A quick observation:
In 1:6-8, the second day of creation is not declared to be “good”. All the other days are declared to be “good”. What does that tell you about Mondays?
PS–what a great thread!
Shodan:
I don’t have a concordance handy, so I can’t readily find other uses of the word, but even if “tzela” is used only in the sense of a side that supplies support, it would probably refer, in the context of Adam, to an entire ribcage (the equivalent of a Tabernacle wall) which is more like a “side” than like a single rib.
I don’t know off the top of my head. I believe that in modern Hebrew, “tzela” has come to mean “rib”, based on the common mistranslation of the Genesis verse.
It never occurred to me, until now, how much of the second chapter is dedicated to emphasizing the separateness of [God & humans] and beasts. Animals are created in the aggregate; with many (presumably) of each species, but there are only two humans, and, although it isn’t explicit, it appears that there only would have been two were it not for The Fall.
Furthermore, Adam has to be shown each of the animals to convince him that none of them are proper mates for him. He must learn that he is different.
I’ve always thought that the naming-of-the-animals was the most pleasant part of the chapter. It is the only time we see God and Adam getting along, so to speak, and the Creation working according to the original plan. I wish we were told more of this idyllic beginning before plunging right into the Fall.
Freddy the Pig:
I don’t believe that fits the narrative. G-d blesses Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply in chapter 1 verse 28.
Hmm. I guess I got confused with the dueling creation narratives.
I don’t like the term “dueling.” Chapter 1 is about the physical creation, Chapter 2 is about the spiritual (if you will) creation, about the role of mankind in the universe. The text is rarely concerned with a time-line/historic order of things, so the sequencing in Ch 2 differs from that of Ch 1, and the Author/Redactor saw no problem with that. The stories may be different, but they’re not inconsistent.
For example, both stories take creation as an event. In most pagan creation myths, creation needs to be renewed every year (Ceres comes around to start up the crops again.) In both Ch 1 and Ch 2, once things are started, they continue on their own. One could come up with many other examples of how the two stories are far more consistent than inconsistent.
Those who believe there was only one Author, of course, see no conflict and find ways to harmonize what appear to be differences. Those who believe there were multiple authors still have to acknowledge that the final Redactor left seemingly different sequencing alone, when he might have easily switched a sentence or two around. (Consider the Noah story, which I hope we’ll get to soon, where different sequencing is woven together into one story.) So, for the purposes of discussing this as literature, we can still think of one mind behind the stories (whether as Author or Redactor/Editor.)
Here’s a link to the new thread for Genesis 3. Thank you to everyone for giving such an enlightened discussion and for everyone staying in the bounds of the thread. I definitely feel that while I’m not contributing a lot, I’m learning well more than I expected.
I’ve always thought that if you’re looking for evidence that the authors knew no more science than you would expect of people 3000 years ago, it’s “He made the stars also.” Hundreds of billions of galaxies of hundreds of billions of stars take only a second to make, while the earth takes six days. It’s pretty clear that the authors thought it was like putting sprinkles on a cake.
It’s always been clear that this isn’t a science text book. The author of that section isn’t really concerned with describing the structure of the universe, but rather will the moral issues of humanity’s place within the universe. From that perspective, I think it’s pretty much spot on: human beings live in an incredibly beautiful world, and have the ability to control it (dominion) and the power to fuck it up… and we need to make the right choices.
In those terms, I don’t find the 3000-year old text to be outdated at all. 
And, of course, the poetic point of view is that God speaks, and things come into existence. The creation of zillions of galaxies and stars with a word or two is not substantially different from the creation of all living creatures on earth (the thousands of different species etc) with just a word or two. The poetry is consistent and beautiful; and it’s not science. (You wouldn’t criticize Poe on the grounds that ravens can’t talk.)
I probably wouldn’t criticize him in any case, but it would certainly affect my perception of him if I thought he really believed that ravens could talk, rather than that he was just being colorful.
TonySinclair, please read the OP again. This is a discussion of the Bible as literature, not a theological debate. You’re welcome to start your own thread in Great Debates if you are looking for the latter.
Thanks,
twickster, Cafe Society moderator
I assume this post was the result of a complaint by the OP. OK, I’ll just lurk after this, because I’m very interested in the subject, but I don’t want to intrude where I’m not welcome.
