Correct way to Read Genesis Creation

[shoewindow3000]

Most people don’t realize this, but in the Book of Genesis, there are TWO different creation accounts, one right after the other. (If you don’t believe me, just reread them. The order in which things are made is different.)

The first one is God creating the world, life on it, and man “in His own image and likeness.” Even though it does note some fundamental truths, this is not to be taken as literal history.

The second one, (which starts at Chapter 2 verse 4), starts with an already created earth. This second account is the account of Adam and eve. This DID literally happen.

Now, many early Church fathers in the first few centuries regarded the first one as allegorical, not as history. Its main purpose was not to show historically or scientifically how God made earth, but to simply ** acknowledge the fact that God created it.**
(It also acknowledges that we are made in God’s image.)

The second account, which is of Adam and Eve, is to be taken literally, and always has been.

Basically the first can be seen as a “poetic” establishment of certain knowledge about God, the world, and man, while the second is in fact true history.

 

[diggerdomer]

Now, many early Church fathers in the first few centuries regarded the first one as allegorical, not as history. Its main purpose was not to show historically or scientifically how God made earth, but to simply ** acknowledge the fact that God created it.**
(It also acknowledges that we are made in God’s image.)

The second account, which is of Adam and Eve, is to be taken literally, and always has been.

So men have one less rib than women? Serpents used to talk?

That’s not part of the Catholic faith, though you’re free to believe it.

 

[TristanCross]

So men have one less rib than women? Serpents used to talk?

That’s not part of the Catholic faith, though you’re free to believe it.

God created Eve from man’s rib so that she’d be equal to him. Not his head, so she’d be above him, or his heel, that she’d be under him, but his rib.

And do you not believe God spoke through a donkey? If God can speak through a donkey, why not Satan through a serpent?

God bless.

 

[bMAC93]

Most people don’t realize this, but in the Book of Genesis, there are TWO different creation accounts, one right after the other. (If you don’t believe me, just reread them. The order in which things are made is different.)

The first one is God creating the world, life on it, and man “in His own image and likeness.” Even though it does note some fundamental truths, this is not to be taken as literal history.

The second one, (which starts at Chapter 2 verse 4), starts with an already created earth. This second account is the account of Adam and eve. This DID literally happen.

Now, many early Church fathers in the first few centuries regarded the first one as allegorical, not as history. Its main purpose was not to show historically or scientifically how God made earth, but to simply ** acknowledge the fact that God created it.**
(It also acknowledges that we are made in God’s image.)

The second account, which is of Adam and Eve, is to be taken literally, and always has been.

Basically the first can be seen as a “poetic” establishment of certain knowledge about God, the world, and man, while the second is in fact true history.

thanks for putting this on here I hand been wondering about that

 

[buffalo]

So men have one less rib than women? Serpents used to talk?

That’s not part of the Catholic faith, though you’re free to believe it.

Huh - Even if Adam’s rib was removed it doesn’t mean his offspring does.

 

[NotWorthy]

The first Creation account shows God, the All-Powerful Creator. He created the Cosmos simply by saying, “Let there be…”

The second Creation account shows God, our loving Father. He painstakingly fashions man out of clay and then gently breathes life into him. Then He leads them to the Garden instructing them on the ways of life.

I love the dichotomies between these two accounts.

 

[juliamajor]

Most people don’t realize this, but in the Book of Genesis, there are TWO different creation accounts, one right after the other. (If you don’t believe me, just reread them. The order in which things are made is different.)

The first one is God creating the world, life on it, and man “in His own image and likeness.” Even though it does note some fundamental truths, this is not to be taken as literal history.

The second one, (which starts at Chapter 2 verse 4), starts with an already created earth. This second account is the account of Adam and eve. This DID literally happen.

Now, many early Church fathers in the first few centuries regarded the first one as allegorical, not as history. Its main purpose was not to show historically or scientifically how God made earth, but to simply ** acknowledge the fact that God created it.**
(It also acknowledges that we are made in God’s image.)

The second account, which is of Adam and Eve, is to be taken literally, and always has been.

Basically the first can be seen as a “poetic” establishment of certain knowledge about God, the world, and man, while the second is in fact true history.

There may or may not be two different creation stories. There may or may not be two different source materials. the jury is still out on it. many believe that number two fills out what wasn’t in number one.Maybe an adjunct .I refer you to a book JPS GENESIS by nahum sarna for in depth on Genesis…
Since the idea of different source materials and thereby different accounts of Genesis is relatively recent I don’t see where the ECF would have been discussing it.
Literally is a term not to bandy about. That adam and eve existed (the names are symbolic so there real names could have been oog and moog for all we know) is to be taken as truth.Most important thing is the reason God created humans (which was totally and completely different then a ANE take on creation) and created the world. Unlike the ancients of most cultures Israelite deity has no beginning- no end.no one or thing preceded Him.he is unique as we are unique- made in his image and likeness.Not castoffs made from remnants.And not as servants and playthings of the gods.But precious creations loved ,cared for and important.

 

[diggerdomer]

God created Eve from man’s rib so that she’d be equal to him. Not his head, so she’d be above him, or his heel, that she’d be under him, but his rib.

And do you not believe God spoke through a donkey? If God can speak through a donkey, why not Satan through a serpent?

God bless.

Good point. Let’s add talking donkeys to the list of things we are welcome to believe but are neither required to nor prohibited from by the Catholic Church.

 

[buffalo]

The first account focuses on the order of creation. The second focuses on the order of importance with man the highest.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I recommend my commentary on the creation account litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Commentary+on+Genesis+by+John+Litteral

In the commentary you will see that I made great use of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[TristanCross]

Good point. Let’s add talking donkeys to the list of things we are welcome to believe but are neither required to nor prohibited from by the Catholic Church.

You’re sarcastic attitude is not welcome. Is your god’s arm so short that He can not do such things? I tell you, my God can speak through a rock, if He desired.

Your faith lacks. I will pray.

 

[GeorgeSword]

I believe in evolution simply due to the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence. Creationists of course have their pseudo scientific explanations, but they simply do not hold up. I suppose I am a theistic evolutionist, then. I believe that God created us through evolution. I’m uncertain, though, if He simply put out the first single cell organisms and designed them so as to evolve into the pinnacle of His creation, man, or if He perhaps shaped man along the way. It really doesn’t matter. The Jewish writer Maimonides said that if the Torah was in conflict with science, it must be reinterpreted, as it cannot be in error. I think Christians should heed these words, rather than reinterpreting science without any evidence.

 

[diggerdomer]

You’re sarcastic attitude is not welcome. Is your god’s arm so short that He can not do such things? I tell you, my God can speak through a rock, if He desired.

Your faith lacks. I will pray.

I was not intending to be sarcastic, sorry if you took it that way. My God does not have an arm in the physical sense, so I’m sorry but I don’t understand what you mean. Can you clarify, help me? Thank you.

And of course, thank you for your prayers, I am well aware of the shortcomings of my faith and appreciate that you are aware of it too.

 

[juliamajor]

To read Genesis correctly you must divest yourself of 21st C thoughts,concepts, ideas.These were not important to the Ancient Hebrews .History as we know it, did not exist there was no separation among science, history and religion in Ancient Israel.Israel’s relationship to God was what was important- all else secondary or of little importance.So to think of Genesis in our historical terms serves no purpose, it’s useless.
The impotance of Genesis lies in the fact that it relates God’s special relationship with Israel .Genesis is just a set-up for Exodus the each section pushes forward toward it.Look at the construction of Genesis-how much is really dedicated to the creation and the flood? very little.The important parts begin start with abraham and the Patriarchs leading to Joseph and his brethren in Egypt-this leads into Exodus and the experience that is considered the most important event in Judaism.
Arguing about ribs,floods, and arks is useless , it’s like trying to figure out how many angels dance on the head of a pin! of what use is it.What is being said about God and his relationship to man and nature -then israel’s relationship to God and why it was chosen, is the crux of the matter.

 

[buffalo]

Genesis must be understood as the church has taught and understood it for centuries.

 

[DOShea]

Most people don’t realize this, but in the Book of Genesis, there are TWO different creation accounts…

The first one is God creating the world, life on it, and man “in His own image and likeness.” Even though it does note some fundamental truths, this is not to be taken as literal history.

