-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
WalterTrull
Godfella
Metaphorically what it is and what it looks like. The mist, the mist.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
for the past 9yrs I have posted.....
Man as a species.....Day Six
no names, no garden, no law......
go forth be fruitful and multiply
dominate all things
THEN Chapter Two
a selected specimen and ideal living conditions
manipulation
anesthesia
surgery
cloning
genetic manipulation
a test
and release of the specimens into the enviroment
I don't think so.
Gen 1 is the correct chronological order. Gen 2 is about man but because of translation issues it is misunderstood. It is more of "and God had made" instead of God made
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
They also could be from different authors. Either way, to take them at the literal level versus the allegorical level doesn't make much sense to me as they simply don't fit together with what we do know about the beginning of the universe, which is actually very little of course.
The Bible is obviously very important, imo, but it's neither objective science nor objective history-- it's a book about faith and how to live morally. Of the thousand+ pages in the standard Bible, the issue of creation comprises so little of it that if one didn't read the first two chapters of Genesis they wouldn't even know that there is this thing called "creation". OTOH, if it was so important that we understand the p.c. version of creation, then it clearly would have been scattered throughout the Bible covering at the least a significant minority of what's found in it-- but it ain't.
Anyhow, that's my opinion and you know I'm right!
They also could be from different authors.
Anyhow, that's my opinion and you know I'm right!
You are right when you say"Could be" but my position is "definitely". Can I help it if I'm right?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I would be reluctant to call an unknown source written almost 3000 years ago "definite"-- unless you're a LOT ol-- er, I mean mature-- than I am, which we know cannot possibly be the case.You are right when you say"Could be" but my position is "definitely". Can I help it if I'm right?
Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Yahweh God planted a garden eastward, in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Genesis 2:7-8
God [Elohim] created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27
There are at least 2 differences to what Genesis 1 told.
1. Elohim in Genesis 1 and Yahweh in Genesis 2
2. Creating in Genesis 1 and forming in Genesis 2
It makes me wonder, why people think there are 2 creation stories, when only the first tells about creating, while the other speak about forming?
But maybe it is possible that they are actually about the same event, Genesis 2 just tells little more detailed version of it. I think there is no reason why they couldn’t be about the same thing. But it also could be possible that in Genesis 1, the man is Jesus and in the Genesis 2 Yahweh is Jesus.
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
Genesis 1, speaks of the creation of human beings, not of the man Adam.
Genesis 2 speaks of a barren earth in which all life had been destroyed, except for the seeds of some plants that were still in the earth, from which Jahel {Jah, Lord to the Glory of EL the creator] Planted a Garden, for the man that he had formed.
Last edited: