2 Creation Accounts.....Truth?

[Moose]

There are several theology books available regarding the two creation stories if people are interested in exploring this idea further. With examination, early Genesis is seen to have two differing creation stories; this difference in accounts is often attributed to the theory that the Bible was written by four sources - J, E, P, D. Specifically speaking, the creation stories are associated to J and E.

This was written by Pocky. I love and respect her opinions. But I also wanted to give my opinion on this simply because I look at this differently than most, and I want to see what you all had to say about it.

 

I personally think that both accounts are one and the same......there is no condradiction as most people would like us to believe so as to claim the Bible is null and void, and couldn't hold any truth.

 

I want to point out a few of these so called "major discrepancies" between these two accounts:

1. In the story of the creation of Adam the first, it is told that the latter was created in the image of God, . . while nothing is said about how his body was formed. In the account of the creation of Adam the second, it is stated that he was fashioned from the dust of the ground and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
   
2. Adam the first received the mandate from the Almighty to fill the earth and subdue it, . . .. Adam the second was charged with the duty to cultivate the garden and keep it. . ..
   
3. In the story of Adam the first, both male and female were created concurrently, while Adam the second emerged alone, with Eve appearing subsequently as his helpmate and companion.

Now, I'm not sure if there is more, hopefully I'll get some help on this. But from these 3 so called, "descrepancies", what or who is to say that Adam the first, and Adam the second is one and the same story?

 

God could create man in His own image using dust, rock, wood.......or out of nothing at all. So that, (to me), puts to rest number 1 in my mind. God did create man in His own image, and He used dust to do so.

 

God told Adam to fill the earth, subdue it, and to cultivate and keep the garden of Eden. This is possible to do simultaneously......that puts number 2 to rest, (in my mind).......

 

On the last point, I'm going to have to look it up, but I don't think the Bible states that man and woman were created at the same time. I believe it says something to the effect that God created man, and woman.....but doesn't say anything about doing so at the same time, specifically. In Chapter 2, it just goes into more detail on how, not when. So that puts number 3 to sleep too.......(in my mind)......

 

So people, just what are the contradictions that everyone is talking about and is responsible for some not coming to Christ????

[slubberdegullion]

The discrepancies are actually quite real. The biblical account says that light was created on the first day. But the sun, moon, stars etc. weren't created until day 4.

 

Genesis 1:12 says that the earth & animals were created before man. Genesis 2:5 says that man was created first, then all the rest.

 

There are tons and tons of discrepancies in the bible, and not limited to the Old Testament. For instance, when the Marys go to Jesus' tomb, the book of Luke (24:4) says that there were two men in dazzling robes that told them that Jesus had risen from the dead. But in Mark 18:5, there was only one man.

 

There are dozens, maybe even hundreds, of these little inconsistencies. Paul even recorded two different versions of his conversion.

 

Point is, the bible is not an historical document. Inspired, yes, but history, no. Yes, it's clear that Jesus lived, but his divinity is unclear.

 

The bible is a series of documents written by something like 40 people over a time span of hundreds of years, so undoubtedly there will be some errors and omissions.

 

That doesn't make the bible any less powerful for believers, but it does mean that faith, as it were, demands a brain.

[RainyDayWoman]

 

Point is, the bible is not an historical document. Inspired, yes, but history, no. Yes, it's clear that Jesus lived, but his divinity is unclear.

 

 

i really like how you put that, slub.

[Becoming]

Why is it so important that there be no inconsistencies? Do people believe in the Bible or in the God the Bible proclaims?

[Outcast]

Some people claim to believe in the Bible 'word for word' despite all its inconsistencies, historical analysis, etc. But they don't stone adulterers to death in the square, shun seafood, or offer burnt offerings in their yards so it's really all moot.

[slubberdegullion]

i really like how you put that, slub.

Thanks, RDW. For my next trick, I'll try to explain gravity. Simply put, the earth sucks.

But they don't <snip> offer burnt offerings in their yards so it's really all moot.

Obviously you haven't been to one of my neighbourhood barbecues.

[Bogun]

Most what you wrote slubby was quite perceptive I thought. But you contradicted yourself when you said this;

Point is, the bible is not an historical document. Inspired, yes, but history, no. Yes, it's clear that Jesus lived, but his divinity is unclear.

You don't believe it is an historical document, but you say its clear that jesus lived. :confused:

If the rest of the bible is meant as a teaching and not an historical account why would the story of jesus be any different. And more to the point why is it so clear that there was a literal jesus?

