• 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!

Two Creation Accounts?

Earthling

David Henson
" But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Genesis 2:6

Alright then. From the Hebrew weʼedh′ Greek pe·ge′ Latin fons. Could also be translated as "vapor," or "fountain."

The dew that formed when night air loaded with water vapor cooled and deposited the condensed liquid form on cooler object before it had ever rained on earth separates the two creation accounts indicating what?

Now ancient translators, such as those of the Vulgate, thought, due to the Latin translation of the Hebrew, that the term meant fountain which indicated to them, incorrectly, that the verse was talking about an underground stream, thus leading to a fountain.

Now, some folks interpret Genesis 1:9-13 to mean that the plants were started off as full grown without germinating from the seed, but that isn't the case . . . not to go off topic, but I don't see what effect the mist you speak of would have anything to do with the two creation accounts being contradictory.

Do you?
 

Earthling

David Henson
I am not Hebrew scholar but I do read what those who are have to say, and it is very easy for one to google this. If you want to argue this, I'm not really interested.

I can google flat earth but that doesn't make it true. At least the unbelievers have the guts to defend their positions.
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
Your "sigh" is hilarious. Reminds me of pots and kettles... and the color black.

"You're wrong in your made-up stories because mist!"
"No - you're wrong in your made-up mist because stories!"

I know. Unbelievers like to think there's no making any sense of it because that would require thought.

If you make up a story and I interpret to mean something that it obviously doesn't that don't render the text to your liking, though, so . . . test me.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
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.

I agree that this is not so much a contradiction as it is two different approaches to an overlapping topic. If we don't take the story as literal history (which I would heartily recommend) we can understand that the authors probably didn't either nor did they particularly wish the two accounts to seem incoherent. Probably they had some previous traditional stories they were adapting and they may even wanted their stories to raise the same ideas from the previous stories and thereby reconfigure those older motifs into a new understanding pertaining to the God that the authors were molding as they were writing.

There are, after all, many signs that the Goddess has been surgically removed and/or demoted in these stories (I'm referring to the greater part of Genesis) and that the female characters stand in mainly to serve as the vehicle of invoking those feminine qualities of deity while reducing them to imperfect and failed aspects of human experience before a masculine God.
 

Earthling

David Henson
I agree that this is not so much a contradiction as it is two different approaches to an overlapping topic. If we don't take the story as literal history (which I would heartily recommend) we can understand that the authors probably didn't either nor did they particularly wish the two accounts to seem incoherent. Probably they had some previous traditional stories they were adapting and they may even wanted their stories to raise the same ideas from the previous stories and thereby reconfigure those older motifs into a new understanding pertaining to the God that the authors were molding as they were writing.

There are, after all, many signs that the Goddess has been surgically removed and/or demoted in these stories (I'm referring to the greater part of Genesis) and that the female characters stand in mainly to serve as the vehicle of invoking those feminine qualities of deity while reducing them to imperfect and failed aspects of human experience before a masculine God.

I think that what you see in modern day Christian theology is a perceived need to dismiss the text as literal due to it's medieval interpretation not being in harmony with current science. That makes them look stupid. The difficulty with that is the medieval interpretation isn't the Biblical interpretation, so they dismiss Adam and sin as allegory and come up empty handed when the need for a Messiah for Adam's sin is proposed.

They basically dismiss the Bible for the traditions of man. God's word or man's word?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
The two creation accounts...
TWO?!?

You must have missed this one:
Native American Creation Stories | The American Yawp Reader
The earth is a great island floating in a sea of water, and suspended at each of the four cardinal points by a cord hanging down from the sky vault, which is of solid rock. When the world grows old and worn out, the people will die and the cords will break and let the earth sink down into the ocean, and all will be water again.
...
When all was water, the animals were above in Gälûñ’lätï, beyond the arch; but it was very much crowded, and they were wanting more room.
...
At first the earth was flat and very soft and wet. The animals were anxious to get down, and sent out different birds to see if it was yet dry, but they found no place to alight and came back again to Gälûñ’lätï.
...
When the earth was dry and the animals came down, it was still dark, so they got the sun and set it in a track to go every day across the island from east to west, just overhead.
...
Men came after the animals and plants. At first there were only a brother and sister until he struck her with a fish and told her to multiply, and so it was. In seven days a child was born to her, and thereafter every seven days another, and they increased very fast until there was danger that the world could not keep them. Then it was made that a woman should have only one child in a year, and it has been so ever since.
 

