dimossi

I was having a discussion with someone about there being 2 creation stories in the bible and how they contradict each other. I have always thought that most theists admit that this is true, but they just ignored the contradictions. However, this theist had an odd explanation to the problem:

I don't know where she gets this idea, but I was wondering if anyone else is aware of this type of interpretation and how a theist might arrive at this conclusion. Thanks!

CX

Alas this is a very old debate. For those who view the Genesis narrative as a coherent single description of literal history the problems contained within the accounts force very strained apologetic gymnastics. The simpler answer (and the one accepted by most scholars) is that the two accounts do indeed differ sometimes in contradictory ways because we are dealing with a text comprised of more than one older source. The authors underlying each source had different traditions and theological aims in writing their accounts. The redactor or redactors who weaved these differing accounts into the single narrative we have today was not concerned with creating a consistent literal history. I'm currently reading Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliot Friedman and he presents both a compelling argument for this hypothesis and a clear and concise explanation of its implications. Ultimately it is absolutely fruitless to engage literalists in debate because their basic philosophical position is a non-rational one predicated on faith and a particular interpretation of the bible. As with all religious literature people can read whatever they want into the bible.

dimossi

Thanks for the quick and helpful response CX!

I also just came across a nice breakdown and explanation of the creation stories located at the religious tolerance website: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm

Thanks again.

Mageth

They're two separate myths adapted and integrated into the Hebrew's scripture from older sources, with the emphasis on the local Tribal God, Yahweh. The second, where Eve is "pulled" out of Adam, made from his rib, is a metaphor for the age-old motif of separation of the two from the one, male and female from the androgynous (neither male nor female, but both male and female) source, which can be found in many of the world's mythologies.

Attempting to reconcile the two is futile, as is attempting to interpret them as history rather than metaphor.

Magus55

You can accept the explanation or not, but it is not a contradiction. Genesis 1 is the recap of God's creation, in general. Genesis 2 empasizes Day 6, when Adam and Eve were created - from a human perspective ( hence why animals are written after Adam, because Adam didn't see any animals when he was created - God brought them to him later).

It really makes no difference though whether atheists think its a contradiction. It isn't, no matter how much you want to think so. They are the same creation account, just written from general to specific, and from different perspectives.

CX

I think it's worth noting that it is not solely atheists who take this view of the Genesis narrative. The view I outlined is proposed and accepted by a majority of biblical scholars the vast majority of whom are not atheists. Atheists is a red herring in your assertion above.

lpetrich

Here is an amusing theory that I've thought of:

Those contradictions are a hint from the Biblical God that the Bible is not 100% literally true.

Also, the different creation orders are integral parts of the different narratives -- they would not make sense otherwise.

In G1, humanity is God's last and greatest creation -- creating something after humanity would be anticlimactic. Furthermore, this creation is followed by the first Sabbath observance in the history of the Universe, which suggests another subtext of G1.

In G2, Adam was created in isolation, and God created lots of other companions for him and created Eve only when they proved unsatisfactory.

Mageth

You can accept the explanation or not, but it is not a contradiction. Genesis 1 is the recap of God's creation, in general. Genesis 2 empasizes Day 6, when Adam and Eve were created - from a human perspective ( hence why animals are written after Adam, because Adam didn't see any animals when he was created - God brought them to him later).

The problem lies not so much in trying to reconcile the two contradictory accounts; the problem lies in trying to interpret either or both of the accounts as history rather than metaphor. The original writers weren't recording history; they were creating (adapting, really) metaphors in support of their local tribal religion's creator-war-god.

It really makes no difference though whether atheists think its a contradiction. It isn't, no matter how much you want to think so. They are the same creation account, just written from general to specific, and from different perspectives.

And each includes common motifs found in older creation accounts from other religions. They're borrowed stories, modified for the tribal god.

If you want to learn something from them, what they were intended to teach, you must approach them as poetry and not history. Science has shown that neither of the accounts is historical. It's that simple.

Magus55

Can you prove that assertion that they were just metaphors, or is that just your opinion? Now, of course i can't prove that it isn't a metaphor - but i never made the positive assertion thats it is in fact, literal.


Hmm, and what were some of these older creation accounts ? The Gilgamesh? Thats younger than ( at least the only nearly complete copy we have) the Torah.

Wrong, science hasn't proven its not historical, because isn't the study of fact. Science can only make guesses on what they observe. Science has absolutely, no clue what happened at the beginning of the universe/earth. You have no idea that the earth has always been the same way. Science can not disprove the Bible - its been trying for 2000 years, and has yet to be successful - because science can't prove anything as fact. Since scientists can't observe the Earth as it was at creation, they can't claim it isn't historical. Scientists see rocks and attempt to date them, assuming that they haven't changed in millions of years, and their age hasn't been affected by anything in the past - like numerous catastrophes. That isn't observation, thats taking the presumption that the Earth has always been the way we presently see it, and using that to make guesses.

Mageth

Originally posted by Magus55
Can you prove that assertion that they were just metaphors, or is that just your opinion?

No, they're metaphors. It's not "opinion"; it's a fact. Modern science has conclusively, undeniably shown that they are not historical accounts. Therefore, they're mythical. And they include metaphorical motifs common to many ancient creation myths. Further, they were intended by the writers as metaphor and not history, and also, in the case of Genesis, to support the local war-god and to lend credence to the nomadic tribe's aggressive, often destructive, actions against its neighbors.

Now, of course i can't prove that it isn't a metaphor - but i never made the positive assertion thats it is in fact, literal.

So, if you don't think they're literal, then you agree they're mythical?

Hmm, and what were some of these older creation accounts ? The Gilgamesh? Thats younger than ( at least the only nearly complete copy we have) the Torah.

Umm, the Epic of Gilgamesh isn't a creation account. But in any case, the copy you refer to dates from around 650 B.C.E., but the stories it's based on are estimated to have originated in about 2500 B.C.E.

What's the oldest copy of the Torah we have? The Dead Sea Scrolls? The oldest of those date from around 200 BCE, IIRC. Further, non-orthodox scholars believe the modern version of the Torah wasn't even compiled until about 500 B.C.E.

Now, the Babylonian Creation Myth dates from about the 12th Century B.C.E., but is based on creation myths dating back to Sumer, some 1000 or so years before that. Long before the Torah.

Wrong, science hasn't proven its not historical, because isn't the study of fact.

What? We now know that the species weren't created in a special 6-day creation as depicted in Genesis some 4000 years ago, but descended with modifications from common ancestors over the last 3.5 billion years, with early man appearing on the scene about 3 million years ago. It's a fact, Magus - the geologic/fossil record is undeniable on that account. It's no longer tenable to believe the Genesis accounts as history. It hasn't been for at least 150 years.

Science can only make guesses on what they observe.

Huh? "Guesses"? That's bullshit, and you know it. At least I hope you do.

Science has absolutely, no clue what happened at the beginning of the universe/earth.

Umm, there's lots of clues. We even have theories and hypotheses based on those clues.

You have no idea that the earth has always been the same way.

Actually, I know the earth hasn't always been "the same way."

Science can not disprove the Bible - its been trying for 2000 years, and has yet to be successful - because science can't prove anything as fact.

Bullshit again. In the first place, modern science hasn't even been around for 2000 years. The Genesis accounts have been rendered as no more than quaint myths by science, and that's been the case for 150 years. It just seems it's taking some in the world to accept the fact.

Since scientists can't observe the Earth as it was at creation, they can't claim it isn't historical.

Sure they can. The evidence recounts the history of the earth, and clearly indicates that the Genesis account is not historical.

Scientists see rocks and attempt to date them, assuming that they haven't changed in millions of years, and their age hasn't been affected by anything in the past - like numerous catastrophes.

Wild speculation on your part, with absolutely no scientific basis.

Your lack of understanding about dating methods is astounding. Can you tell me then how scientific dating methods can be used to date a stratum found in different parts of the world and come up with the same approximate ages, how dating different strata consistently produces ages from oldest to youngest as you go up the column? If what you say is true, this should be next to impossible.

Bottom line is, the dating methods we use today have been shown time and time again to be reliable.

And what "numerous catastrophes" are you referring to? Is the Biblical Flood account one of them? Another bit of Biblical "history" shown to be myth by science. And describe for me one such catastrophe and how it could change rocks to screw up the dating methods (plural because rocks can be dated by more than one method).

That isn't observation, thats taking the presumption that the Earth has always been the way we presently see it, and using that to make guesses.

Science does not presume that the world has always been the way we presently see it. On the contrary, science shows that the world has changed, is changing, and unlike religion, describes those changes accurately based on the evidence. And science does not guess. Science develops theories based on the evidence.