It’s not wrong. Genesis 1 is an overview of the creation of the universe; Genesis 2 is the same story, restated with the details specifically pertaining to humanity’s earliest days (the extra details about Eden, for example). They were created and named on the sixth day, and were indeed the first people (according to the Bible).
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
Now, now Irishman.
I am sure you are aware that the majority of Christians are quite willing to accept a God Who can use allegory and metaphor in His book.
It is only a small percentage who cannot believe that God could possibly have used poetic language to make His points memorable. I have almost as little respect for deliberate ignorance as I do for the people who believe that asking where Cain’s wife came from is equivalent to toppling the entire ediface of Judeo-Christian belief.
Here lies the problem with this belief (in my opinion): If you assume that parts of the Bible are only metaphorical, how do you decide which parts?
Fair enough, but only a few people believing something does not necessitate the belief being false. Just as a majority of people believing something does not necessitate the belief being true.
May I say that when it comes to matters of religious beliefs, there is a difference between deliberate ignorance and faith. I’m not trying to start a biblical literalism debate, just espousing a different opinion.
Well Twin, if it is important to you that the Bible is literal, inerrant, and accurate in whatever translation you are using, so be it. I am not about to try to talk anyone out of a sincerely held point of Faith. I have neither the background nor the inclination to argue about something that we will all know the truth of too soon.
My response was to Irishman, who seems to think that “christian” is a synonym for “Literalist”. I needed to remind him that most Christians do not subscribe to Literalism.
No. The two passages are not the same story told in more or less detail. They are two different stories of the creation and they contradict each other in several details. It is not reaaly a problem for me, but you Biblical literalists might want to take some time examining the very first chapter of your Bible in detail.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Are there any Jewish people or scholars of judaism on board to perhaps answer this?: The version of this I heard was that Lilith, Adam’s first woman, insisted on being on top, and was chucked out and went up to the Red Sea to hang out with a pack of demons (more or less the story). My quasi-reputable informant mentioned that this part of the “Genesis” story still appears in Talmud. Is that correct or total BS?
About Cain’s wife-- the Bible, typical of these older works, tends to mention important family members, such as boys, while not mentioning others, such as girls, unless particularly relevant (note the lack of mention of Jesus’ siblings, which is hashed over in an old thread); We can assume that Adam and Eve had lots of children, one of who was Cain’s wife. As this time is pre-Mosaic, I figure incest would have been OK as the no-no’s listed in Deuteronomy and Levitivcus et al hadn’t yet been formulated.
Ah, never mind: just learned that the Lilith tale developed out of the odd phrasing of the Biblical/Talmudic account noted above, and that she was invented in a medieval work and is not in midrash or Talmud or early rabbinical works.