Contradictions between Genesis 1-2

Yes Dawn, I believe it does.We may not be able to prove that "the day" of creation (2:4) was actually more than one day but we can make a case for its likelihood. By the same token: we may not be able to prove that more than one day elapsed between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, but we can make a case for its likelihood.One argument in favor of the idea that the story of the creation of Adam and Eve covers more than one day is the argument mentioned above: that "the day" in which the LORD God created, should be understood as a figure of speech and that the events which follow likely required more than a single day.Why should it be important that "the day" (2:4), be more than one day in the context of verse four and less than one day in the context of verses 5-23?In the chapter two narrative, sandwiched between the creations of Adam and Eve, is a retelling, however scrambled, of events identified with days 3 and 5 and 6 (chapter one). The notion that chapter two is an expansion of what happened on day six, places an artificial time constraint on the events delineated in chapter two, forcing them to transpire in the space of a day which we have already agreed is not a "day."Can one have it both ways? Have "the day" of chapter two to be the week of chapter one, AND AT THE SAME TIME have virtually all of chapter two crammed into Day 6? First "the day" wants to be a week and then the week wants to be a day. Is that insane? But I digress. It seems to me that in order for the two versions to be coherent, the second should do no violence to the first. I'd like to discuss why it is that the first humans have to work a plantation in the middle of a desert when they are supposed to be living in a sub-tropical paradise on a brand new world covered with every kind edible vegetation.Please notice that Adam was not taken from the good soil of the garden but rather from the ground outside the garden, which is where he ended up when the LORD tossed him on his ear. 3:23

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Thank you for responding, although I had wished for a bit more engagement.Seems to me the latter version presents an aloof, non judgmental deity whereas the prior paints him in clearly human terms, giving rise to the darker side of Christian dogma: original sin, blood sacrifice, eternal damnation .Do you not see these stories conflicting in terms of their theology?Are you not aware of the hostility inspired in believers by the mere mention of two different stories here?Whenever I make make the slightest suggestion that these two are different stories, I must face the knee jerk, quick draw, bloody sword reaction of any and every Fundie I know, including my immediate family. I am irrevocably classed with Satan's minions because I happen to know the Bible better than they; and am at the very least pitied for the horrible fate which awaits me when Jesus comes out of the sky to smack me down;Me and everyone else who dares to disagree with King James.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I hadn't noticed that before, but it would be consistent with a Sumerian legend in which the sky, in response to strong puffing by the air-god Lil, is raised up from off the earth. As I recall, it is the earliest myth uncovered to date. Looks good on paper but you can't really understand Jesus without Abraham.On the other hand: The Christian religion should follow the religion of Christ. As one Unitarian Universalist author wrote regarding UU theology/philosophy: Exactly. It is "the fall" of man which requires the redemption value of "the blood of Christ." Or, as one of my Sabbath School teachers put it: (Preferrably non-Christian )

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I'm sure.

quote:

---

"Salvation is of the Jews." Jesus Christ John 4:22

---

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -