spin

The only part that possibly deals with Mesopotamia is 11:1b-12:4. Mesopotamia is a meaningless reference before 11:1.

What have colophons got to do with Genesis? Absolutely nothing.

But obviously 2:4 refers to what follows. There are two creation accounts at the beginning of Genesis. This toledoth belongs with the second. The first creation is from a watery creation. The second is creation from a dry waste.

The textual evidence disagrees with you. Please refer to any modern scholarly commentary on Genesis. There are quite a few, written by university professors with accredited degrees from real universities.

You just need to read 2:5 to know that this is not correct. There was no plant of the field, no herb of the field, no-one to till the field. Yet, the first creation already has humans and plants. We are dealing with a second creation story, which will tell of the creation of trees, animals and man and woman and it is all preceded by a toledoth, like all the other toledoths. Check them out.

This is not based on any evidence.

If you are a religious believer who wants to persist with the notion that there is only one creation account which finishes with 2:4, I'm afraid I won't be able to trust you to read scholarly literature and check the position you hold, which will mean to me that I would waste further time if you want to continue to deal with obviously harebrained notions such as that of Wiseman.


spin

angelo

The thing to remember is that both accounts of creation, Genesis 1 and 2 were both written by gullible naive goat herders.
The Babylonians believed that Marduk their god created mankind to serve as a slave race, servants of the supreme deity Marduk.
Why is one treated as myth while the other is treated with more credence?
Aren't they all just the fertile imagination of ancient bronze age mens fables?

spin

Although this comment isn't correct, drawing such clearly delineated and therefore simple distinctions makes it easier to deal with the literature and its impact. It's a bit like all Iraqis are towelheads -- makes some people feel better.


spin

Fortuna

Actually no, it makes a much better fit as a reference to the creation story of Gen 2, and that can be shown by a couple of simple observations.

- Gen 1 already has a toledoth. It's at Gen 1.1. Notice that niether the heavens (really means the skies) nor the earth are actually created at that point. Both are properly created later in the narrative.

- The creator (or god/gods) of Gen 1 is/are the Elohim. Not even once is yhvh used in Gen 1

- Starting at Gen 2.4, the god is referred to by what looks more like a title "yhvh elohim". This name/title is used exclusively throughout Gen 2.

- The terms used for earthly creatures differs between Gen 1 and Gen2. It looks as though Gen 1 and 2 use slightly different Hebrew dialects. Perhaps separated in time (language development) or perhaps locale (diff dialect).

Thus ;

- The language of 2.4 associates it with the language of Gen 2, not Gen 1.
- Gen 1 already has its own toledoth.

Just MHO....If you think I'm wrong, convince me.

bacht

Ah, is this one of the pieces of the Creationist argument? Do they dispute that there are two creation accounts? (I haven't checked out their material, I'd rather watch the Flintstones...)

jbarntt

I am not religious, or a Christian, just to make it clear. I do like a good mystery however.

You are correct and I was wrong, re: a creation account beginning at Gen. 2.5.

But notice what Gen. 2.4 says: " This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created -- when the Lord God made the earth and heavens." This does describe Gen. 1.1-2.3, i.e., the preceding passage, but does not describe the second creation account beginning with Gen. 2.5., which begins: "Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth..."

Note that the earth already exists, it is not the account described in Gen. 2.4. Gen 2.4 is a colophon for Gen. 1.1-2.3, not an introduction to the second creation account beginning with Gen. 2.5. This the point that Wiseman made.

spin

Thanks for the clarification and please excuse my forwardness. The Wiseman junk is something that inerrantist christians latch onto

Just as the waters do in the first creation. Just as the land exists, but it's still mixed in with the chaotic waters. Neither is creatio ex nihilo. The second assumes there was land before the first creative act.

Not so. You are just leaning too strongly on creation, apparently presupposing creatio ex nihilo.

Both of you are incorrect. I don't know why you choose this path. The second creation is simpler, providing fewer creative acts, and presupposing an anthropomorphic god who has to get his hands dirty creating with his hands. The first has a more esoteric god who just has to speak and it happens. But two accounts there are. The first, as Fortuna pointed out, has its "toledoth" in Gen 1:1 at the beginning, while the second has its "toledoth" in Gen 2:4 at the beginning.


spin

spin

I don't follow creationism to be able to respond, but I'd guess so, as it is an inerrantist plank and creationists -- it would seem obvious -- are inerrantist.


spin

angelo

Doesn't change the fact that the authors of all the books that go to make up the babble had no understanding of physics, or the cosmos around them, nor did they have the least of understanding of how nature works.
They had a strong belief in the supernatural. To them god was just a stone throw away from them up there in the sky.

As far as I understand it, there was no ancient scientist who through experimentation came to the conclusion that gawd created the cosmos.
The babble was written by uneducated, gullible naive primitive bronze age superstitious fools.
And anyone that takes this babble as the word of a gawd, is just as foolish if not more so.

spin

And you cannot expect them to have understood physics or the cosmos around them, but I'm sure you get a buzz out of trivializing their attempts to deal with a world they didn't have the tools to grasp.

A lotta people these days have a strong belief in the supernatural. Think about the bunch who read their horoscope daily, get their cards read, chant for profit, etc. You are judging these ancient people and turning a blind eye to people who do have physics and other education. Doesn't your analysis show the same depth as those you criticize?

Ummm, what is an ancient scientist?? :huh:

I can see you're trying to compete with them.

Why don't you just go down to some gospel hall on Sunday and shout out "fuck Jesus" or something deep like that. I'm sure it'll make you feel righteous.


spin