Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2

The Hebrew word adam (man) appears in both accounts but is untranslated in the second. Notice how this plays out at chapter 5 verse 2 in the King James Version:

quote:

---

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, ...

---

This word is used in both ways throughout the scriptures. It is up to the reader, or translator, to decide which interpretation is appropriate based on context. Some say that the word itself, which comes from a term denoting red-colored earth, is utilized as a pun in the second chapter, and might be interpreted, tongue-in-cheek, as - Earth Man. The Bible never refers to planet earth, so this 'earth' should be taken to mean land, and the Hebrew term is frequently translated that way. Then again, even in the first chapter, we cannot assume that the writers imagined the 'earth' as a
planet. Notice that the water under the firmament is gathered into one place" and "dry land" appears (vs. 9). "God called the dry land Earth;" and he called the water "Seas." Thus: Seas are not a part of Earth. Clearly not a vision of planet earth.In order to understand the creation story, we must dumb down to the level of Bronze Age 'science.' I believe the first chapter is about the origin of the universe (as the ancients imagined it to be), while the second chapter is about the origin of Hebrew ancestors. We do, after all, know approximately where Eden was located. The myth itself is very like Mesopotamian creation myths in which the Domine (lord god) i.e. King : Think about it. I believe you will find that it explains discrepancies and obviates the need to correlate these two clearly different accounts of creation.db

Good to see that you are still active here Amlodhi. What about verse 1? "And Adam knew Eve his wife, ..."While we're on the subject of Seth; I find the 3rd verse of chapter 5 most interesting:This sounds a lot like the wording of chapter 1 where man is created in the image and likeness of God. This would seem to create a problem for those who teach that these words mean something other than physical appearance. Eh? And if God looks just like us, then what's to say he isn't simply a deified ancestor whose accomplishments have been exaggerated all out of proportion to reality? (Just an entertaining excursion into the myth.)db

Are you really as dense as you would like us to believe? Do you think nip picking about the time of day is a meaningful argument?It is clearly indicated that they were made on the same day, and after the animals were made. Chapter two, ... well, you have already been pointed to the differences there. Why should I disturb your blissful ignorance with further recitation of the facts?db

Any thoughts on why the KJV, RSV, and so many others render it as Adam?Is your Hebrew text different from the one they were using?db

What you described is indeed considered to be the 'traditional' view and not coincidentally, virtually identical to the Babylonian model. I am of the opinion, however, that the 'traditional view' was based on an erroneous interpretation of scripture whereby "pillars of the earth," an idiom referring to the institutions of civilization, was mistaken to mean physical objects. An inscription found over the door at the university of Babylon proclaimed: The Foundations of Heaven and Earth. Even today we use the word 'Foundation' to describe some of our institutions. And we still say things like, "he moved heaven and earth" when what we really mean is, "He dealt with obstacles at various levels."This is not an opinion which I am prepared to argue further but if you explore the uses of "foundation" in the old King James Bible you may begin to understand why, as much as I like the graphic representations of it, I am increasingly skeptical of that old interpretation. It is, I believe, a matter of physical versus spiritual interpretation. I agree. To me it is most meaningful as a window on the past; a revelation of how people once imagined the cosmos. Doesn't that explain the discrepancies then? The explanation being: as you say, that they are telling us two completely separate stories. But then, of course, Babylonian is Mesopotamian.db

I would love to hear more of your thoughts on that.And, while I have your attention: I have for some time now suspected that certain stories were concocted in an effort to demonize the peoples upon whom the Israelites were about to attempt genocide. The homosexual rape of Noah by his grandson Canaan (ancestor of the Canaanites), and the incestuous rape of Lot by his daughters (the mothers of Moab and Ammon) might suggest that descendants of these characters shared the nature of their progenitors. If I were sending troops to butcher women and children I would surely want them to believe that those kids deserved to have their throats slit like so many little goats (visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and all that).The practice of demonizing one's enemies is an important function of military leadership. Considering how graphically the Bbile describes the actual killing, I should be surprised if such 'pep talks' were not recorded, 'for the record.' And, of course, I am convinced that they were.Any thoughts?db

Yes I did, and wow!! What a wonderful presentation of your view. As usual, your insights satisfy the curious mind. db

I will have to agree with you, of course. I suppose I am overly concerned that everyone here be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that it was only yesterday, in terms of historical time, that the religious community has been willing to concede that earth is a planet. As recently as the onset of the seventeenth century, this point was flatly denied by both Catholic and Protestant dogma. You'll get no protest from me on that score. db

I would. It matters to me.db