2:1-25?
Why is one more (or less) true than the other?
The one in chapter 2 (starting from verse 5 - verses 1 - 4 are actually still part of the creation story in chapter 1) is a more detailed version of the parts of chapter 1 that relate to the story of Adam, to be told in the next several chapters.
Read verse 2:5 carefully. It says "These are the generations of heaven and earth when he created them, on the day that G-d created earth and heaven. (Emphasis mine). The prepositional phrase puts the story to follow in its correct context: it’s occurring during the creation story in the first chapter.
Don’t forget the other three creation stories in Psalms, Proverbs, and Job!
Huh?
Beelzebubba, I think your question might be better phrased as “how does a bible literalist reconcile the different accounts of creation?” Some of us who believe that divine creation doesn’t have to be at odds with good science believe the creation stories are allegorical.
Pr. 8:22-31
Ps. 74:12-17
Job 38:4-11 (This is the main part; the whole story occupies all of chapters 38-41
Padeye, I apologize. I was intending to imply the bible is not a good reference for literally and historically accurate information on the creation. FTR, I was of the opinion that creationists, as the term is commonly used, were biblical literalists, and (necessarily) v-v? For exampe, I wouldn’t refer to the pope as a creationist, though he undoubtedly believes G*d created the universe et al, yet accepts evolution as non-contradictory to the Catholic religion.
These two excerpts seem to indicate different actions. If the second is occuring during the first, as you postulate, how can the actions be taken in separate order? The two still seem mutually exclusive, especially in the context of inerrancy.
That’s hardly a “creation” story. Isn’t that just the Holy Spirit (a.k.a. Wisdom) reaffirming he/she existed from the beginning?
That’s not a creation story either. That’s just another song singing about how great God is and how he made the rivers flow. OK, I don’t feel so bad about not knowing what you are talking about.
Well, I’ll have to read the larger excerpt later, but this is just God responding to Job about something and reminding him that He is the creator. A series of interrogatives do not a story make.
I think you are blowing these sections out of scope. I mean, if you want to include every time the OT mentions “Lord, creator of blah blah” as a creation story, you can certaintly find 100 more. What about the start of John? Or Revelations (Alpha and the Omega)? Etc.
Those passages do seem to echo ancient Mesopotamian creation stories in which the Head Honcho God slays the Great Dragon Critter of Chaos (possibly identified with the sea) in order to bring about an orderly cosmos.
Also, jmullaney, your comments regarding Proverbs 8:22-31 are clearly reading Christian Trinitarian ideas back into the Old Testament (although the feminine pronouns in that chapter raise some interesting problems for traditional Christian theology).
Huh? What did I miss?
Well, that is why I said a.k.a. Wisdom. There is no reason not to believe this isn’t the same “Spirit of God” mentioned in Genesis 1:2, but I suppose I could have left off the word “Holy” (although, wouldn’t the Spirit of God be holy?) in the interests of ecumenism.
Since when does traditional Christian theology hold that the Holy Spirit has a gender?
Beelzebubba:
A common question amongst those relying on English translations. Here’s the key:
When reading in the original Hebrew, it’s clear that the proper translation is “The LORD G-d had created…etc.”
As I said, this second account of creation is meant to set the stage for the story of Adam and his descendants. Therefore, in this second version, it glosses over the actual creation of the animals and birds, referring to them in past perfect (is that right, SDMB grammarians?) tense when the whole point of bringing them up was mentioning Adam’s naming of them.
Chaim Mattis Keller
A course on comparative Ancient Near Eastern mythology? Seriously, do some reading on Marduk and Tiamat. From the article Middle Eastern religion:
Note that Jewish and Christian thought has generally come to reject the view of creation as bringing order to pre-existing chaos, despite the ancient language occasionally found in the Bible, in favor of creation ex nihilo.
The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Holy Ghost consistently uses the masculine pronoun (“Though really distinct, as a Person, from the Father and the Son, He is consubstantial with Them; being God like Them, He possesses with Them one and the same Divine Essence or Nature.”) Using feminine pronouns to refer to God has been a big bone of contention between theologically conservative Christians and their more theologically innovative brethren.
As for the original topic of this thread:
The most literal reading of Genesis 1-2 (i.e., with the days of creation being 24 standard hours long and so on), and allowing for cmkeller’s grammatical point about Genesis 2:19, would have to have God creating land animals at some point on the sixth day–this presumably could have been an instantaneous process–then creating a male human on the same day, then bringing each sort of animal and bird before the man, and having him give it a name, culiminating finally in the formation of a woman from the man’s rib–all in the space of a single day.
The tense using the word “had [past participle]” is the pluperfect. The past perfect uses the word “has” or “have” before the past participle.
Pluperfect: I had gone to the store when she called.
Past perfect: I have gone to the store before.
Quibbling Quix