TheresOnlyNow

The Mind Is Everything. U R What U Think
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.

I borrowed a scholars study audio book produced by one of the foremost scholars concerning old testament studies just so as to answer that question a few years ago. Why two different creation accounts.
There I was ready to hear this expert give an educated answer.

What was it?
"That's just the way they talked in those times."

There have through the centuries been a lot of twists and turns proffered by so called scholars who choose to defend the claim the Bible is inerrant.
But when one such glaring issue is there in the beginning, and is not able to be answered with reason, I think we have to be honest and realize the truth. Over 40 different authors and numerous councils throughout history have managed to create what we today call God's word. And which is not and never has been the title of the tome itself.

If you really want to delve into the, how's that, part of the creation story look at the Enuma Elish belonging to ancient Sumer and predating the OT account by centuries.

The Eridu = Ancient Sumerian garden of Eden
Eridu: The Sumerian Garden of Eden and the Oldest City in the World?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
but tell us how one determines if Peanut Butter or Jelly allegedly wrote the text?

By studying the various oral traditions handed down and eventually formed a national saga and probably under Solomon 10th cent, this saga was put into writing, the tradition identified as the first and designated Yahwehistic (J) simply because the author preferred 'Yahweh' as the divine name. After the division of the kingdom the tradition came down in the northern kingdom and penned probably in the eighth cent. and named 'E' due to the author's preference for 'Elohim' as the divine name.
After the destruction of the northern kingdom 'E' document went south to Judah and was joined to the 'J' document. The 'P' tradition the last to be written contained codified their legal traditions, now known as Deuteronomy or 'D' tradition. Supposedly it contains the legal traditions of the Jerusalem priesthood and is believed to be from very ancient sources. Of course all this is a hypothesis, just as the two source theory of the Gospels.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
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.

Or perhaps written in its original language the text was not contradictory. However translations caused them to seem to contradict.
 

Earthling

David Henson
TWO?!?

You must have missed this one:
Native American Creation Stories | The American Yawp Reader
The earth is a great island floating in a sea of water, and suspended at each of the four cardinal points by a cord hanging down from the sky vault, which is of solid rock. When the world grows old and worn out, the people will die and the cords will break and let the earth sink down into the ocean, and all will be water again.
...
When all was water, the animals were above in Gälûñ’lätï, beyond the arch; but it was very much crowded, and they were wanting more room.
...
At first the earth was flat and very soft and wet. The animals were anxious to get down, and sent out different birds to see if it was yet dry, but they found no place to alight and came back again to Gälûñ’lätï.
...
When the earth was dry and the animals came down, it was still dark, so they got the sun and set it in a track to go every day across the island from east to west, just overhead.
...
Men came after the animals and plants. At first there were only a brother and sister until he struck her with a fish and told her to multiply, and so it was. In seven days a child was born to her, and thereafter every seven days another, and they increased very fast until there was danger that the world could not keep them. Then it was made that a woman should have only one child in a year, and it has been so ever since.

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

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I do not consider the accounts of Genesis meaningful in the contemporary world regardless.

They are simply reworkings of ancient Sumerian mythology from their texts. They are interesting as historical literature, but no different than the ancient mythology of other cultures of the world.
 
Last edited:
Most people tend to view religious texts as they would a novel or magazine article -- i.e..a single author sat down one day and wrote a synopsis and summary in sequential fashion in a single sitting. Genesis is not a singular work by a singular individual at one moment in time. it is an amalgamation of many different traditions, both oral and written. The Genesis account was not composed as a single body of work. What you read reflects many ideas and traditions that were shared orally over many centuries then put down in bits and pieces in written form by many different individuals...then finally assembled as a single account many centuries later.
 

Earthling

David Henson
By studying the various oral traditions handed down and eventually formed a national saga and probably under Solomon 10th cent, this saga was put into writing, the tradition identified as the first and designated Yahwehistic (J) simply because the author preferred 'Yahweh' as the divine name. After the division of the kingdom the tradition came down in the northern kingdom and penned probably in the eighth cent. and named 'E' due to the author's preference for 'Elohim' as the divine name.
After the destruction of the northern kingdom 'E' document went south to Judah and was joined to the 'J' document. The 'P' tradition the last to be written contained codified their legal traditions, now known as Deuteronomy or 'D' tradition. Supposedly it contains the legal traditions of the Jerusalem priesthood and is believed to be from very ancient sources. Of course all this is a hypothesis, just as the two source theory of the Gospels.