[slubberdegullion]

Most what you wrote slubby was quite perceptive I thought.

Thanks.

why is it so clear that there was a literal jesus?

There are a handful of references to Jesus that are from documents dating from that era that aren't part of the biblical narrative. The most famous are the references made by Jewish historian Josephus, but there are also documents from a Roman historian named Tacitus, another named Seutonius (sp?) and some others.

[Becoming]

The point is that the ancients who wrote the Bible didn't view truth as fact, as we have a tendency to do. As storytellers are wont to say, "I don't know if it happened just exactly like this, but I know it's true." The Bible's truth can only be known in lived reality, not in facts argued.

[Pocky]

This was written by Pocky. I love and respect her opinions.

 

Thanks, Moose. However I do want to clarify - the statement I made wasn't necessarily my opinion, but merely an attempt to confirm that there are in fact theorists that have examined the Bible for differences and the, to my knowledge, most widely accepted theory (multiple creation stories) is that there are four sources, J,E,P,D, that wrote the Bible.

 

My personal opinion doesn't align with this theory as I believe there were more than just four sources.

 

However, whether you're interested in the theory as a possibility or merely want to learn more, the easiest book and most well-written regarding this is: Who Wrote The Bible? by Richard Friedman.

 

There are certainly other books that have been published on this theory,but from the few that I've examined, this is the easiest to follow. Friedman makes a point of looking at the evidence with a form criticism approach and leaves the interpretation of the divine out of this examination.

 

It is purely historical - not spiritual.

 

One-A-Day-Tan

[ThumbingMyWay]

I am 2/3 of the way thru a book by Lee Strobel called the Case for Christ. It is a sceintific look at the evidence for Christ.

 

In fact it talked about this very issue in the beginning...i will try to look it up and see what it said. He also has a book called Case for Faith and Case for a Creator which I am going to read next.

 

So far the book I am reading is very credible is its discoveries...or at least I think so....

[slubberdegullion]

I am 2/3 of the way thru a book by Lee Strobel called the Case for Christ. It is a sceintific look at the evidence for Christ.

 

In fact it talked about this very issue in the beginning...i will try to look it up and see what it said. He also has a book called Case for Faith and Case for a Creator which I am going to read next.

 

So far the book I am reading is very credible is its discoveries...or at least I think so....

I've got copies of the Christ and Faith books, but I haven't read the Creator one.

 

Alas, I'm not sold on the credibility of some of his sources. For instance, in the discussion with Dr. Norman Geisler (in The Case for Faith book, pgs. 115-143, at least in my copy), Geisler makes the point that, "... his (God's) character is also merciful... If anyone wants to escape, he will let them." (pg 118)

 

Then, almost in the same breath, he goes on to say that God laid waste to the Amalekites because of their genocidal nature. That includes the children, who had nothing to do with attacking Israel, and probably didn't even know they were Amalekites. Innocence was destroyed along with the guilty. Geisler then goes on to explain that, "... we're all born in sin; that is, with the propensity to rebel and commit wrongdoing." (pg 119) So, in essense, the babies born to the Amalekites were judged and destroyed before they even had a sense of who or what they were.

 

I could go on, but I think you get the point. While I admire Strobel's work, it's certainly not infallible, and can even contradict his own argument.

 

Case in point: He uses archaeological evidence to "prove" an historical, biblical narrative. However, when the archaeological evidence contradicts biblical accounts, he either disregards them or says that the evidence isn't compelling. He wants it both ways.

 

So, enjoy the books, but do so with your brain engaged.

[Admiral Thrawn]

The discrepancies are actually quite real. The biblical account says that light was created on the first day. But the sun, moon, stars etc. weren't created until day 4.

 

That is not necessarily a discrepency. A state of light could exist without the sun, moon and stars. In the book of Revelation, there is light in the City of New Jerusalem that is not coming from sun, moon or stars, but from the Lamb of God. So, light is really just that, light.

 

Genesis 1:12 says that the earth & animals were created before man. Genesis 2:5 says that man was created first, then all the rest.

 

Well there were some animals such as the dinosaurs that went extinct right. Suppose the Dinosaurs were created first, became extinct, than man, then the other animals that we know about today. That would be an explanation for that discrepency.

