Genesis chapters 1 & 2 both give accounts of the Creation and they disagree with each other even to the number of beings involved and the order of events.
2007-10-21 04:01:40 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I agree with "eyeopener" that the Bible is a compilation of the writings of many authors. I don't believe in the inerrancy or infallability of the Bible.
2007-10-21 09:12:35 · update #1
The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4a, written during the Babylonian captivity, explains creation in terms of the ancient near eastern world view of its time. A watery chaos is divided by the dome (firmament) of the sky. The waters under the dome are gathered and land appears. Lights are affixed in the dome. All living things are created. The story pictures God building the cosmos as a supporting ecosystem for humanity. Finally, humanity, both male and female, is created, and God rests.
The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, was written several centuries earlier. It begins by describing a desert landscape, no plants or herbs, no rain; only a mist arises out of the earth. Then the Lord God forms man of the dust of the ground, creates an oasis-like Garden of Eden to support the "man whom he had formed." In this story, God creates animal life while trying to provide the man "a helper fit for him." None being found, God takes a rib from the man's side and creates the first woman.
The resolution to these differences lies in recognizing the literary genre of these stories. They are not scientific accounts, but they reveal where we come from and why we were made.
Just as Jesus' parables were probably not histories of a literal Good Samaritan or Prodigal Son, biblical stories reveeal the truth about how God acts. Those who try to draw a science of creationism from these stories are misreading them by failing to operate within the rules of the genre.
Cheers,
Bruce
2007-10-21 06:28:42 · answer #1 · answered by Bruce 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Perhaps, I am not qualified to answer this because I don't believe every word in the Bible to be "literally true". However, I will make an attempt anyway.
The folks who translated the Bible into English didn't always have "righteous" intentions. Moreover, the translation is not always clear and so they would translate, skip what they weren't sure of and fill in the blanks. According to the original Hebrew version there is actually a lot missing from the English version of the "creation". Therefore, I would accept the original version (the one we no longer have).
OUT
2007-10-21 04:13:55 · answer #2 · answered by Peter 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Literally truth is impossible on the face of it. The Bible was written my men. And those men would interrupt what they were reading and writing in at least several different ways. Probably the Bible is best understand like any other historical document which would means their words convey much more than the basic information provided by their language and basic interruptions.
Within the words would be a cultural story, a educational story, a moral and a everyday story of human development. Certainly, the words would also mean very different things to different people who read the stories within story's.
The Tree of Life story is a story based on the values at the heart of an agrarian people, but the Garden of Eden story is a story based on a people much more given to imagination and interruption. The Eden story seems to me to be a more modern and revisionist history that maybe based on city dwellers view of the beginning of history.
2007-10-21 09:08:29 · answer #3 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The thing you're missing is in the Hebrew, it makes a difference that doesn't translate into the English. Eth Ha Adam (this the Adam) is different than Adam (translated man-as in "make man in our image")
It's easier to understand these things with an open mind.
I believe both creation accounts, because they are separate.
2007-10-21 04:14:14 · answer #4 · answered by jason d 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There were 5 authors that wrote the old testament, that's why you read different accounts. We are led to believe Moses wrote them but in fact we really don't know. That's why I trouble believing that the Bible is the infallable word of God without mistakes. There are great truths in it but it was still written by man!
2007-10-21 04:15:44 · answer #5 · answered by freekin 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Genesis 1&2 were given by Moses, you are aware how Jesus felt about Moses, right ?
Jesus gives us His own account of Genesis, in Revelation 12.
2007-10-21 04:16:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They don't disagree with each other, God created the earth then he created man...You will never ever discern the word with your intellect...The word is spirit you can only understand it by spiritual means, by Revelation knowledge by way of the Holy Spirit...
2007-10-21 04:07:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
The one where God created dinosaurs, then decided.. no.. no... dinosaurs are stupid.. they keep eating Adam..
So, he offed the dinosaurs, and sabertooth, and mammoths .. and what does Adam do in return?? Eat that stupid apple!
2007-10-21 04:06:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
If you believe the moon is made up of cheese, what type of cheese do you think it is?
2007-10-21 04:05:11 · answer #9 · answered by bobanalyst 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