Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2

You are very knowledgeable and sharp Rei.Which is more likely:a. The author contradicts himself in the very next chapter.orb. Some people may have interpreted Genesis 2 incorrectly.?

Of course he could be wrong.But Genesis 1&2 still give two totally different stories, in how things were done, when things were done and what things were done at each step. I just don't see anyway around it and the issue has not been a big thing for a long time in theology. Even way back in the 50's when I was studying it no one had any problems accepting that it is not to be read literally. The two tales appear to have been from two entirely different sources, two different periods. I don't know of any source that does not accept that interpretation.Basically, GOD is saying, "Look folk, this is not a book that you should take literally. To get that point across here are two different stories in Chapters 1 & 2. I can't make it any plainer for you so here it is right up front. Read the book but don't try to make it something it isn't. The book is about WHY, it's not a history, it's not a science text, it's a religious book"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I understand your points Jar but I don't see the purpose of simply labeling it as erroneous when there is a reasonable explanation.What is the value of your interpretation?How does this benefit you?

I assure you that I have not turned my brain off. I simply have not come across an apparent contradiction that I could not explain, yet.

quote:

---

a. The author contradicts himself in the very next chapter.
or
b. Some people may have interpreted Genesis 2 incorrectly.?

---

Or C. That over a period from 1150 BC to 400 BC, the various literary traditions - J (Judah, notable for the use of Yahwehist language), E (Elohimist language, from the Northern kingdoms), D (Deuteronomist), and P (Priestly tradition) were established and merged together into the Pentateuch (JEPD); J and E gelled around 910 BC, and are reasonbly closely related. D was established around 700 BC under Hezekiah, and revived under Josiah (621 BC), and the priestly tradition which merged the various traditions after the Israeli reunification apon return from Babylonian exile (400s BC).Genesis 1 is priestly tradition; Genesis 2 is J/E.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

It's not interpretation, it's what was written. It gives me a better understanding of the Bible and what its purpose is.What purpose would I have in trying to falsify the Bible to make all the parts fit?The Bible was written by plain old humans, very much of their era, to be read by people of the era. It is idiomatic, has been edited and modified for cultural and political purposes and is a compendium of writings. It is a composite of many cultures, many traditions, many oral histories. It borrowed freely (as did Christianity later) from all of the cultures, societies, religions and traditions that surrounded the authors.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I guess that either you are playing games or you are unable to read two consecutive verses in the Bible. Is it REALLY too difficult for you to read Genesis 2:18-19 together ?No, Genesis 2:18 is NOT referring to the creation of Eve - that is the eventual outcome of the decision. But first God creates animals and birds in an attempt to find a suitable helper.

Hey PaulK!I will try to get to your question later on today!

you seem to have failed to understand the idea, since my post was written in the general > specific form.first was the general idea of the fact that it doesn't work, and then came the explanation of exactly why. answering the general statement simply, with little to no refutations of the actual points is not going to work. yes. it does. at the same time. it says he created man and woman in the image of god. chapter two says that he created man, and then created woman in the image of man.please do go back and read the rest of my post. i wrote it for a reason, and it does fit the text. i've been interested in this and studying this for quite some time. such a simple answer is almost insulting, especially when i stated that my original conclusion was the same and gave the reasons i had for changing it.

Hi Arachnophilia, I apologize for the apparent insult.I will reread your post and try to have an answer for you later on today as well.

thank you.

Sheep were close though.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hello dpardo,In addition to the points that were made by Rei, the order of events in both chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis is indicated by prefixing an imperfect verb form with the Hebrew letter "vav". This is called a "vav consecutive". As it is used to denote sequence in the narrated past, it is properly translated as: "And then . . ."For example: ויאמר יהוה אלהים (v'yomar YHWH Elohim) = And then said the LORD God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dpardo

​

Genesis 2:18 does refer to the creation of Eve.

​

Just because Eve's creation is not mentioned until verse 22 does not mean that she was not his "help meet".

---

Genesis 2:20 makes it inescapably clear that Eve is not created at or before verse 18. The only possibility, therefore, is that she is finally created in verse 22 after the creation of the animals:Gen. 2:18 ". . . I will make for him a helper corresponding to him."The Hebrew terms used in Gen. 2:18 are: עזר כנגדו (ezer k'neg'do) = a helper corresponding to him.And after the creation and naming of all the animals:Gen. 2:20 ". . . but for a man, not was found a helper corresponding to him."And the identical terms are used in Gen. 2:20: עזר כנגדו (ezer k'neg'do) = a helper corresponding to him.

quote:

---

dpardo

​

Which is more likely:

​

a. The author contradicts himself in the very next chapter. . .

---

As has been explained, there are two separate versions represented here. And the marvel of Jewish midrashim has always been more than flexible enough to handle that fact; for example:

quote:

---

Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, rabbi of Yeshiva University in New York and the Maimonides School in Boston, the leading modern Orthodox rabbi in the United States with influence around the world, wrote a very important article, "Lonely Man of Faith" (Tradition 7, 1965) in which he discussed in depth the implications of the two different creation stories:

​

"We all know that the Bible offers two accounts of the creation of man. We are also aware of the theory suggested by Bible critics attributing these two accounts to two different traditions and sources. Of course, since we do unreservedly accept the unity and integrity of the Scriptures and their divine character, we reject this hypothesis which is based, like many other Biblio-critical theories, on literary categories invented by modern man, ignoring completely the eidetic-noetic content of the Biblical story.

​

It is, of course, true that the two accounts of the creation of man differ considerably. This incongruity was not discovered by the bible critics. Our sages of old were aware of it. However, the answer lies not in an alleged dual tradition but in dual man, not in an imaginary contradiction between two versions but in a real contradiction in the nature of man. The two accounts deal with two Adams, two men, two fathers of mankind, two types, two representatives of humanity, and it is no wonder that they are not identical." (p. 10)

​

The Jewish Agency for Israel - U.S.

---

AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-01-2004 11:44 PM

i'm not sure i understand the midrash at end. it simply does not follow from the text at all. i recognize that rabbi soloveitchik has a need to preserve the holiness of the text, but i think in this case the religious opinion outweighs the actual textual evidence.if he is speaking of two distinct adams, it simply makes no sense. which do the hebrew people trace their origin to? and why two accounts?the general-to-specific framework works better here: the first story never refers to adam by name, and is much more general in the details, so it could be read that god creates all man (plural?) and then the second account tells the specifics of just adam and eve. this would fit with the apparent existance of other human beings not related to adam (genesis 4).however, as i pointed out before, there are a number of problems with that view two. genesis two does say there's nothing on the whole earth when adam is made.the evidence is very strong that these are two completely independent accounts, and the person(s) who complied genesis saw reason to include both, but did not care about their contradictions. it's possible both came be viewed as sacred accounts independently, thus their inclusion, or both convey different but important messages.i'm certain midrashim can be found that support this and other views. but the rabbi is right here: it only seems to be modern peoples that have a problem with this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arachnophilia

​

i'm not sure i understand the midrash at end.

---

Hi Arachnophilia,I'm quite sure that I don't understand it. But then there is great deal of Jewish midrashim that I don't understand; actually, some of it I don't think I would want to be in the frame of mind to understand. Based on what I've read of this genre, Christian apologetics are a paragon of restraint by comparison.But, of course, the point of posting that quote was not to suggest that it made sense (perhaps even the contrary). It was, rather, to drive home the point that with such powerful tools of rationalization available to them, the Jewish compilers and redactors would likely not even blink at such a trivial matter as conflicting accounts.P.S. Though I know some will disagree, I second your opinion (message 112, Origin of God's word) on the earlier origin of most of the Genesis text.AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-02-2004 02:22 AM