The documentary theory claims that documents on which the Pentateuch were based were not written by Moses, but rather they were written by various authors much later, beginning in the tenth century B.C.. It claims the Pentateuch was written by four primary sources. They are called "J" (Jahwist), "E" (Elohim), "P" (Priest Codex) and "D" (Deuteronomy). The alleged reasoning behind this division is that these various authors used various terms for God, and their styles varied as well. Their clams are often wrong. For example, the word bara (created) is used at [1] The real foundation of these claims, however, seems to come from a natural proclivity to deny the possibility of the supernatural. If the alleged prophecies of Daniel were fulfilled by the second century B.C.E. then that book must have been written at that time.

Though much of the documentary hypothesis has fallen out of favor with scholars in the late 20th century, a great deal of it remains popular with atheists who are in need of affirmation of their position on the supernatural, so there have been subtle changes in the theory which pretty much fall under the same problematic conclusions.

[1] Ancient Orient and Old Testament, by K. A. Kitchen, 1968, p. 115
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I do not consider the accounts of Genesis meaningful in the contemporary world regardless.

They are simply reworkings of ancient Sumerian mythology from their texts.
Likely true, and we spent several sessions going through this probable connection at our Torah study at the synagogue I used to belong to. This is what all societies have done historically, but saying that doesn't tend to please the "true believers" as they tend to think their religion/denomination is right and all others are nonsense-- just a variation of "my daddy is bigger than your daddy".
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
I do not consider the accounts of Genesis meaningful in the contemporary world regardless.

They are simply reworkings of ancient Sumerian mythology from their texts.

It's funny though, here we are talking about the Bible and not the alleged Sumerian mythology. I think you just think that way because, like I said, the medieval interpretation of the Bible isn't perceived as modern day intellectualism. The trouble with that, as I've said, is that the medieval interpretation isn't accurate.
 

WalterTrull

Godfella
I don't see what effect the mist you speak of would have anything to do with the two creation accounts being contradictory.
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.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
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....

I think they don’t even give different order. Genesis 1 speaks literally about creation, Genesis 2 speaks about how God formed and planted certain things in Eden. Genesis 2 is not about the order of creation.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Alright then. From the Hebrew weʼedh′ Greek pe·ge′ Latin fons. Could also be translated as "vapor," or "fountain."

The dew that formed when night air loaded with water vapor cooled and deposited the condensed liquid form on cooler object before it had ever rained on earth separates the two creation accounts indicating what?

Now ancient translators, such as those of the Vulgate, thought, due to the Latin translation of the Hebrew, that the term meant fountain which indicated to them, incorrectly, that the verse was talking about an underground stream, thus leading to a fountain.

Now, some folks interpret Genesis 1:9-13 to mean that the plants were started off as full grown without germinating from the seed, but that isn't the case . . . not to go off topic, but I don't see what effect the mist you speak of would have anything to do with the two creation accounts being contradictory.

Do you?
What is the oldest written account of genesis and the oldest complete account of genesis?
 

Earthling

David Henson
I borrowed a scholars study audio book produced by one of the foremost scholars concerning old testament studies just so as to answer that question a few years ago. Why two different creation accounts.
There I was ready to hear this expert give an educated answer.

What was it?
"That's just the way they talked in those times."

There have through the centuries been a lot of twists and turns proffered by so called scholars who choose to defend the claim the Bible is inerrant.
But when one such glaring issue is there in the beginning, and is not able to be answered with reason, I think we have to be honest and realize the truth. Over 40 different authors and numerous councils throughout history have managed to create what we today call God's word. And which is not and never has been the title of the tome itself.

If you really want to delve into the, how's that, part of the creation story look at the Enuma Elish belonging to ancient Sumer and predating the OT account by centuries.

The Eridu = Ancient Sumerian garden of Eden
Eridu: The Sumerian Garden of Eden and the Oldest City in the World?

Well, I don't claim the Bible is inerrant, but to say that two versions of one account is contradictory because they are given in different orders is just desperation.
 
Top