lemmex

With respect to the story of Creation which is part of Genesis we have serveral conflicts as part of 2 separate stories. Story 1 is verse 1:1-30, and is more a state of perfection, the second tale recount is 2:1:24 and deals with our fall. Of course this shows the claim made by scholars of the differerent authors classifed as J and P and what they saw at that time.

Specific conflicts lay in what is suppose to be same but are not are: 1) Between Geneis 1: 27 and 2:7. Man is created on 2 different days, the sixth and third. (Of course Adam is suppose to be ha-adam) 2) Notice the preceding verse 2:4 there are no plants on earth and no mositure before Adam (man) is made, then God puts him (taken to be gender specific) in a Garden (not the earth proper as in story 1 with Eve, persumably this Garden is within a desert take notice of verse 2:9 versu verse 1:11). In the Story 1 plants exists and the earth appears to be lush and favorable, as you recall everything is seen "as Good" by God. 3) Most important to me, as a concept, notice the 2 Trees important to us are never in story 1, but placed in story 2. So we do know different importance between each story 4) The creation of woman is a little confused. In Genesis 1:27 woman (Eve ?)is made at the same time as man (Adam), and God blesses them both, whereas in story 2 Adam is made alone (first) and God sees he is lonely and after a period of time makes Eve. 5) In story 1 all living things come first, but actually in story 2, Adam comes first (verse 2:7), then some trees (verse 2:9), then the living creatures (verse 2:19), and then Eve (verse 2:21). This is completely unordered and illogical almost reverse of story 1, whereas there is a definate order, logic and perdictibility in the preceding story. These are among the most significant and is confused even more if we use the original source ha-adam (mankind) verus Adam (specific person) in which case we would have 2 different mankinds.

One point to make out of this is if indeed this is the word of God there would be no conflict. He wouldn't allow it. But the most significant conflict is the meaning we give the story(s). To us it is a particular story about the fall of man and sin, however to the original writers of the story as is, these stories had nothing to do with either sin or fall. I have go with the origial writers here and their meaning and what the story first meant. I can't disrepect the original writers in this regard. I mean that's the reason it was written, it doesn't matter I don't like it and couldn't write my own. From the Christian perspective how can you reconcile this. I mean, is it proper to take a story that meant something else and reinterpret it because we became (?) enlightened or do we sincerely (Christains) believe what we think now was always thought. I'm interested to know you're feeling on this.

My personal belief, Genesis in not one story, but two. There are 2 time periods and 2 events the Bible refers to in what we classify Genesis.


Did you know, there are also 2 stories within Noah.