Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation According to Genesis: One Account or Two?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 98 (756678)
04-24-2015 7:05 PM


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

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 04-24-2015 9:12 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 04-24-2015 9:55 PM Jon has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 98 (756680)
04-24-2015 7:33 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Creation According to Genesis: One Account or Two? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 98 (756683)
04-24-2015 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
04-24-2015 7:05 PM


P and J Sandwich
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

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 04-24-2015 7:05 PM Jon has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 98 (756685)
04-24-2015 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
04-24-2015 7:05 PM


Biblical literalists usually say that it is one account. Almost everyone else agrees that there are two separate creation stories there. Personally, I think it's pretty obvious that there are two, and that both are made up stories.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 04-24-2015 7:05 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 04-24-2015 10:04 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 98 (756686)
04-24-2015 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
04-24-2015 9:55 PM


Personally, I think it's pretty obvious that there are two, and that both are made up stories.
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.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 04-24-2015 9:55 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2015 4:05 AM Jon has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 98 (756687)
04-25-2015 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jon
04-24-2015 10:04 PM


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.
With regard to making sense, the stories don't pass the "it could have actually happened" test either separately or in combination.
I am very eager to see the evidence and reasoning that have led him to his conclusion.
I don't think there is a default side for which acceptance without evidence is required. I do plan to participate. I appreciate this thread being started. But just making reference to something being obvious is not an argument. I'm going to insist on seeing more than that.
As I posted before, there is a textual linkage between Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter two based on the references to day seven in 2:1. Even the use of different language does not prevent a second author from building on a tale by a first author, so the language argument may be persuasive to some, but it is far from conclusive. What I will find more persuasive is contradictions for which the only offered explanations are just plain bad.
FWIW, I don't expect this discussion will be overly emotional for me as I am not a Bible literalist.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 04-24-2015 10:04 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2015 4:20 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 10 by Jon, posted 04-25-2015 9:41 AM NoNukes has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 98 (756688)
04-25-2015 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by NoNukes
04-25-2015 4:05 AM


quote:
As I posted before, there is a textual linkage between Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter two based on the references to day seven in 2:1
That is not a valid argument. Genesis 2:1 is part of the first story. The second story starts with Genesis 2:4 - and that's really quite obvious if you read them. I'm afraid that your "link" is not a link between the two stories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2015 4:05 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2015 4:52 AM PaulK has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 98 (756689)
04-25-2015 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
04-25-2015 4:20 AM


That is not a valid argument. Genesis 2:1 is part of the first story.
I'll accept that.
Now, how about a contradiction between the accounts? Here is what you posted in the previous thread:
On a plain reading Genesis 2:5 denies the existence of plant life prior to the creation of man, animals do not exist prior to 2:19, women and men are not created together
Actually 2-5 says that there were no plants and no men to till them, so the clear meaning is that the verse refers to a time before either of them. I don't see a contradiction there.
quote:
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
I suppose one way to read this verse is that both rain and man are precursors for plants, but apparently even after plants were created there was still no rain, a point which I think weakens that argument a bit.
Then mist came up in 2:6, but still no rain.
2:7 can possibly support your interpretation. It describes the creation of man without describing the creation of plants. But 2-8 tell us about placing man in a garden that God had created sometime before putting man there. I suggest that means plants were created before man.
As I review various translations, I find some that include prepositions that at least arguabley fix the order of creation. The NIV seems to support a plant then man creation. The KJV suggests (weakly in my opinion) a contrary order.
I would make a similar call regarding 2:19 and the animals. The NIV talks about bringing previously created animals over to Adam for naming, while the KJV expresses the creating and bringing as concurrent actions. Other translations seem quite neutral on the order.
Commentary I read on the Bible, which is of course primarily from literalists seems to suggest that the otherwise hated NIV is truer to the mark on this point.
ABE:
Finally, where does the first account require men and women to be created together?
By truer to the mark, I mean to express, a better translation of the original wording.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2015 4:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2015 5:56 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 11 by kbertsche, posted 04-25-2015 10:54 AM NoNukes has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 9 of 98 (756691)
04-25-2015 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by NoNukes
04-25-2015 4:52 AM


quote:
Actually 2-5 says that there were no plants and no men to till them, so the clear meaning is that the verse refers to a time before either of them. I don't see a contradiction there.
That rules out the idea that the second story is simply an account of the sixth day. Also the creation of man follows directly on from the establishment of the garden, without any of the intervening elements in the first story.
quote:
I would make a similar call regarding 2:19 and the animals. The NIV talks about bringing previously created animals over to Adam for naming, while the KJV expresses the creating and bringing as concurrent actions. Other translations seem quite neutral on the order.
And this is one of the places where the NIV is criticised for placing doctrine above accurate translation.
quote:
Commentary I read on the Bible, which is of course primarily from literalists seems to suggest that the otherwise hated NIV is truer to the mark on this point.
It's not surprising that inerrantists would choose a translation convenient to their doctrine over a more accurate translation.
quote:
Finally, where does the first account require men and women to be created together?
Aside from the point that it seems absurd to insert a gap of days between the creation of man and the creation of plans as well as reversing the order of events, but to place the creation of man and woman on the same day, when the naming of the animals comes between them, Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of man and woman as a single act. After the creation of the animals.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2015 4:52 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 04-26-2015 1:29 AM PaulK has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 98 (756699)
04-25-2015 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by NoNukes
04-25-2015 4:05 AM


