Contradictions between Genesis 1-2

I'm sorry but that seems to be the theology of "If I stick my figers in my ears and sing LaLaLa loud enough, and hold my eyes closed realy tight, I won;t have to deal with honesty or reality."
The order of creation is different.The method of Creation is different.The Gods are even different.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Show you? Or convince you?The evidence is in the two stories, the younger story found in Genesis 1 through the first half of Genesis 2:4, and the older tales (actually several tales mixed together) found beginning in the second half of Genesis 2:4.In the younger tale God creates by an act of will alone; in the later tale God creates by hand, making mud critters and then magically breathing life into them. In the younger story God creates plants then marine stuff and birdies then land animals and finally man and woman together. In the older story god creates man (but just man) then plants then land animals and birds (but no mention of the fishies) and then more or less as an after thought, woman. Also unlike all the other critters in the older tale, woman is simply cloned from man.The gods too are quite different. The god of the younger tale is efficient, able to create simply by an act of will, simply does things and then looks over what has been done, is Transcendent but aloof, separate but overarching. The god of the older tale is more human, somewhat bumbling (can't figure out what would make a helpmeet for Adam, tries the other animals) but also intimate, approachable, comradely.So order, method and even the descriptions of god vary greatly between the two stories.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You asked me to outline some of the things that make the two stories mutually exclusive. I did, if you disagree then present your best argument for why there are not two stories. Well if Moshe actually wrote anything then the evidence is that "Yes, he was that stupid."But there is no evidence Moshe ever wrote anything or even existed.But the question of why the redactors who were certainly capable of reading not only included two different, mutually exclusive stories, but went a step further and placed the younger story first is a good one. Why did they include two stories of Creation that exclude each other, if one is true the other is false?That should be one of the first clues for readers.They include both stories because creation is not really what the stories are about. Creation is simply plot devices, tools to use to talk about what was really important to the story tellers.They put the younger story first because it served as a introduction, a wide angle view from afar, that shows a Transcendent God that oversees everything. That beginning, that opening shot, let the authors talk about what was really important, that GOD is the source of all, and that we should take one day off out of seven.They then combined several of the older tales from a time when folk saw God as just a super human. Again, creation is but a plot device to allow them to present a different view of god, a kindler gentler god, one with many human limitations and weaknesses, one that is somewhat fumbling and unsure, fearful and limited, but also intimate, solid, chatty, companionable.The plot devices in the rest of the story post creation allowed the authors to get to other material that they thought important, why man had to work as a farmer instead of simply foraging like other animals, why we fear snakes, why childbirth seems harder and more painful for humans.And that seems to be the point of this thread.Why did the redactors include two obviously mutually exclusive and contradictory creation myths?I believe they had good reason.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This probably is not the place to follow up on this but ...there is nothing but tradition to even hint that Moshe wrote anything.the rest of the Pentateuch is NOT consistent.there are a bunch of stories cobbled together in the flood myths.the Exodus is a whole bunch of fantasy tales that are totally inconsistent.One of the more interesting things is that even though the redactors mixed up and merged stories in the Flood myth and in the second older creation myth, why didn't they do the same with the creation tales?Frankly, other than the points I made above, I can see few reasons. There may have been political or tradition pressures but they are harder to verify.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Make your case. My points are out there for folk to see.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Stuff like "Keep your sunday school shit out of this debate. " is not really needed nor is it correct. As someone who has taught both adult and children's Sunday School, the actual topic is exactly the type of material I would cover in class.One of the results of trying to shoehorn the two different stories into one is that when we do so, we loose sight of what the authors and redactors are trying to tell us. This is as true here when talking of creation as it was in the Manna thread and numerous others over the years at EvC.The important point in these stories is not the details of creation, but rather the very conceptions of the God of creation itself. In both cases it is GOD that creates, yet neither story alone describes GOD, rather each describe a God, a snapshot of how the people of a give era and milieu thought of God. The older tale in Genesis 2 and later pictures a very Anthropomorphic God, one that looks human, walks, talks, makes things by hand, is forgetful and unsure, fearful, makes mistakes, but is also super human, magical, and that lives forever. The biggest differences between this God and man is that this God preceded man, has command of powerful beings and forces and lives forever.It is a very human God.The God of the tradition found in the younger tale found in Genesis 1 through the first half of Genesis 2:4 is quite different.It is not given any clear form. The closest we come to any physical description is the passage were this God creates man. But the differences continue, the younger God is apart from creation yet overseeing it, creates not by hand but by will, has no direct contact with what is created but looks on approvingly, satisfied.When we consider that they included both descriptions, we see a composite picture (even later than either tale itself) of a God that is both, transcendent yet intimate, apart yet inclusive, beyond comprehension yet companionable.The redactors, by including both stories, are saying that GOD is far more than just the Gods we imagine.