• 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!

Are there Two Creation Events in Genesis?

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Here is what I am not suggesting but showing you. If you look at Genesis 7 you can see that there are two different types of creatures getting on the ark. They are those “after his kind” and those “wherein is the breath of life”. The Bible is clear on this distinction.

Genesis 7: (13-15) 13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.



We see also the same distinction in both creation narratives. They are those “after his kind

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.



And those with the “the breath of life

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."



This distinction is not by chance. They are two different creations taking place here.
I strongly suggest you look to Richard Elliot Friedman, and his book "Who Wrote the Bible." He will help you to understand why these texts show the differences (as well as the similarities) that they do.

You appear to have this bizarre notion that the Bible (or at least Talmud) was written down all at once, possibly by God, or possibly by one person (let's call him "Shlomo the Scribe") listening to heavenly dictation. Sorry, but that simply ain't how it happened. Friedman can seriously help you understand what you are presently completely deluded by.
 

jhwatts

Member
Well, I do understand jhwatts' need to make sense of the two accounts of Genesis no matter how screwball his concocted scenario has to be.

In any case, should I take this to mean you buddy-up with jhwatts and his two creations?

.

I'm working hard not to stoop to your level but I can't help to comment on the amount of useful and relevant content in your post. By the way, the content of your small phrases strikes me as profound. It would be nice if you could show some small strip of substance in your posts. These small minded sarcastic comments are hard for me to work with, but maybe it's not as difficult as I am making it. You simply just have nothing of any substance to offer in that small brain of yours. You hide behind sarcasm rather than say something with meaning. What and who you are is very clear.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Nah. I'll take anything he's got. However, as it turns out---he has provided an answer---it's no less lame than I anticipated: see post 98.

.
Ah, yes, thank you for pointing me to that post. I think that my advice to him about Friedman, a few minutes ago, is even more keenly needed.
 

jhwatts

Member
I strongly suggest you look to Richard Elliot Friedman, and his book "Who Wrote the Bible." He will help you to understand why these texts show the differences (as well as the similarities) that they do.

You appear to have this bizarre notion that the Bible (or at least Talmud) was written down all at once, possibly by God, or possibly by one person (let's call him "Shlomo the Scribe") listening to heavenly dictation. Sorry, but that simply ain't how it happened. Friedman can seriously help you understand what you are presently completely deluded by.

I see you took the time to read some of the thread. I'm guessing it took some time.

I realize the Bible wasn't written all at once and over a period of. Speaking of logical, I find it hard assume a book wrote in 1987 can completely capture and explain the origin of the content a collection of manuscripts that has existed on the earth for over 2000 years.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I see you took the time to read some of the thread.

I realize the Bible wasn't written all at once and over a period of. Speaking of logical, I find it hard assume a book wrote in 1987 can completely capture and explain the origin of the content a collection of manuscripts that has existed on the earth for over 2000 years.
Why? what has the age of the books to do with anything? There are lots older ones that are still classics of human writing -- many of which are still held to be sacred , though perhaps not by you.

And Friedman's explanation of how those books came to be written is actually based on some pretty impressive scholarship -- by many, many scholars over many centuries. So I ask you -- have you read it? Are you interested? Or are you just going to -- as is usually the case -- ignore everything that does not cleave religiously to your thesis?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I'm working hard not to stoop to your level but I can't help to comment on the amount of useful and relevant content in your post. By the way, the content of your small phrases strikes me as profound. It would be nice if you could show some small strip of substance in your posts. These small minded sarcastic comments are hard for me to work with, but maybe it's not as difficult as I am making it. You simply just have nothing of any substance to offer in that small brain of yours. You hide behind sarcasm rather than say something with meaning. What and who you are is very clear.
Hey, Even if I could I would never demand that anyone reply to my posts. Reply, don't reply as you see fit. My only suggestion is that you recognize that by putting out really bizarre comments and answers you're inviting criticism, cynicism, and possible derision. So comments such as mine shouldn't come as a surprise. They come with the territory you've chosen to play in.

.
 
Last edited:

jhwatts

Member
Why? what has the age of the books to do with anything? There are lots older ones that are still classics of human writing -- many of which are still held to be sacred , though perhaps not by you.

And Friedman's explanation of how those books came to be written is actually based on some pretty impressive scholarship -- by many, many scholars over many centuries. So I ask you -- have you read it? Are you interested? Or are you just going to -- as is usually the case -- ignore everything that does not cleave religiously to your thesis?

It has a lot to do with it.

No I'm going to get it. Really. I'm always interested in anything that says something about the "evolution" of scripture.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Ah, yes, thank you for pointing me to that post. I think that my advice to him about Friedman, a few minutes ago, is even more keenly needed.
I agree; although, I think your talking to a deaf ear here. I believe he lacks the ability to reconcile his belief in the Bible with any possible errancy and is therefore compelled to devise explanations, no matter how outlandish, to save his faith................. I believe.

.


.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
1. There are two creation accounts. But the approach to this is not a "literal interpretation" as you are placing as a demand. (Please explain why this cannot be the? You can take a literal approach when you realize that the authors at that time conveyed what they thought in a different way than we do now, also translational errors, and degradation of manuscripts over time really have yielded a different document. This still doesn’t change their literal perception and how they recorded it. There are many differences from the original to deal with, people often assume by abstraction or symbolism a different message than the original literal intention.)
Okay. My apologies. I think I'm tracking with where you are heading here, and it's a lot deeper than I assumed. If I get you, I think you are saying that the different authors were writing the truth as they saw it, through their particular modalities they were operating out of in this time of history. That opens up a huge can of worms, one I'm more than happy to jump into with you discussing!

As an opening remark to that, are you hoping to see this from an anthropological question? That the redactors splicing these various stories together were hoping to convey some theological view, one that others never really got, and you're hoping to unravel? Not as a personal religious "I believe this is the truth of God!," business, but trying to take a new look at the old story, the myth we have been presented all these years?

Please tell me this is so... ;)
 

jhwatts

Member
Hey, Even if I could I'd never demand that anyone reply to my posts. Reply, don't reply as you see fit. My only suggestion is that you recognize that by putting out really bizarre comments and answers you're inviting criticism, cynicism, and possible derision. So comments such as mine shouldn't come as a surprise. They come with the territory you've chosen to play in.

.
Does criticism, cynicism, and possible derision add value to a debate? They add no value and are therefore unnecessary and pointless.

Also realize, because you perceive something as bizarre doesn't mean that it is to all. You or others might find it bizarre because you don't fully understand it.

This is frustrating because rather than having a thread on a specific topic that I and others could gain useful information and knowledge from, I have a thread packed full of useless garbage. I don't care who you are or what you believe, somebody could have gleaned some useful fragment of information from it.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
Does criticism, cynicism, and possible derision add value to a debate? They add no value and are therefore unnecessary and pointless.
Nothing to debate, hence my conclusion, which may sway others away from your position, which I would regard as having value. :)

Also realize, because you perceive something as bizarre doesn't mean that it is to all. You or others might find it bizarre because you don't fully understand it.
At least not to your understanding.

This is frustrating because rather than having a thread on a specific topic that I and others could gain useful information and knowledge from, I have a thread packed full of useless garbage. I don't care who you are or what you believe, somebody could have gleaned some useful fragment of information from it.
Are you under the impression because I or other doubters express our impressions of your contention that this prevents others from agreeing with you? All those "somebodys" are free to glean whatever useful fragment of information you care to present.

.
 
Last edited:

jhwatts

Member
Nothing to debate, hence my conclusion, which may sway others away from your position, which I would regard as having value. :)


At least not to your understanding.

Are you under the impression because I or other doubters express our impressions of your contention that this prevents others from agreeing with you? All those "somebodys" are free to glean whatever useful fragment of information you care to present. ()

.


It took you a while to return. I figured you had broke your crayon from squeezing it to hard. I know you like to write with your hand wrapped around it.

Nothing to debate (You perceive it as such due your limited understanding on the matter.), hence my conclusion, which may sway others away from your position, which I would regard as having value.

I At least not to your understanding. (How would you know?)

Are you under the impression because I or other doubters express our impressions of your contention that this prevents others from agreeing with you? (Yes. You and others have destroyed the order of the thread with pointless information.) All those "somebodys" are free to glean whatever useful fragment of information you care to present.

I see I have finally manged to squeeze some semi-meaningful content out of you.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Skwim said:
Are you under the impression because I or other doubters express our impressions of your contention that this prevents others from agreeing with you? All those "somebodys" are free to glean whatever useful fragment of information you care to present.

I see I have finally manged to squeeze some semi-meaningful content out of you.
Glad to have been of help.

.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
The first male and female were created on the 6th day, Gen 1:26-31.

And then God rested on the 7th day. And then after the 7th day had pass.
Gen 2:2

Then on the day following the 7th day.

God formed man from the dust of the earth
Gen 2:7

And then shortly after, God made female.
Gen 2:21-22

Therefore the male and female that were created on the 6th day, Is not the same male and female that were created on the day following the 7th day.

The 7th day stands there as a Separation between the first male and female and the second male and female.

To note Genesis 1:1"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Note that it doesn't say when God created the heaven and the earth.
Only in the beginning, when ever that was.

Alot of Christians as alot of people take this completely out of context.

The earth was already here, covered with water.
We know by the dinosaurs bones and other thing found that the earth as being Millions if not Billions of years old.

And not 6000 years old, as people suspected the earth to be.

There is no where in the bible that supports the earth as being 6000 years old.
But much older than people have been taught.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Yes, but are there two different creations?

Are those of the dust of the earth and those made in the likeness of God different?

I believe anything that is made that was not previously made is a creation. Things made by God or at his behest are creations of God.

The first creation in Gen. 1 is the original creation and God called it good.

The creation of Adam from the earth (blood clot) by the gods is actually a cloning of a blood clot in a bone taken from the earth by the gods who were acting at the behest of God. Cloning this way was the inspiration for the movie, Jurassic Park.
 
Top