I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't know that there are two creation stories in the bible. Please tell me which one you believe to be the correct story? Both stories can't be correct. Explain why you think the 1st or the 2nd one is correct.
2007-09-11 13:02:32 · 11 answers · asked by Bri 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I know 1st is not an elaboration of the 2nd. Because the 2nd one is out of sequence with the 1st.
2007-09-11 13:12:33 · update #1
Well, I think you've make one of the more important observations for why the Bible is not entirely easily understood or particularly useful when considered as a completely literal text and is a beautiful work of metaphorical teaching, probably some historical fact and allegory.
But I don't think one need to involve evolution in this , evolution is an obserable fact. Mendel, Wallace, Darwin, Holland, Watson & Crick, have all helped craft what limited human understanding we DO have of our own biology.
The creation chronicles of all faiths are traditional heritages which we should cherish and respect each other's belief in, even when there are several of them to go around.
I think the important thing to do is not confuse the two.
2007-09-11 13:13:01 · answer #1 · answered by Mark T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You shouldn't assume.
Chapters and verses weren't added into the Bible until after the 15th century. Until then, everything was read as a running narrative.
There are not two creation stories. Genesis 1 is an overview of creation. Genesis 2 deals with Adam and the Garden of Eden.
Why can't they both be correct? Let me guess, because someone said that Genesis 2 states that animals were created AFTER mankind, right? Wrong. It states no such thing. In the original Hebrew, it was said that God had already created animals, and then He brought them before Adam to name them. This came across at least in the KJV, I'm not too sure about other versions, but I'm sure it did.
So my answer is, BOTH occurred, though it may not have been literal. Considering the fact that in this case it was being recorded thousands (if not millions or even billions) of years after the fact, it would have been simplified for easy memorization.
And just to make it more clear, why it matters that there were no chapters or verses is that there would not have been a break in the two. It was a CONTINUING narrative.
The "chapters" in the Bible are not chapters like we have in other books. The chapters that are in the Bible were put there for only one reason: For easier referencing. They aren't to act as a division of any sort.
2007-09-11 13:11:00 · answer #2 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
According to Scofield ref. bible
Jeremiah 4:23-27; Isaiah 24:1; 45:18 clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting imitations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels. the first creation was destroyed before the second creation
2007-09-11 13:32:46 · answer #3 · answered by maitraya 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The second is an elaboration on the first.
And actually there are 4 creation stories if you want to look at it that way... Not only is the story of creation recorded twice in Genesis, but shorter versions of it are recorded in Psalm 104 and Proverbs 8:22-31.
Bible stories are usually recorded to teach particular lessons rather than merely to provide facts and events. We can learn lessons about God the creator from each of these stories.
2007-09-11 13:08:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes people do know that there are two creation stories. Yes both stories are correct, story number two starts in the middle of the second one to tell about man and Gods creation of him in more detail, you have to read carefully both these stories.
2007-09-11 13:19:28 · answer #5 · answered by Ally... 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe both. The first creation story is referring to the whole world. The second creation story is referring to only the Garden of Eden. They are both correct.
2007-09-11 13:15:53 · answer #6 · answered by fuzz 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The first creation is correct,it alone makes sense,God filled the earth with males and females.
2007-09-11 13:11:02 · answer #7 · answered by gwhiz1052 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Read Genesis
2007-09-11 13:59:22 · answer #8 · answered by robert p 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe God created the earth in 7 day,s just like he said,
I believe God made man out of clay just like he said,
and I believe evloution had no part in it.
2007-09-11 13:11:14 · answer #9 · answered by elaine 30705 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Oh, they think the Gen. 1 is the outline for Gen. 2. God must be a bad writer because he can't follow his own outline.
It is sad Christians don't see the contradictions.
2007-09-11 13:08:17 · answer #10 · answered by atheist 6 · 1⤊ 7⤋