You now want to move on to one of the other fairytales. This has nothing to do with the creation myths and certainly nothing to do with the issue of whether there was death before some alleged Fall.
The only changes are shown in Gods perceptions, once again the God of the stories is show to be incompetent, to realize that he made a mistake, that maybe his original opinion wasn't correct.
Further in Genesis 1 the comment related to very good was related to the whole system.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning”the sixth day.
Mankind was only one of the components.
The story of the Garden of Eden comes in the older, more primitive version of the creation story found in Genesis 2 & 3. There is nothing in Genesis 1 that could imply any Fall at all.
So what we see reading the Bible is that in the older version, that found in Genesis 2 & 3, God creates a Tree of Life. If death did not exist in the beginning, then there was no point of creating a Tree of Life.
Later, another peoples in a slightly different era and culture, had a different creation story. The Garden of Eden was gone. The cloning was gone. The Tree of Good and Evil was gone. The man and woman are created from the dust, just like all the other animals. And it is this later tale, the one without the Garden of Eden, without the disobedience, without the serpent, that God finds very good.
Moving on to the Flood myths.
The flood myths are quite different from the Creation Myths and were treated differently by the redactors and editors that compiled the Old Testament.
In the creation myths, the editors and redactors included both tales, they ran them serially, and they placed the younger, the newer tale first. But the two flood myths are mingled together, mixed up into one disjointed tale. There is also the strange tale thrown in of the Nephilim.
So why did the editors treat these tales, these myths, so differently?
On possible reason is that the creation myths carry different messages while the two flood myths told basically the same.
To quote from the Catechism of Creation
Genesis 1 teaches that the one true God calls the universe into existence, and all of creation responds to God’s call. The creation has order and structure. It is transfigured and reveals God’s presence, but it is natural, not divine. It is dependent upon its Creator for its continuing existence and for all of the powers and capacities it possesses. Each element is declared to be good and the whole of it very good. Finally, Genesis 1 teaches that the Sabbath, God’s holy day of celebration and rest, is anchored in the act of creation.
While Genesis 1 emphasizes God’s transcendence or otherness from creation, Genesis 2, in poetic and metaphorical language, emphasizes God’s immanence or intimate relationship with creation. In the story of the making of the garden and of the first man and woman, God is present to every creature in creating it and giving it sustenance.
The two creation myths deal with different aspects of God's relations with man, and man's relations with God.
But throughout, and even into the flood myths, there is no signs of changes in man's behavior. In the oldest of them, the creation myth forund in Genesis 2 & 3, mankind disobeys GOD even before eating of the Tree of Good and Evil. Willfullness and disobedience are intrinsic to mankind. The big difference is that after eating of the fruit of teh Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil we had the capability of choice, a gain, not a fall. Mankind continues to behave just as created.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
™ Version 4.2