As I posted before, there is a textual linkage between Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter two based on the references to day seven in 2:1.
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.
Even the use of different language does not prevent a second author from building on a tale by a first author, so the language argument may be persuasive to some, but it is far from conclusive.
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'.
What I will find more persuasive is contradictions for which the only offered explanations are just plain bad.
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.
First Account:Second Account:
God creates all the animals
(Gen 1:20—25)
God creates Man
(Gen 1:27)
YHWH creates Man
(Gen 2:7)
YHWH creates all the animals
(Gen 2:19—20)
God creates Woman
(Gen 1:27)
YHWH creates Woman
(Gen 2:21—22)
That's only one of the contradictions. After having our say on this one, we can move on to others.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2015 4:05 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2015 2:41 PM Jon has replied
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2015 12:01 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 11 of 98 (756705)
04-25-2015 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by NoNukes
04-25-2015 4:52 AM


Actually 2-5 says that there were no plants and no men to till them, so the clear meaning is that the verse refers to a time before either of them. I don't see a contradiction there.
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
I suppose one way to read this verse is that both rain and man are precursors for plants, but apparently even after plants were created there was still no rain, a point which I think weakens that argument a bit.
Then mist came up in 2:6, but still no rain.
I like the way that Mark Futato translates this. There were no wild plants and there were no cultivated plants, because God had not caused it to rain (for the wild plants) and there was no one to till the soil (for the cultivated plants). So God provides water for the wild plants and man for the cultivated plants.
Edited by kbertsche, : Added link to Futato article

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2015 4:52 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2015 2:54 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 98 (756717)
04-25-2015 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Jon
04-25-2015 9:41 AM


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.
You need to make a presentation of some substance here. I am not going to argue with a web page or with arguments that you cannot make.
I'll acknowledge here as I did with Paul, that I find the point about the chapter listings being artifacts that are not important to be a persuasive one that defeats my argument regarding the continuity from chapter 1. However, mere style differences do not render the stories inconsistent with each other. And both stories likely draw heavily from source material. But that says nothing about whether the integration of those stories into the text resulted in any startling inconsistencies.
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.).
Yes. There is a discontinuity in time over what is covered in the two parts. And...?
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
You are exaggerating the forcefulness of your argument. You really have yet to describe a single thing that provides difficulty for my position that there are no contradictions. If you want to insist that the stories are contradictory, then the best recourse is to point out a contradiction.
Among the arguments presented so far, I find the argument regarding timings between the creation of animals and humans to be the most well supported by the text. The counter arguments I have seen to that point, namely that the animals in 2:18 and forward were created after the ones in chapter 1 don't seem to be reinforced in the text without first assuming the continuity we are trying to prove. I'm still doing some reflecting on that point, but quite frankly that point is somewhat academic because I don't see a first impetus to assume the stories are contradictory.
With regard to the plants, though, I think it clear that the relative of creation between man and plants is the same in both stories.
Do you have anything more persuasive than an accusation of "mental gymnastics" and statements that "it's obvious"? I suggest that you make such an argument and then provide the accusation.
Edited by NoNukes, : Clean up discussion re animals. I originally stopped in mid sentence.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Jon, posted 04-25-2015 9:41 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 04-25-2015 6:14 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 98 (756721)
04-25-2015 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by kbertsche
04-25-2015 10:54 AM


I like the way that Mark Futato translates this. There were no wild plants and there were no cultivated plants, because God had not caused it to rain (for the wild plants) and there was no one to till the soil (for the cultivated plants). So God provides water for the wild plants and man for the cultivated plants.
I don't have the ability to make a translation. Even the Latin I studied in high school is encrusted in decades of rust. In preparing to argue for this position, it seemed that the only way to reach this position without a 'non-textual excursion' is to assume that the stories are consistent and then to reconcile them. I really don't want to use that approach here.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by kbertsche, posted 04-25-2015 10:54 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 98 (756729)
04-25-2015 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NoNukes
04-25-2015 2:41 PM


I'll acknowledge here as I did with Paul, that I find the point about the chapter listings being artifacts that are not important to be a persuasive one that defeats my argument regarding the continuity from chapter 1. However, mere style differences do not render the stories inconsistent with each other. And both stories likely draw heavily from source material. But that says nothing about whether the integration of those stories into the text resulted in any startling inconsistencies.
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?
You really have yet to describe a single thing that provides difficulty for my position that there are no contradictions.
Except the contradiction I mentioned.
The counter arguments I have seen to that point, namely that the animals in 2:18 and forward were created after the ones in chapter 1 don't seem to be reinforced in the text without first assuming the continuity we are trying to prove.
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.
I'm still doing some reflecting on that point, but quite frankly that point is somewhat academic because I don't see a first impetus to assume the stories are contradictory.
We're talking about couple-thousand year old creation myths: everything is academic.
You need to make a presentation of some substance here.
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 am not going to argue with a web page or with arguments that you cannot make.
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.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2015 2:41 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2015 8:35 PM Jon has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 98 (756730)
04-25-2015 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jon
04-25-2015 6:14 PM


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'.
I'll clarify. I'm saying that simply claiming two origin sources does not conclude the issue about the material that actually made it into the text. The final text tells a consistent story. Is that simple enough for you?
Perhaps if you can give me a (meaningful) opinion on this point, I'll see the value in continuing to present evidence regarding language.
You opened a thread and then claim it is my responsibility to convince you to provide evidence? Your position is simply posting a link to arguments that you yourself don't understands puts some onus on me to provide something?
I have provided both my opinion and at least some of the reasoning behind it. Perhaps at this point my options are to continue the dialog with other posters.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 04-25-2015 6:14 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Jon, posted 04-25-2015 9:29 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024