Two Creation Accounts?

metis said:

Contrary to the belief of some, the Documentary Hypothesis has not fallen out of favor but instead been added to by some other hypotheses. typically based on oral traditions being passed on down. The idea that Moses wrote the Torah has been discounted by biblical scholars with the primary exception of those within more fundamentalist denominations. There simply is not one shred of evidence to support the concept that Moshe wrote them all.

Click to expand...

It seems complicated, and I have never felt like it was more than a model. It appeared in the heyday of evolutionary theory. The idea that scripture could evolve is an interesting one, but I just don't think we can track the original sources with word studies. Nobody seems to be tracking the evolution of the ideas in the Bible. I note that Karen Armstrong's book never mentions any of the concepts in the surrounding cultures how they may have influenced the Bible or contrasted them. Where could Biblical ideas have come from? Noah's story looks a lot like Gilgamesh's story but the ideas are opposite. The results are opposite. Noah doesn't evolve from Gilgamesh nor Gilgamesh from Noah. The concept of evolution breaks down. Maybe we can track original sources but not without tracking ideas. I'm not getting it.

I hate hearing concrete assurances (not by you but in general) that we now know how the Bible evolves. We don't. We are still learning things about the cultures in the Bible.

Earthling said:

Why the contradiction in the two creation accounts of Genesis 1:1-4:26?

The two creation accounts are given in different order, but that doesn't make them contradictory. The first account is a chronological account (Genesis 1:1-2:4) and the second account is a topical account. (Genesis 2:5-4:26) The first account is a chronological description of the creation of the heavens and earth and it's inhabitants. The second account describes the human race and the fall into sin, introducing various aspects of the story as they are necessary.

Click to expand...

The purposeful contrast is there to give us something to chew on. A recent book (1965) on it available at B&N is The Lonely Man of Faith.
The Lonely Man of Faith by Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Earthling said:

Isn't the common threads in mythology interesting? Just think! All of those stories came from the scattering after the tower of Babel!

Click to expand...

WalterTrull said:

I feel that the first account is an attempt to describe actual creation. Then mist comes up from the earth and through the haze we get what creation looks like to us, the second account.

Click to expand...

TheresOnlyNow said:

Desperate how?

Click to expand...

Desperately searching for explanations that must deny the supernatural or appear at least philosophic in a modern sense in order to appease the intellectual or academic. Not to make them look stupid.

ecco said:

Click to expand...

That's cute. I like that.

metis said:

Thanks for showing why I made the choice I did.

Click to expand...

You didn't need me to make that choice.

sealchan said:

The only irony is for any "man" to think they know "God's word" while claiming that another equally sincere and intelligent man does not.

Click to expand...

But that's exactly what you are doing.

ecco said:

Click to expand...

OK, who snapped my "just rolled out of bed" picture? Huh? Fess up sneaky one with the camera.

shunyadragon said:

The Dead Sea scrolls has much of the text of Genesis.. and are roughly from between 200BCE and 100CE

Click to expand...

Thank you that is what I could find. My understanding was that they were not complete however and the complete genesis much later. Either way that is a long time from the first proposal of the genesis belief which as in all oral traditions would be altered many times over and certainty not exact.

Earthling said:

Are you referring to extant manuscripts?

Click to expand...

I was referring to any intact written account of genesis. As just pointed out the oldest written genesis was at best 200 bce with the dead see scrolls and not complete. A complete version came much later. So for much of the time the story of genesis was a combination of an oral tradition initially and later copied over and over which makes the exact wording in its original form unattainable. This of course is not a problem when treated as a myth which it most certainly is. There the primary meaning can be preserved even if detail change significantly of time. The people who first came up with the creation myth were probably nomadic and with a very limited understanding of the natural world. To use their explanation as the precise explanation seems to me to be the worst misuse of the story and ignoring the message for impossible facts.

I always thought that the issue with creation accounts in general is not their internal consistency but the fact that that they always leave the most fundamental questions unanswered. Every religious school of thought involving a deity(s) has its own historical account of creation. They all answer the most basic of questions---who created it? how did it take place? where did living things come from? ..etc. etc.

The big question that Genesis or any other creation story never attempts to address or answer is-- Why? Why did creation happen to begin with?

Did the creator one day become bored and decided to relieve the boredom? Was the creator compelled in some way to create? If so, by who/what? At one point in time did the creator become lonely and decide to create company ?

These questions have never been addressed by any of the major monotheistic religions. I believe the reason is that any affirmative answer would imply the creator was imperfect and not infallible. Infinite and perfect beings do not become bored or lonely like mortals and are not compelled to action by any other entity or cause. We are just left with an incomplete and rudimentary explanation that simply starts with, .'In the beginning.....'.

Baladas said:

I prefer a literal interpretation of the Enuma Elish. It's more fun.

In all seriousness though, I deeply enjoy mythology and I do feel that it can be meaningful.
It probably shouldn't ever dictate someone's worldview though in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Well, I may have a different view of what is meaningful. I like mythology in the context of the ancient cultures of the world, and it provides some context for what ancient people believe and the context of their cultures. I do like studying anthropology.

Ah . . . but for being meaningful in the context of today's world, no.

lostwanderingsoul said:

Well how about this for a crazy idea. There were actually two creations. God made the earth millions of years ago and it was beautiful and perfect. Over millions of years it became empty and void. ( Not the way it was made ) Then a few thousand years ago God RE-created a new earth by transforming the old one. This way both those who believe in an old earth and those who believe in a new earth can be happy. And nothing in the Bible says this could not be true. So, crazy? Or just too hard for most people to see?

Click to expand...

It is indeed a crazy idea, actually a bizzaro loulou, and just as ridiculous as either version being remotely a realistic Creation account.

Earthling said:

Why the contradiction in the two creation accounts of Genesis 1:1-4:26?

The two creation accounts are given in different order, but that doesn't make them contradictory. The first account is a chronological account (Genesis 1:1-2:4) and the second account is a topical account. (Genesis 2:5-4:26) The first account is a chronological description of the creation of the heavens and earth and it's inhabitants. The second account describes the human race and the fall into sin, introducing various aspects of the story as they are necessary.

Click to expand...

Two contradicting creation accounts

Earthling said:

Why the contradiction in the two creation accounts of Genesis 1:1-4:26?

The two creation accounts are given in different order, but that doesn't make them contradictory. The first account is a chronological account (Genesis 1:1-2:4) and the second account is a topical account. (Genesis 2:5-4:26) The first account is a chronological description of the creation of the heavens and earth and it's inhabitants. The second account describes the human race and the fall into sin, introducing various aspects of the story as they are necessary.

Click to expand...

The stories of Genesis are not about HOW the universe came to be but WHY. They are myth [1].

Moreover there are numerous creation myths in the Bible. Here is one list by Tom McLeish.

(1) Proverbs 8 The birth of Wisdom and her co-creative role

(2) Psalm 33 The Creative Word

(3) Psalm 104 Dynamic Creation – fruitfulness at the boundaries

(4) Jeremiah 10 True (the world) and false (idols) creation

(5) Jeremiah 4 An ‘anti-creation’ story: rolling it all back when humans disobey

(6) Isaiah 28 Creation and the husbandry of agriculture

(7) Isaiah 40 Numbering the structures of the cosmos

(8) Isaiah 45 Creation is the backdrop to history

(9) Isaiah 11 The hope of a New Creation

(10) Hosea 2 A New Covenant with Creation

(11) Genesis 1 The Cosmos is God’s real Temple

(12) Genesis 2 Creation as ordering and forming

(13) Psalm 89 Creation is God’s dominion

(14) Psalm 8 Humankind’s glory in creation

(15) Psalm 19 Creation re-echoes God’s creative Word

(16) Psalm 102v25 Foundations of the earth and heavens

(17) Job 26 Spreading out the skies and suspending the earth

(18) Job 28 Wisdom is the perception and measure of creation with God

(19) Job 38 Measuring out the foundations of the earth and heavens

(20) John 1 Logos as the creative form

(21) Revelation 21 The New Creation

[1] I use myth here not in the ordinary sense of a falsehood but in the sense of a truth too deep for mere words.

kiwimac said:

[1] I use myth here not in the ordinary sense of a falsehood but in the sense of a truth too deep for mere words.

Click to expand...

And that is the key to understanding the biblical accounts. We wouldn't have this problem if Gen began with 'Once Upon a Time'. Another key to the creation account is the realization that the final form of the Pentateuch that we read today was compiled during the Babylonian exile and the temptation of the exiles to adopt their religious rites. Gen is of little priority other than to give a 'history' of the people of Exodus. God's inspiration must be related in terms of what is common at the time.

Earthling said:

But that's exactly what you are doing.

Click to expand...

I thought that was what you were doing. Doh!

metis said:

There simply is not one shred of evidence to support the concept that Moshe wrote them all.

Click to expand...

Bur this does not deny the role of Moses in the development of the Pentateuch. It is true we do not conceive of him as the author of the books in the modern sense. But there is no reason to doubt that, in the events described in these traditions, he had a uniquely important role, especially as lawgiver. Even the later laws which have been added in P and D are presented as a Mosaic heritage. Moses is the lawgiver par excellence, and all later legislation is conceived in his spirit, and therefore attributed to him. Hence, the reader is not held to undeviating literalness in interpreting the words, "the LORD said to Moses." One must keep in mind that the Pentateuch is the crystallization of Israel's age-old relationship with God.

BubbaGumps said:

The big question that Genesis or any other creation story never attempts to address or answer is-- Why? Why did creation happen to begin with?

Did the creator one day become bored and decided to relieve the boredom? Was the creator compelled in some way to create? If so, by who/what? At one point in time did the creator become lonely and decide to create company ?

These questions have never been addressed by any of the major monotheistic religions. I believe the reason is that any affirmative answer would imply the creator was imperfect and not infallible. Infinite and perfect beings do not become bored or lonely like mortals and are not compelled to action by any other entity or cause. We are just left with an incomplete and rudimentary explanation that simply starts with, .'In the beginning.....'.

Click to expand...

Good questions indeed.

Gods do nothing for 99.9999999999999999999999999999+% of eternity before they actually do something. The result is not very good especially the Genesis version. In that one, god killed (almost) everybody and everything and had to start over.