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As pointed out above, the redactors of the Bible kept the two creation traditions separate and distinct. They treated the various flood myths quite differently, often putting some part of the story from one tradition immediately adjacent to that of another.A few examples can be seen in the following sections.In Genesis 6 we can see the two traditions in the descriptions of God planning the flood. In Genesis 6:5-8 that is likely from a J source we see God talking to himself, then going to Noah. Only a few verses later we see the P source version of the story at Genesis 6:11-16 where God plans the whole thing during a discussion with Noah.Immediately after that we see the P source discussion of Noah's special favor, while it is found repeated for the J source in Genesis 7:1.Still in Genesis 6:19-22 we find the P source description of what critters should be taken, while the J source description is found in Genesis 7:2-5.The two stories continue with different descriptions of the start and duration of the flood as well as different versions of how Noah discovers the flood has ended and of the promises afterwards.However it is pretty clear that the flood story is a hodgepodge mixture of at least two different fables and traditions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We need to remember that for almost all of the period covered by the Old Testament there was no single unified Hebrew nation, no one people. There were the Tribes, independent clan organizations, then later under the Kings there was Israel in the north and Judah in the south.In each of these various sub-grouping, different cultures and tradition arose. What's more, there was often warfare between clans and later between Kingdoms. These differences are reflected in the different sources, the J (and E) source(s) being the Judaic traditions while the P source reflects the Israeli traditions and tales.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Exactly. It's likely that the Torah first began to take form after the return from Exile, possibly around the time of and maybe under the guidance of Ezra. What was needed was something to try to bring together people from vastly different traditions that had been living for generations in exile, and to do it in a politically correct and culturally sensitive way. The idea was to move from many different traditions to one tradition that could be supported by all.Just as the King James Version of the Bible was created much later to be a politically correct and non-offensive document, the Torah was designed to try to unite the returning Jews.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Topic folk. Let's not let the new kid lead us astray.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Topic folk. Let's not let the new kid lead us astray.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not exactly. The facts are, that's what the tales say. It is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of honesty and admitting what is actually written. It does not much matter what you accept, denial of reality and truth is still denial of reality and truth. To not accept the contradictions is to be willfully ignorant.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But I can prove my "allegation", I can point to the Bible. That's called the theology of "If I squint real hard and hold my tongue just right maybe I can make up some story to let me ignore the truth." It's sad because by doing so you trivialize GOD miss out on what the Bible has to say.The facts are that in the two stories the order is different, the methods of creation are different, even the descriptions of the gods are different.Those are what is in the book. That's what the Book says.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, there is no indications that either God or Moshe ever wrote anything other than perhaps "Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin" and a set of tablets that God figured Moshe was to incompetent to handle, but if you are claiming God wrote Genesis 1 & 2 then yes, you are claiming God is a liar or at best, senile. The facts are, what is written in the story found from Genesis 1 through the first half of Genesis 2:4 flat contradicts what is found beginning at the second half of Genesis 2:4. Well, not too sure how you get that since I know that neither God or Moshe (if Moshe even existed) wrote either story, so how am I calling God a liar?The rest of your post is simply denial of the facts. Don't worry though, there are people who actually do read the Bible and they can check to see if what I posted is true or not.The fact is that what follows Genesis 2:4 is NOT simply an expansion on what happened on day six, it includes pretty much the same things being created as in the younger tale ('cept fishies) found in Genesis 1, but the order, the methods and even the description of the god are quite different.See Message 9, Message 13, Message 18, Message 22, Message 28, Message 31 and Message 35.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are welcome to whatever fantasies you wish to hold. May I suggest that you present your best case in support of your position. My position has been pretty completely outlined in the thread for all to see.For reference see Message 9, Message 13, Message 18, Message 22, Message 28, Message 31 and Message 35.I have pointed to the contradictions, and also offered possible explanations for the reasoning the redactors might have used for treating the materials as they did.Now it is time for you to present the case for your side.And if you do not know which tablets I was referring to, I suggest you read Exodus.I am not interpreting what is written, just documenting it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion