• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Two Conflicting Biblical creation accounts

Paradox74

Unregistered
P
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
262
NOTE: Bible references are from the Old King James Bible

From time to time, I’ve encountered some Christian apologists who claim that there is no contradiction in the creation stories of Genesis. However, when I read Genesis chapter 1 and 2, I still see these contradictions. The most glaring one, for example, is Genesis 1:26-1:27 which mentions man and woman being created at the same time on day 5, while Genesis 2:5 states that on the 7th day, “there was not a man to till the ground”. Also, in Genesis 2:7, “God formed man of the dust of the ground”, but woman wasn’t created until in Genesis 2:21-2:22. To summarize it all, in the first chapter, man and woman were created simultaneously. However, in the 2nd, man came before woman.

For the sake of the argument from these Christian apologists, let’s just pretend that there are no contradictions in these two Creation accounts. We are still left with two copies of a single creation story. Why would Yahweh have two duplicate stories of creation in the book of Genesis? It doesn’t seem rational or practical to do this.

Also, on a side note, I noticed that in Genesis 1:26, God says “Let us make man in our image”. Is this an early reference to angles, the supposed early Hebrew polytheistic beliefs, or was it just some typo in the Old King James Version? If anyone out there has an answer and an explanation for these questions and contradictions, please let me know. (No. The phrase, “Embrace Jesus as your Savoir and it would make sense to you”, is not a good explanation. Period.)

Posts and comments are welcome.
 
Paradox74 said:
Also, on a side note, I noticed that in Genesis 1:26, God says “Let us make man in our image”. Is this an early reference to angles, the supposed early Hebrew polytheistic beliefs, or was it just some typo in the Old King James Version?
Click to expand...

Royal figures often referred to themselves in the plural.
 
Paradox74 said:
Also, on a side note, I noticed that in Genesis 1:26, God says “Let us make man in our image”. Is this an early reference to angles, the supposed early Hebrew polytheistic beliefs, or was it just some typo in the Old King James Version? If anyone out there has an answer and an explanation for these questions and contradictions, please let me know. (No. The phrase, “Embrace Jesus as your Savoir and it would make sense to you”, is not a good explanation. Period.)

Posts and comments are welcome.
Click to expand...
Let us make man in our image at about 90°. :)

Yes, it appears that there are two separate creation stories just kind of bolted together, probably from different sources. The "us", I believe, is not incorrect as a translation. I've heard it suggested that this is a reference to the trinity, but some sort of polytheistic Hebrew (or earlier) beliefs would seem to me a more likely explanation.
 
Pure_Argent said:
Royal figures often referred to themselves in the plural.
Click to expand...

Is this true for the Hebrew language in the culture of Israel at about 1000 BCE? Can you site other examples from our text? Counter examples?
 
Last edited:
shadron said:
Is this true for the Hebrew language in the culture of Israel at about 1000 BCE? Can you site other examples from our text? Counter examples?
Click to expand...

From the Hebrew? No. But this is from the King James Bible, which was written during a time when the phrase was in use. Does it actually say "we" in the Hebrew?
 
Paradox74 said:
NOTE: Bible references are from the Old King James Bible

From time to time, I’ve encountered some Christian apologists who claim that there is no contradiction in the creation stories of Genesis. However, when I read Genesis chapter 1 and 2, I still see these contradictions. The most glaring one, for example, is Genesis 1:26-1:27 which mentions man and woman being created at the same time on day 5, while Genesis 2:5 states that on the 7th day, “there was not a man to till the ground”. Also, in Genesis 2:7, “God formed man of the dust of the ground”, but woman wasn’t created until in Genesis 2:21-2:22. To summarize it all, in the first chapter, man and woman were created simultaneously. However, in the 2nd, man came before woman.

For the sake of the argument from these Christian apologists, let’s just pretend that there are no contradictions in these two Creation accounts. We are still left with two copies of a single creation story. Why would Yahweh have two duplicate stories of creation in the book of Genesis? It doesn’t seem rational or practical to do this.

Also, on a side note, I noticed that in Genesis 1:26, God says “Let us make man in our image”. Is this an early reference to angles, the supposed early Hebrew polytheistic beliefs, or was it just some typo in the Old King James Version? If anyone out there has an answer and an explanation for these questions and contradictions, please let me know. (No. The phrase, “Embrace Jesus as your Savoir and it would make sense to you”, is not a good explanation. Period.)

Posts and comments are welcome.
Click to expand...

The kabbalah says that the first creation was destroyed by fire when YHVH extened justice without compassion and mercy, and so the whole thinh went kaaaboooom, and they had to start over.
 
Pure_Argent said:
From the Hebrew? No. But this is from the King James Bible, which was written during a time when the phrase was in use. Does it actually say "we" in the Hebrew?
Click to expand...

In Hebrew plurals are often used as "intensives," i.e. a more intense version of the original word. Thus, Elohim can either mean '"gods" and intensive form of god, implying "the god of all gods."

As to the fundamentalist / creationist assertion that there is no contradiction between the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2, you'll be banging your head against a wall on that and other doublets. They have rationalizations for everything.
 
TimCallahan said:
In Hebrew plurals are often used as "intensives," i.e. a more intense version of the original word. Thus, Elohim can either mean '"gods" and intensive form of god, implying "the god of all gods."
Click to expand...

Ah. Thanks - I didn't know that.
So I guess the "we" could mean either thing. If it's trying to stay true to the Hebrew, then that could explain it - it could be intensive like TimCallahan says. Or it could just be that the translators decided to make their god talk like a royal figure of the day.
 
the Midrash of Rabbi Ammi states
He took counsel with His own heart
Click to expand...
Thats about as definitive an answer you'll find on that one. He was basically talking to himself, we already know he was talking to himself anyway don't we, because there was noone else around to hear him say

Let there be light
Click to expand...

Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters
Click to expand...

Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear
Click to expand...

Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth
Click to expand...
etc etc etc

on the other hand the Midrash of Rabbi Hanina states
He consulted the ministering angels
Click to expand...

so take your pick

of course this is a bit moot as the Bible, particularly Genesis is a work of fiction plagiarised from Mesopotamian sources. The Mesopotamian version contains no such contradiction having seven men and seven women created at the first instance
;)
 
It always struck me as being two separate lectures on the same topic.

"Okay, class, last time we talked about the creation of the world, and I said that man and woman were created from the dust of the ground. Today, we're going to look at the creation of humanity in more detail."
 
Madalch said:
It always struck me as being two separate lectures on the same topic.

"Okay, class, last time we talked about the creation of the world, and I said that man and woman were created from the dust of the ground. Today, we're going to look at the creation of humanity in more detail."
Click to expand...

There are anmber of problems with trying to reconcile Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis 1 God first creates all the plants and animals, then make men and women together, after everything else is made. In Genesis 2 God makes Adam out of clay, then creates all the animals, then makes Eve out of Adam's rib.

The God of Gen. 1 merely speaks, and his word creates. Everything he makes is good. The God of Gen. 2 putters. First he forms a man, then it occurs to him that "it isn't good for the man to be alone." Then he creates allthe animals in an effort to make a "helpmeet." None of thes quite fill the bill - which is good , 'cause otherwise we maight have men and kangaroos rather than men and women - so God does the rib thing.

The problem of men and women being created together vs. Eve being made from Adam's rib, was so unreconcilable that a rabbi in the tenth century came up twith the Midrash Abkir, in which he said there were actually two women, Lilith, made co-equal with Adam, and Eve, made from Adam's rib atfter Lilith refused to let Adam get on top during sex.
 
Of Adam's first wife, Lilith, it is told
(The witch he loved before the gift of Eve,)
That, ere the snake's, her sweet tongue could deceive,
And her enchanted hair was the first gold.​
 
TimCallahan said:
There are anmber of problems with trying to reconcile Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis 1 God first creates all the plants and animals, then make men and women together, after everything else is made. In Genesis 2 God makes Adam out of clay, then creates all the animals, then makes Eve out of Adam's rib.

The God of Gen. 1 merely speaks, and his word creates. Everything he makes is good. The God of Gen. 2 putters. First he forms a man, then it occurs to him that "it isn't good for the man to be alone." Then he creates allthe animals in an effort to make a "helpmeet." None of thes quite fill the bill - which is good , 'cause otherwise we maight have men and kangaroos rather than men and women - so God does the rib thing.
The problem of men and women being created together vs. Eve being made from Adam's rib, was so unreconcilable that a rabbi in the tenth century came up twith the Midrash Abkir, in which he said there were actually two women, Lilith, made co-equal with Adam, and Eve, made from Adam's rib atfter Lilith refused to let Adam get on top during sex.
Click to expand...

Is it just me, or is anyone else thinking that the Bible would have been a lot more entertaining with mangaroos?
 
Pure_Argent said:
From the Hebrew? No. But this is from the King James Bible, which was written during a time when the phrase was in use. Does it actually say "we" in the Hebrew?
Click to expand...

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/crebegin.htm:

The Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 refers to "Elohim" -- a word representing multiple Gods. The single form in Hebrew is: "Eloah." Some would suggest that an accurate literal translation would be: "beginning filled the Gods the heavens and the earth."

The apparent reference to plural deities is reinforced by the use of "us" and "we" in Genesis 1:26 and in other verses of Genesis. 6
Many attempts have been used to harmonize these references to multiple Gods with the concept of monotheism:

- Some Christians suggest that referring to God in the plural is a reference to the Trinity: one deity composed of three persons -- the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
- Some religious historians note that Genesis 1:1, and the rest of the first creation story, was adapted from an earlier Pagan creation myth from Babylon.
The ancient Hebrews who incorporated it into Genesis may have left the original reference to polytheism intact.
- To the ancient Hebrews, the majesty and awesomeness of God was so great that he was referred to in the plural. "Elohim" then becomes similar to the "royal we."
- Elohim refers to more than Yahweh; the term refers to God, and other heavenly entities "... down in rank through the angelic hierarchy."
Click to expand...
I guess it would be up to a Hebrew scholar to tell us if such usage of the royal we was ever condoned in OT times. I think it unlikely, but I don't see it as a translation affectation.

EDT: OK, Tom, our resident Hebrew scholar, has spoken, and the idea of the use in Hebrew of the royal we could be a valid interpretation. I live and learn.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
The kabbalah says that the first creation was destroyed by fire when YHVH extened justice without compassion and mercy, and so the whole thinh went kaaaboooom, and they had to start over.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that you're not trying to make a point here. Otherwise you would have stated which page, or chapter or whatever, in the kabbalah states this.
 
Paradox74 said:
I'm assuming that you're not trying to make a point here. Otherwise you would have stated which page, or chapter or whatever, in the kabbalah states this.
Click to expand...

Indeed especially as the Kabbalah isn't a book that would be rather difficult. Besides, I thought that claim was supposed to be a prophecy of Adam and only appears in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
 
Paradox74 said:
We are still left with two copies of a single creation story.
Click to expand...
For the record, the transition is right in the middle of Genesis, Chapter 2, Verse 4. The first sentence ends the P Document tale and the remainder of the verse begins the J Document tale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom