Adam was created on the 3rd day

I know you really like your 3^rd. day scenario, but there is a far easier explanation for the differences in the two stories and why both were included.The story in Genesis 2 is a much earlier one and shows a whole different view of God as seen by the peoples of the time. The God of Genesis 2 is a very personal, humanistic God, kinda bumbling, can make errors, doesn't really know what it is he is doing, but personal. He walks with the life created, talks with them, is very much like other Gods of other peoples of the area and time, a hands on God, a God in human form.The God of Genesis 1 though is quite different. There we find a transcendent God, one who is precise and simply brings things into existance in a step by step, ordered manner. This later tale is far more sophisticated and the God far more a universal God than the humanistic hands on guy in Gen 1.The people who put the stories in Genesis together were intellegent folk. They could see the discrepancies as easily as anyone today, yet they included both and did not try to resolve the differences.We must ask why?It's likely that the two stories were kept intact and included as separate stories because they depict two different aspects of GOD, the transcendent universal God as well as the intimate personal God.They also helped explain other things as well, why we take one day out of seven off, why child birth is painful for humans where it seems so much easier among other critters, why we fear snakes, why humans have to till the land unlike other critters that just forage.Edited by jar, : -t+d

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We don't know how much earlier since it is likely that both stories were transmitted orally for a long time before being committed to writing. Genesis 1 is among the Priestly Source so somewhere around 600-500BC, post exile. Genesis 2 (actually starting at Gen 2.4 IIRC) is considered to be one of the J Source documents. For example different names for GOD are used in the two accounts.They are not simply parallel accounts of the same point of view. The two accounts represent two entirely different viewpoints and so were kept separate to emphasize the two aspects of GOD.As we read further into Genesis we find examples where the two sources were merged, Genesis is a mix of J, E and P source, Exodus 6-7 is a mix of P and J and Exodus 12-14 is a hodgepodge of P, J and E.So the redactors were working with multiple sources and in this one case, the Creation stories, decided it was important enough to keep the two tales separate and unique and not just merge various accounts together as they did in the stories about the Flood or Exodus.I think they made the right decision. GOD is both Personal and Transcendant and the two characteristics, as well as the other lessons, needed to be emphasized.Basically the J (Jerusalem or Javist) source is from the southern kindom of Judah and probably dates back as far as 900BC or even earlier. The E (Elohist or Ephraimitic) source is also an early one from about the same time but of a northern Israel origin and uses Elohim as the name of GOD until around Exodus 3 when the Tetragrammaton was revealed to Moshe.The D source is of course Deuteronomy (and may include books like Ruth that was likely politically and socially motivated).The latest and most recent was the P source which as I said probably dates from 600BC or even more recently.Edited by jar, : fix apawling spawlin

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Gee buz I thought that I did. In fact I'm pretty sure that if you read Message 60 there is alot in there.The differences are based on style, the words used, the material included, what GOD is called.The J and E texts seem to be the most primitive of the tales. As I said, the God of Genesis 2 is entirely different than the God of Genesis 1, He is far more like the other Gods of the folk that the proto-Hebrews were living among and who likely influenced the Hebrew stories and myths.But if you will look in Message 60 I think I included the approximate dates for the various documents that became the Torah.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That of course is irrelevant when addressing either the Synoptic Gospels or the Genesis accounts. That is a description of a practice that one author might use when dealing with one subject. Neither the Synoptic Gospels or the Genesis myths though were written by one author.It is particularly irrelevant when considering the Genesis myths since the creation story beginning in Genesis 1 and running through Genesis 2:4 is a far more recent, younger tale than the older ones that were combined into the tales beginning with Genesis 2:5.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It is unlikely any Doctorate level researchers think Moses even existed much less wrote anything, unless of course they bought those Doctorates from a diploma mill like so many Biblical Christian Scholars. Even then though, if they bought the Class A doctorate package instead of the bargain package they would question the very existence of Moshe.Even then your method fails since the Orders, the methods and even the Gods depicted in the multiple Genesis accounts are still mutually exclusive.I'm sorry but your explanation like almost all of this thread simply belongs in the "Theology by making shit up" branch of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am not at all sure how a position of Mosaic authorship could be defended, although I don't doubt that there are those who try. My point is that belief in a Mosaic authorship is certainly in the minority and any defense of such a position is unlikely to sway anyone who does not hold that position for reasons other than the actual facts.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But even Mackey does not try to support Mosaic authorship.From you own source: and AbE: If you ever drop into chat, maybe we can exchange stories about developing church websites.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Except so far you have not presented any scholarly support.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We do not delete members. Once the two are combined you can choose what name the posts appear under.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion