Gen 1 & 2 have always been difficult to reconcile for those who would like to take the Bible as a literal document and expand its purpose beyond theology to include history and science. But it is not a big problem if the Bible is viewed as a compilation of various people telling basically the same story but from different points of view and reference. Here is a link to a Pastoral Letter from The Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta that deals with Creation and Evolution. For those of you who might not be Episcopalians, a Pastoral Letter is something sent by the Bishop to be read to each and every member of the congregation. It is a statement of view and direction, but not the same as the Roman Catholic pronouncement of Faith. It is meant to be instructive but is not law. It may help you understand how many Christians view the relationship between those two subjects, and those two accounts in the Bible.On the issue of Genesis 1 & 2, here is what it says. The really important statement to me is... IOW, the writers were trying to show the why in the only way they knew, by trying to show how. But they were working from a base of their knowledge at the time of how things happened, and with all of the restrictions of their limited knowledge and experience.The letter contains far more information. It clearly outlines the Christian viewpoint that Science deals with How things happen while Religion is more concerned with Why.If you get a chance, look the letter over. I think it is a well written summary of how the two areas, Science and Religion can be mutually supportive rather than mutually exclusive.edited to add mandatory spelling errors.This message has been edited by jar, 07-20-2004 05:28 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think the vast majority of Christians would agree with you.If you accept Genesis as being literal, then Genesis 2 proves Genesis 1 is false, therefore all is false.

The Map is not the Territory.

edited to fix htmlThis message has been edited by jar, 07-21-2004 09:55 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes it does. And it is very interesting when you look atthe content and the order.In Gen 2, and individual Man is created, and then, sometime later, a woman is cloned from the man.Since Gen 1 is more recent than Gen 2, the authors of Gen 1 had the content of Gen 2 to us as a source. Yet they made significant changes.First, Gen 1 uses plurality when speaking of the creation. It is not clear that it is only one man and one woman, but rather a general mankind consisting of men and women.Second, Genesis 1 recognizes that all living creatures originated as unliving matter and that living things evolved from non-living. It does not deal with the HOW issues. Genesis 1 is fully compatible with the TOE.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

'zat so?Gen 2: So it is clear that GOD made man first, then the animals, then party time and then the broads. He had Adam try the different animals as companion and Adam thought they were nifty (he particularly like the sheep) but not exactly what he had in mind. So then GOD made woman out of Adams Rib.

Except ...

Gen 1 says the order was Men and Women at the same time and after the critters.Now which one lieth?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why folk die. What everyones place in society is, how mankind is differentt from animals...

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You also need to remember what was happening around the time the stories found in Genesis were likely first told. Genesis was not ONE tale. It's a collection of differing stories told by peoples that were making the initial transition from a fully nomadic lifestyle to the earliest examples of sedentary agrarian society. Much of that is reflected there, for example, the conflict between Cain & Able that shows up later in Genesis.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This has nothing to do with Evolution. It is simply that the stories in Gen 1 & Gen 2 are mutually exclusive.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If you are interested, there is a Catechism of Creation which is an Episcopalian understanding of Genesis 1 & 2, a look at why they are different and what each is telling us in terms of GOD's message. It goes into some depth on the relationships shown in the two stories and why both were included in the Bible, even though written long apart in time (Genesis 1 is actually the later tale and considerably younger than the story in Genesis 2) and by two different cultures. I hope this is of interest to you.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You need to understand that the Episcopal Church has long acknowledged that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two different stories, written at different times, by different cultures. The stories themselves were both included, even though they are mutually exclusive if read literally.That raises the question of "Why include two different mutually exclusive accounts of the same event? Why did the redactors keep both stories, why not either just include one, or merge them as was done with the differing flood myths (and yes Virginia, there are conflicts in the flood mythos as well)?The Catechism is a look at that question. What theological reasons were there for including two different stories?Issues such as order, such as method have no meaning beyond the symbolic and poetic descriptions of GOD's relationship with what he created.The GOD of Genesis 1 is a sophisticated creator, outside, apart, creating simply by Her call, Its will. The GOD of Genesis 2 is far more personal, far less sophisticated, far more human. Where the GOD of Genesis 1 stands apart, transcends all that He created, the GOD of Genesis 2 is a hands on tinkerer, experimenting, trying new things, walking alongside mankind and all things created. The Genesis 1 GOD is that awesome aspect of GOD that is outside and transcends all that is created while the Genesis 2 GOD is that aspect that is there with us day by day.Two different stories.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But if you read the Bible literally then the Bible is false too.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion