Freethought & Rationalism Archive

LeeBuhrul · 03-18-2005, 08:45 AM

(mods - If any other threads have been started or exhausted this subject please point me to it and delete this one... or move as you see fit)

I'd love the input of both atheists with greater knowledge of biblical analysis as well as christians who might want to jump in and defend their cause with reasonable, inteligent and coherent arguments...

I just reread Genesis 1 and 2... which normally only gets a couple of chuckles and "how quaint"'s out of me about the firmament and waters above etc.. but this time something jumped out at me:

Genesis 1-

Quote:

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

This "happens" on the 6th day right after he made animals etc...

Then

Genesis 2-

Quote:

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

this is a marker in time in the story telling, in other words... all those things described in 1 have happened and here we are now on the 7th day... all that follows therefore happens after the 7th day.

But that is when...

Quote:

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.
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed

and

Quote:

2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

It would seem the Bible never meant to claim Adam and Eve were the first people on earth (the first ever created by "god")... they were just the ones "god" chose to create for his garden rather than pick from among the ones already created on the 6th day.

Can't blame the guy... who wants used pots in a brand new garden

I'd venture that the constant state of revisionism that Christianity has always been under lead to the assertion that Adam was indeed the first man on earth which makes more since it is consistent with the "whitewashing" of traces of other religions, deities and contradictions for the purpose of reinforcing the claim that christianity is the only religion, yaweh the only god and the bible the only true history.

PS - another conclusion I draw is that according to the bible... god didn't create eden for man... god created man for eden...

God made himself a garden so he needed someone to tend it...

(OK guys knock off the My gardner "Ayhzoos" jokes)

Chili · 03-18-2005, 09:07 AM

So when the bible clearly states that God created "man" and that Lord God formed "man" why do you call him Adam?

Adam doesn't enter the scene until after the fall when the presumptuous ego thinks he knows the difference between good and evil.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-18-2005, 09:13 AM

It's not two different sets of people it's just two different (contradictory) creation stories set side by side. The search function seems to be disabled at the moment so I can't find other discussions about it right now but try googling "documentary hypothesis creation" and see what you can find (you'll have to watch out for the apologetic sites).

LeeBuhrul · 03-18-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

So when the bible clearly states that God created "man" and that Lord God formed "man" why do you call him Adam?

Adam doesn't enter the scene until after the fall when the presumptuous ego thinks he knows the difference between good and evil.

Because the Bible calls the man in Eden Adam...

I appreciate your comment but it seems to pick at the edges without arguing the logic I followed

LeeBuhrul · 03-18-2005, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's not two different sets of people it's just two different (contradictory) creation stories set side by side. The search function seems to be disabled at the moment so I can't find other discussions about it right now but try googling "documentary hypothesis creation" and see what you can find (you'll have to watch out for the apologetic sites).

That's obviously the interpretation favored by christians because it allows them to retain the claim that Adam was the first man created...

But reading it the way I did it seems that's far from a foregone conclusion... at the very least the scenario I am seeing seems just a plausible an interpretation of the bible... that is

in the first 7 days god creates everything uncluding "man" which in G1 is clearly used to mean man and woman

Then after the 7th day he sets out to make himself a garden and to tend it he chooses to make himself from scratch one more man... Adam!

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-18-2005, 09:59 AM

No, it's not a continuous story, it's two completely different stories from separate traditions with different styles, different names for God, different chronologies, different methods of creation, etc. Fundies actually don't like the Documentary Hypothesis because they don't like to acknowledge contradictions or multiple authorship.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-18-2005, 10:00 AM

Adam means "Man," by the way. So that distinction is a non-starter.

Anat · 03-18-2005, 11:07 AM

In Hebrew 'adam' means man or human (there are no gender-neutral singular nouns in Hebrew so it could mean either) and is also the name of a person. Hebrew doesn't use capitalisation, so you can't easily tell if the male and female humans whose creation is mentioned in Genesis 1 are the same as those created in Genesis 2. Documentary Hypothesis states that the stories are independent, by different authors. However, the redactors of these chapters attempted to harmonize them in Genesis 5:1-2:
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."

Though here Adam is the name of both the male and the female. hence one Jewish interpretation that the original human was a pair of conjoined hermaphroditic twins, and the story about the rib is the surgical intervention by which they were separated. (And this all supposedly happened during the afternoon or early evening of the 6th day of creation, though I do not know when the events of Genesis 3 were supposed to have taken place.)

Chili · 03-18-2005, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Adam means "Man," by the way. So that distinction is a non-starter.

Yes I understand that to be so. However, I see a clear distinction between man and human wherein the hu- prefix makes reference to the earthliness of man's fallen nature (hu- is from humi) which is not added to man until Gen.3 where the concept shame was introduced to make this earthly existence known. The fig leave identifies the shame concept that did not exist in Gen.2:25 where they were naked to wit and felt no shame.

Jadea · 03-18-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Yes I understand that to be so. However, I see a clear distinction between man and human wherein the hu- prefix makes reference to the earthliness of man's fallen nature (hu- is from humi) which is not added to man until Gen.3 where the concept shame was introduced to make this earthly existence known. The fig leave identifies the shame concept that did not exist in Gen.2:25 where they were naked to wit and felt no shame.

Hi I'm new to this board and would like to say, I do agree Chili that the fig leaf does identify the shame concept. So just for the sake of argument why do some people today have no shame about nudity, did they regain from their fallen nature or should we call a spade a spade ( sinner.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-18-2005, 09:07 AM	#2
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	So when the bible clearly states that God created "man" and that Lord God formed "man" why do you call him Adam? Adam doesn't enter the scene until after the fall when the presumptuous ego thinks he knows the difference between good and evil.

03-18-2005, 09:13 AM	#3
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	It's not two different sets of people it's just two different (contradictory) creation stories set side by side. The search function seems to be disabled at the moment so I can't find other discussions about it right now but try googling "documentary hypothesis creation" and see what you can find (you'll have to watch out for the apologetic sites).

03-18-2005, 09:59 AM	#6
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	No, it's not a continuous story, it's two completely different stories from separate traditions with different styles, different names for God, different chronologies, different methods of creation, etc. Fundies actually don't like the Documentary Hypothesis because they don't like to acknowledge contradictions or multiple authorship.

03-18-2005, 10:00 AM	#7
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Adam means "Man," by the way. So that distinction is a non-starter.

03-18-2005, 11:07 AM	#8
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	In Hebrew 'adam' means man or human (there are no gender-neutral singular nouns in Hebrew so it could mean either) and is also the name of a person. Hebrew doesn't use capitalisation, so you can't easily tell if the male and female humans whose creation is mentioned in Genesis 1 are the same as those created in Genesis 2. Documentary Hypothesis states that the stories are independent, by different authors. However, the redactors of these chapters attempted to harmonize them in Genesis 5:1-2: "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." Though here Adam is the name of both the male and the female. hence one Jewish interpretation that the original human was a pair of conjoined hermaphroditic twins, and the story about the rib is the surgical intervention by which they were separated. (And this all supposedly happened during the afternoon or early evening of the 6th day of creation, though I do not know when the events of Genesis 3 were supposed to have taken place.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.