I have to say, though, that I don’t see how what I posted was a theological debate. The intentions and beliefs of the author(s) should be a perfectly legitimate area of literary discussion. IMO using scientific topics to explore this is no different from bringing up parallels between the Flood story and earlier Babylonian myths.
The post I responded to was IMO borderline witnessing, and apparently that’s OK here, but any hint of a skeptical viewpoint must be stomped on? OK, it’s your thread.
This is true.
This is where you went wrong. Connecting stories to other literature is still literature. Discussing science is taking it out of literature and pushing it into factual analysis. Any attempts to prove or disprove the text is what the OP specifically asked for us not to do.
The post you were responding to was just giving another literary interpretation that said that the two accounts were not in conflict. At no point was there any attempt to convince you that the stories were true.
True, but the explanation I’ve heard is pretty good. You see this pattern throughout the Tanakh and especially the Torah. For example, later on, you see the same story about Abraham pretending that his wife is his sister repeated three times.
The explanation? The scribes in the Hebrew tradition are more concerned in recording the oral traditions than making sure they didn’t conflict. They want to preserve multiple takes on the same story. This one of the biggest arguments that they didn’t believe the Bible was 100% literally true. Either they didn’t see and problems with conflicts, meaning literalism wasn’t a big deal to them, or they had no problem discounting certain parts.
It also explains why we have four gospels. The early Christians would have been in the same Hebrew tradition, and would see no problem with having four different points of view of what happened.
That said, I don’t really think that, in the overall picture, the two accounts really are in conflict. There’s nothing important that is contradicted–as long as you assume that Adam and Eve were both created on the same day.
Because you’ve brought this up, I will go ahead and respond: it doesn’t say God created the stars on the fourth day. It says he also created them, almost like an aside. A valid interpretation is not that they were created on the fourth day, but that God had already created them at some point in the past.
Or, more likely, the author wasn’t really concerned about the stars and didn’t really mention them. He may have included that line, or it may have been added because people were asking “What about the stars?” But it’s clear that their creation was not considered important to the narrative.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the narrator thought their creation was much easier. He just didn’t care.
Then you misunderstood my post. I wasn’t trying to prove or disprove that God created the stars. Of course an omnipotent god could create a trillion stars in a second.
I was just trying to show the viewpoint of the author, who IMO clearly does not realize how great a miracle that would be. I strongly disagree that discussing scientific facts, or the author’s perception of them, is not helpful for literary understanding. To make up an example, if there were a commandment against allowing cats in the house, the knowledge that primitive people believed that a cat can suck the breath out of a baby might be relevant. Or if we were discussing the Odyssey, the beliefs of the ancients about geography and zoology would certainly be relevant.
As for your assertion in the other post that the stars weren’t created on the fourth day, IMO that does more insult to the clear meaning of the author than anything I’ve posted.
I reread the first two chapters of Genesis today, and I was struck by a major difference between the Hebrew creation story and most other cultures’ myths - fire.
Where in the Bible is it explained how man came to possess fire? (I don’t think it ever is, though I defer to those whose knowledge is greater.)
You are correct. In Genesis 4:22 we have: Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.
Since you have to have fire to forge tools, it was already there. But there’s no mention of its discovery or it being a gift to mankind.
I don’t think the discovery of fire is explicitly mentioned. But looking ahead a couple of chapters, Cain was the very first person born, and the first thing we learn about him was that he was a tiller of the soil. His brother Abel was a herder, and Cain was also a city builder.
Secular anthropology believes agriculture, herding, and civilization to have developed tens of thousands of years after the discovery of fire. So we have to assume that in the Bible’s account, either the first men had very high intelligence along with their very long lives, or else God simply told them what they needed to know.
Purely my personal speculation, but I wonder if the Redactor(s) were working against other Eastern cultures’ roots of pagan fire worship. We don’t have a definite date for Zoroaster, and Agni worship from the Vedas probably didn’t come as far west as Mesopotamia, but it’s possible the Hebrews in exile had encountered fire worship in some form.
Certainly YHWH is going to appear in fire as the Burning Bush, and guide the Israelites as a pillar of fire in Exodus, not to mention Elijah’s holy fire, so we have an association of fire and the divine.
Apparently, the Book of Enoch (not even remotely canonical, I know.) mentions fire being stolen by Azazel and some of the angels.
I just find it curious and noteworthy that something which so strongly sets man apart from the animals doesn’t get mentioned.