 

There are tons and tons of discrepancies in the bible, and not limited to the Old Testament. For instance, when the Marys go to Jesus' tomb, the book of Luke (24:4) says that there were two men in dazzling robes that told them that Jesus had risen from the dead. But in Mark 18:5, there was only one man.

 

For each of your tons and tons of discrepencies, there appears to be a reconcilable explanation. First of all, thre is no Mark 18:5, Mark goes up to 16. ????

 

There are dozens, maybe even hundreds, of these little inconsistencies. Paul even recorded two different versions of his conversion.

 

You have not even provided one here.

 

Point is, the bible is not an historical document. Inspired, yes, but history, no. Yes, it's clear that Jesus lived, but his divinity is unclear.

 

Of course, spiritual things can not be discerened with a natural mind. His Divinity is something that can only be understood when you are born-again. Since the Bible teaches humanity is lost and in need of a saviour, and unless you can accept Jesus as sinless and Divine, or God in the flesh, then you are lost. That means that every sin that you have committed since you had knowledge of what is right and wrong, will be judged against you after you rise again from the dead. The wages of sin is death, which means hell.

 

Jesus came as a substitute for man's sin. By receiving Christ as Savior, you are placed in right standing with God, and will not be judged for your sins, as Jesus Christ was already judged for them, by placing faith in Him.

 

The bible is a series of documents written by something like 40 people over a time span of hundreds of years, so undoubtedly there will be some errors and omissions.

 

That doesn't make the bible any less powerful for believers, but it does mean that faith, as it were, demands a brain.

 

The Bible contains 66 books, and they all express the same theme throughout. That people need to receive Jesus Christ to get right with God.

The Old Testament is full of typologies of Jesus Christ, although His name is not explicitly mentioned, the themes and typologies of Christ are virtually everywhere.

 

Every one has sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is no amount of good works or deeds that can get anyone into heaven. Everybody has a sin-debt that can not be paid back any other way then receiving Jesus. Jesus is the only way to the Father.

[Greg25]

The 'two accounts' relate to the two seemingly different accounts of creation which occur in the first few chapters of Genesis. Plenty of scholars using a method called 'source criticism' split these two accounts into two separate sources used by two different writers (called 'P' and 'J' or the 'Priestly' and the 'Yahwist' sources) who then combined these two accounts into a single creation story. In fact, editing and re-arrangement of the books of the Bible occurs in a lot of places, and many books of the Bible may not have been written by those who authorship was traditionally attributed. The Bible itself as we have it, differs according to the branch of Christianity; Protestants have a different 'canon' from Catholics, while Catholics have a different 'canon' from Eastern Orthodox Christians. And then we have movements like the Mormons and the Gnostics, who claim to have divinely inspired scripture which is quite different from the Bible.

 

We then come to complicated issues over the 'authority' of the Bible and its interpretation. Do you regard the Bible as an infallible and inerrant book? Then what do you do when a Muslim claims the same for the Koran, or the Hindu the Upanishads? Why not include Homer, Virgil, Horace, or for that matter, Cicero, Dante, Petrarch and Shakespeare? What is the difference between a so called 'inspired' text and one that isn't 'inspired?'

 

I think more care and analysis has been done on the Bible more than any other book in the world, and in my view it shows the Bible was not handed down from heaven from a cloud of thunder in its perfect form in an instant, but accreted slowly over many centuries. The same is the case for the New Testament, since a canon for this was not set until about 200 A.D., and formalised by the time of Constantine and the Council of Nicea about two hundred years after that. And of course many theological ideas taken unquestioningly by many Christians were developed after that.

 

I guess I am saying you can read the Bible plainly in its literal sense and take it at face value, or read it using all the critical faculties and knowledge you can muster; in the end, what you get out of it, is up to you (and God's grace, if you believe in God).

[Nicholas]

Do you regard the Bible as an infallible and inerrant book?

 

I think that it can be both infallible and inerrant without neccesarily being historically accurate. I think part of the anti-intellectualism that comes out of Biblical literalism comes from a percieved attack on their traditional beliefs.

 

Religion doesn't have to be at odds with other more academic disciplines. I think maybe if the intellectuals of the world softened their approach, they'd win more faithful hearts and minds. Common sense dictates that it can't all be one hundred percent accurate, and I've yet to meet a Creationist who even understands basic evolutionary theory, but I don't think they're ever going to cross the fence if we continually present to them the false dilemma of choosing between what's accurate and what's religious.