Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Basic textual criticism.
No, it doesn't. It theologically explores our beginnings.
Implicitly, yes.
No, it simply attempts to shove it in a closet and pretend that it doesn't exist.
Genesis has nothing to do with either evolution or science.
So... you call the first person to apprehend God "Human?"
there's a difference between being "closed-minded" and being "realistic."
Is woman created twice?
Gen 1:27 says:
And God proceeded to create man in his image, in Gods image he created him; male and female he created them.
In Gen 2:18 we see that Adam is on his own again. What happened to Adam's first wife?
Followed by, Gen 2:22, where God now makes woman out of a rib.
the first discrepancy, then animals were made after man in chapter 2 verse 18 to 20; another discrepancy! Then the tree happened "chapter 2 verse 17 if you eat from that tree you will die the same day! Eve told the snake about it, he said no; you will only become clever, they ate and became clever we are here and talking about it; who lied the snake or God? The Messiah said in the book of John; you have been worshipping the Devil since the beginning, a liar and murderer, should we compare Genesis chapter 1 to chapter 2 verse 4 with Genesis chapter 2 verse 5 to 25 and using a logical mind we will find a very interesting story!
Nope. The two stories are theologically disconnected.
Except that chap. 2 is actually earlier...Chapter 1 verse 24; all animals were made; verse 26; now we (plural) will make man; all of them male and female they will be like us (plural) male and female! No specific place was mentioned only earth, a big place. Chapter 2 verse 7 man was made; then in verse 8 a garden after man! remember plants were made before man in chapter1 verse 11!
No need to worry, both man and woman were created only once as in the poem called "when on high" (strange that Genesis chapter 1 is so almost identical to it!), recited in Babylon on a yearly festival in honour of the gods, found on clay tablets dated plus minus 850 B.C .
Chapter 2 is the start of a religion based on the above but terribly misused.
Yes, but in one story the Creator is El. In the other, the Creator is YHWH.:foot:
But in entirely different theological constructions.
But in entirely different theological constructions.
It makes a real difference how God is named, because the name is indicative of the theological thought involved in the identification through nomenclature. In other words, I can't call God "anything" and communicate a consistent theological understanding of God. The nomenclature has to be consistent with the theology. Two names: Two theological constructions.
Not the same, consistent story.
Well, of course one God, as seen by the redactors. They took the ancient El tradition and the ancient YHWH tradition and glommed them together. But originally, they were two different perspectives, two different stories.
Absolutely! One can't lead to Two, because chapter Two is the earlier of the two stories.
Well, we know that Moses didn't write Genesis. Genesis has at least four authors, from four different traditions. That part's OK. However, at that point it departs reality. chapter two isn't a "rewrite" of chapter one. How can it be, if chapter two is older than chapter one???
