Creation According to Genesis: One Account or Two?

I am starting this thread to siphon off the discussion in the Humour VIII forum (Message 324 and following) relating to the Genesis creation account(s). NoNukes is probably right to assert that most at EvC consider there to be two separate accounts (the first running from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:3 describing the six-day creation; the second beginning at Gen 2:4 and including the story of the Adam, Eve, the serpent, etc.), but as his participation demonstrates, there are clearly those at EvC who consider the accounts more sensible when considered as a single story.And so the debate is born...I believe the evidence is rather overwhelmingly against these being a single coherent account, not only because there is contradiction between the accounts but also based on the style of the stories, the nature of the characters involved, and linguistic features (calling all spiders).Before I do too much work laying out the details of my own position, I'll leave this open to see if anyone is interested enough in the topic to start participation in a devoted thread.Bible Study forum?Edited by Jon, : mbrid link

Expanding on what I mentioned in Message 1 regarding differences in style, character, and language, I should point out that these differences aren't confined to the creation account(s).Folks considering participation in this thread might find the Wikipedia pages on the Yahwist and Priestly sources worth a read. Edited by Jon, : fix link

I completely agree.To me, the fact that they are two stories is so plainly obvious that I can only imagine them seen as a single account by someone reading them through literalist-tinted glasses.I hope NoNukes will participate in this thread as he's perhaps the only non-literalist I've come across who thought they made more sense as one story than as two. I am very eager to see the evidence and reasoning that have led him to his conclusion.

As PaulK pointed out, the numbers next to the words have no relevance whatsoever. The chapter-verse divisions were added perhaps a couple thousand years after the stories were composed. The issue regarding language goes much further than just writing style On the basis of wording alone, there is plenty for considering the accounts separate (such as the word used for God, for example). Though I could repeat the arguments made by others I can't make the arguments myself since I don't understand Hebrew.Did you check out my links in Message 5? Each story is traceable to separate source material and fits the general style and themes of those sources. Elements peculiar to the J source are not found in the first account and elements peculiar to the P source are not found in the second account. This would suggest that the two accounts were composed independently of one another as part of their own separate traditions.For language evidence that us English-speakers can still appreciate, we can look at the lack of transition between the two stories. While Genesis 2:3 ends with everything seemingly done, Genesis 2:4 begins with an introduction (standard to J, cf. Gen 6:9, Gen 11:10, etc.).Taken together these observations evidence separate stories written independently of one another and only later tacked together (and not even very well). It is only through an act of extreme mental gymnastics that one could maintain the position that the second account is the work of 'a second author ... building on a tale by a first author'. Okay, so let's start with an easy one. In the first story God makes all the animals first (over two separate days) and then makes man and woman together afterwards. In the second story YHWH the bumbling idiot makes man, can't figure out what companion he would prefer and is thus prompted to create and introduce to him every creature on earth; realizing that man wants nothing to do with puppy dogs and armadillos, he makes woman as a companion. That's only one of the contradictions. After having our say on this one, we can move on to others.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

You're really moving all over the place. One moment you're claiming that reading the two accounts separately isn't a 'viable' reading; the next you're admitting to the accounts being separate stories from different sources but that there's nothing to indicate they are 'inconsistent'.One claim is weaker than the other and these really are two separate positions.Which one do you plan to take in this thread? Except the contradiction I mentioned. You're the only one trying to prove continuity. I don't think the stories have much to do with one another aside from them both being creation myths. They have separate characters, separate plots, separate timelines, separate morals/motivations.If some schlep hadn't taped them both onto the same scroll, it's doubtful you'd be here trying to show how consistent they are. We're talking about couple-thousand year old creation myths: everything is academic. That sword cuts both ways. You initially claimed that "the Bible does not claim that man was made before the animals". Any person reading the relevant portions of Genesis 2 would conclude that animals were made after man (just one at this point), so there is a good deal of burden on you to explain why your reading contrary to the plain-text reading should be preferred. And your demonstration of this should involve more than your personal inability to spot the inconsistency or your bias to reading the whole thing as one story on account of them being stitched together by some long forgotten desert folk. I mentioned the fact that they contain different god characters among other things. You ignored this, so I don't know what makes you think I'm going to devote more time to laying out any additional evidence for you to pretend I didn't present.Perhaps if you can give me a (meaningful) opinion on this point, I'll see the value in continuing to present evidence regarding language.

I understand that this is your argument. But repeating it doesn't prove anything. The Bible is full of mishmashed source material telling contradictory stories. I opened a thread to bring the discussion to a new topic. Please do. Right now I'm waiting to see you respond to PaulK's calling you on your ridiculous blunder in Message 8 ("Finally, where does the first account require men and women to be created together?").My guess is you'll treat PaulK's arguments the same as you've treated mine: ignore them and post repeated requests for 'evidence' while paying no attention the requests by others that you post some of your own.But I hope you'll prove me wrong.

Genesis 2:5 takes care of that.According to Gen 2:5 rain and humans are a prerequisite for the growth of plants:

quote:

---

Genesis 2:5 (NIV):

​

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground,

---

To remedy this, YHWH first makes things wet:

quote:

---

Genesis 2:6 (NIV):

​

but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

---

Then he makes a man:

quote:

---

Genesis 2:7 (NIV):

​

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

---

There are clearly no plants created until after YHWH creates a man to take care of them. The need for the man is specifically one of two reasons that YHWH postpones the creation of plants.This sequence of events, including the motives, is simply irreconcilable with the Genesis 1 account in which plants are poofed effortlessly into existence three full days before God creates humans. Who needs to waste time criticizing your preferred translation when even that translation, as I've just shown, proves how wrong it is to believe the first and second creation accounts are consistent?

Which watered the ground as a rain would do... Such has been your position throughout this thread it would seem. Stop inventing the story in your head and read the damn text.Whether YHWH dropped some seeds in the ground or set up the plants in mature form is irrelevant because the second creation story makes it clear that the appearance of plants was postponed until after there was rain/mist/rivers to water them and a man to take care of them.The point of the analysis, ignored by you several times, is that Man existed before the plants according to Genesis 2, but was created long after the plants according to Genesis 1. You fussed about the difference between 'mist' and 'rain' when the purpose of the story was to say there was to say the plants needed to be watered and needed to have a man to take care of them. In 2:6 they get the waterthere went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. In 2:7 they get the man. In 2:8-9 YHWH plants a garden. In 2:10-14 he waters the garden. In 2:15 he has the man take care of it.There's some wicked awesome parallel running through the Genesis 2 creation narrative. Plants need: Something to water them, Man to take care of them (Gen 2:5)
Water is provided(2:6)
Man is formed (2:7)
Plants are brought about (2:8-9)
Plants are watered (2:10-14)
Man takes care of plants (2:15)Within this we have another thread: after the mention of the main plants (2:8) the man is dropped in the garden (with no purpose yet) and then 2:9 tells us of the creation of the two Trees that will become important later in the story. In 2:15 when man is again described as being put in the garden, the act is followed immediately by mention of one of those important Trees (2:16).Man:tree (2:8-9)
Man:tree (2:15-16)All this comes together to create a highly structured yet delicate narrative that falls very apart if we assume there were plants ahead of time, or that the mist from 2:6 has nothing to do with the need for water mentioned in 2:5, or, really, any of your assumptions. A thorough and close reading of the second myth that actually takes into account the textwhat it says, and how it says itcan only reveal that Man was created before the plants.There's no other way to read it without destroying the whole damn story; your attempt to mangle it up for the sake of making it appear consistent with some other unrelated tale is no exception.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : So many typos...

Your translation is wrong.And it's that simple.If you think otherwise, prove it.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Genesis 2:5 tells us why YHWH put off planting the garden: he first needed some water and second needed a man.In terms of whether plants were created before or after humans according to the second myth, Genesis 2:5 tells us all we need to know: there were no plants because there wasn't any way for them to be watered and there wasn't anyone to take care of them.The rest is just a matter of reading the events in the order they are presented.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

That's maybe possible.It's also possible that the shrubs and herbs are being combined to mean plants and that water and humans are being listed as a prerequisite for both (water is certainly required for both, and I don't think the author would have tried leading his audience to think otherwise).Your own citation seems to agree with my analysis (my emphasis): Would you contend (as I think your position would require) that the Garden was a food gardeni.e., nothing was present that wasn't a 'cultivated grain'along with an orchard?You might have an argument here; though in either case there is a clear structure in the second myth that is dependent on the plants (or at least 'herbs'—KJV—) not existing until after there is water and after there is man, while the first myth certainly describes their creation well before the creation of man (and, in fact, uses the same word'herb', at least according to Strong).ABE:Looking at your source I find a lot to make me skeptical of Futato's arguments. For example, he says:

quote:

---

Mark Futato (1998):

​

External considerations (comparing Gen2:4-25 with Gen 1:1-2:3) and internal considerations (the flow of the narrative in Gen 2:4-25), however, disallow a strictly chronological reading of Gen 2:4-25.

​

[...] The Hebrew verbs translated "formed" and "brought" are waw-relatives, resulting in the prima facie sequence of God's forming (wayyiser) of Adam (v 7a), followed by God's forming (wayyiser) of the animals (v 19a). A straight-forward reading of Gen 2:29, in other words, puts Gen 2:4-25 in conflict with a chronological reading of Gen 1:1-2:3, where the animals were formed before the man (Gen 1:24-27). One may resort to the use of the waw-relative for the past perfect in this case to harmonize the two texts, but a waw-relative is not the obvious syntactic choice for dischornologized material, as Gen 2:10 has already shown. The point is that while a prima facie reading is chronological, a closer reading (aided by an external comparison with Gen 1:1-2:3) leads us to the conclusions that the prima facie, chronological reading is not correct. (pp. 10—11)

---

It's also not clear that the word translated as 'herb' in the creation accounts (‘eseb) refers specifically to cultivated grains, as it appears later in Deuteronomy, for example, to describe what is essentially wild grass for cattle grazing:

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 11:15 (NRSV):

​

... and he will give grass in your fields for your livestock, and you will eat your fill.

---

Given this, I think that Futato's argument that the author of the second creation account meant to make a distinction between wild plants and cultivated plants is very weak. It's not at all clear that such a distinction exists or that it plays into any parallelism in the story.
__________
Futato, M (1998) "Because it Had Rained" (PDF). Westminster Theological Journal 60; pp. 1—21Edited by Jon, : ABEEdited by Jon, : ABE v 2

What would establish it to your satisfaction? If we explore it we will find that there is no direct or contextual reason to translate the verbs into the pluperfect and that the only places where the NIVand other agenda-serving editionstranslates into the pluperfect where others use the simple preterite is in 2:8 and 2:19, where doing so relieves the tension between the first and second creation narratives.It's really a lot of special pleading, and the burden here should rest on those who prefer the pluperfect rendering of 'plant' and 'form'.There are a lot of hurdles to overcome: as I've already mentioned, the motives in regards to the creation of mists and rivers and the formation of man as well as the plants-water-man structure throughout 2:5-17; and as PaulK has mentioned, the motives regarding the creation of animals in 2:18-20. Ahhh... but perhaps you have not yet addressed it to our satisfaction. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Nothing you said has anything to do with my claim that:If you want to address this in your next reply, feel free to do so. If not, please just click the You have not yet responded link at the bottom of this post. Either method will ensure that you don't waste any more of my time. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

According to the first creation account, the early earth was covered in water. After creating light, God next separates the lower waters from the upper waters through the creation of the firmament which "divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament" (Gen 1:7). The following day, God separates the waters to reveal dry land.According to the second creation myth, the early earth was dry. YHWH causes a mist to rise up and water the ground.These two accounts appear to be the reverse of one another.While account one is ordered: Water→clouds→dry land; account two is ordered: dry land→clouds→water.A view that sees the two accounts as consistent should reconcile this prima facie contradiction, and preferably do so in a way that requires fewer assumptions than the straight-forward reading by which the contradiction is made apparent.

I think the same argument applies here as well, as I posted in Message 29. The reasoning for translating 'plant' in the simple past is pretty much the same as the reasoning regarding 'form' in 2:19: translating it into the pluperfect destroys the storyline.I don't know how accurate this source is, but according to this Mechanical Translation of Genesis, 2:8 is translated:

quote:

---

Jeff A. Benner in A Mechanical Translation of the Book of Genesis (2007):

​

and~he~will~Plant "YHWH [He exists]" "Elohiym [Powers]" Garden in~"Eden [Pleasure]" from~East and~he~will~Set.in.place There At the~Human Which he~did~Mold (p. 24)

---

Regarding the author's choice of will/did, he says:

quote:

---

Jeff A. Benner in A Mechanical Translation of the Book of Genesis (2007):

​

Hebrew verbs have two tenses, perfect (a completed action, identified in the MT with the prefix "did~") and imperfect (an incomplete action, identified in the MT with the prefix "will~"). (p. 14)

---

The same situation exists with 2:19:

quote:

---

Jeff A. Benner in A Mechanical Translation of the Book of Genesis (2007):

​

and~he~will~Mold "YHWH [He exists]" "Elohiym [Powers]" From the~Ground All Life the~Field and~At All Flyer the~Sky~s2 and~he~will~make~Come To the~Human to~>~See What he~will~Call.out to~him and~All Which he~will~Call.out to~him the~Human Being Life He Title~him (p. 25—26)

---

This 'tense' as Benner calls it is the same one used to describe the general creation of things. When the story is translated into English using the typical past tense narration style, the imperfect verbs typically become preterite while the perfect verbs become pluperfect; or, as is favored apparently by the Mechanical Translation, when the story is translated into English using the historical present style of narration, the imperfect verbs typically become present while the perfect verbs become preterite (this has been my observation reading the Translation, though Benner often switches back and forth between narration styles, presumably to make the story more natural to English speakers, but his literal translation preserves the difference).Choices about using the present, preterite, or pluperfect have to be made because English, unlike the Hebrew of Genesis, requires verbs to be in a tense, that is, it requires that verbs specify the relative timing of events. Such information is not contained in the aspect of the Hebrew. It comes down to making an informed decision, and the information that gives us the preterite in some places shouldn't give us the pluperfect in others (without good reason where it might change the meaning). Our considerations should render a consistent translation.Anyway, based on language alone, the simple past seems to be the best choice for translating 'plant' in Gen 2:8 and 'form' in Gen 2:19. Combined with the elements from the plot that favor placing the creation of plants and animals after the creation of man, it's highly unlikely that the pluperfect works in these places.The KJV translation, then, seems truer to the Hebrew text in these places and in this regard than the NIV.
__________
Benner, J (2007) A Mechanical Translation of the Book of Genesis: The Hebrew Text Literally Translated Word for Word (PDF).