There really is no specific reason to view it as “two different” creation accounts. God did the same thing in Ch 2 as He did in Ch. 1, the only difference was Adam was standing next to Him when He did most of the creating in Ch. 2. It might explain why we have no record of Adam being a skeptic.

You’ll note in Gen. 1:27 it says God created man in His image… male and female.

Then in Gen 2:7 it tells you the story of how Adam was made, then Gen 2:21-22 tells of Eve’s being created.

If this is two different creation events, you need to explain why God needed to create man, plants, and animals twice. Then you must explain what happened to the Ch.1 Adam and Eve such that they needed to be re-created in a different event? A much more reasonable approach IMO is to view Ch. 2 as a kind of “zoomed-in” view of what happened in Ch. 2. Notice the emphasis is completely on man no matter what is done by God. Plants are raised up because now there are people to work the soil, animals are created and named by man, Adam gets a mate, etc. It seems like the same account as Ch. 1 but here the focus is mainly on the human aspect of the entire creation.

The second one, (which starts at Chapter 2 verse 4), starts with an already created earth. This second account is the account of Adam and eve. This DID literally happen.

Adam in Eve are made in both accounts, that is why I don’t think they are seperate, sequential events. The accounts mesh perfectly well as is and both tell the same story, with Ch. 2 being the more detailed account of one portion of the overall. I think you are making a serious exegetical error trying to divide these accounts and paint one as somehow “real” and the other one some kind of fairy tale, especially claiming the overall part is allegory, but a section within that allegory is real. That is like saying the book Snow White is a fairy tale, but the part in chapter 4 where you meet Grumpy is real and must be believed. You can’t have real inside fable.

Now, many early Church fathers in the first few centuries regarded the first one as allegorical, not as history. Its main purpose was not to show historically or scientifically how God made earth, but to simply acknowledge the fact that God created it.
(It also acknowledges that we are made in God’s image.)

Probably for the same reason biblical scholars don’t view it as historical narrative - it’s not written in that format. But you have to be careful with that because not written in a historical narrative format does not equal “it didn’t happen,” as in there is NO historical merit in it. We are here, so there is obviously some truth to it, it just may not have happened in the same time and sequence as the text portrays.

 

[GeorgeSword]

Genesis must be understood as the church has taught and understood it for centuries.

We follow today’s Church, not the Church as it was last century. Genesis was understood literally for centuries due to the lack of better explaination, yet today scientific evidence has shown us that we did indeed evolve. I do not try to alter mny science to fit the book, but rather I think we just need to accept that it was not written literally, but rather to explain certain truths, that God created the world and man, and that man fell by his own free will.
Today’s Church teaches that this is a perfectly acceptable view, which Pope John Paul II also subscribed to.

 

[CalCatholic]

To read Genesis correctly you must divest yourself of 21st C thoughts,concepts, ideas.These were not important to the Ancient Hebrews .History as we know it, did not exist there was no separation among science, history and religion in Ancient Israel.Israel’s relationship to God was what was important- all else secondary or of little importance.So to think of Genesis in our historical terms serves no purpose, it’s useless.
The impotance of Genesis lies in the fact that it relates God’s special relationship with Israel .Genesis is just a set-up for Exodus the each section pushes forward toward it.Look at the construction of Genesis-how much is really dedicated to the creation and the flood? very little.The important parts begin start with abraham and the Patriarchs leading to Joseph and his brethren in Egypt-this leads into Exodus and the experience that is considered the most important event in Judaism.
Arguing about ribs,floods, and arks is useless , it’s like trying to figure out how many angels dance on the head of a pin! of what use is it.What is being said about God and his relationship to man and nature -then israel’s relationship to God and why it was chosen, is the crux of the matter.

Well Said!

 

[shoewindow3000]

Also, the first prophecy concerning Jesus Christ in given after Adam and Eve have sinned.

 

[WALTHER]

GEORGE SWORD WRITES:

We follow today’s Church, not the Church as it was last century. Genesis was understood literally for centuries due to the lack of better explaination, yet today scientific evidence has shown us that we did indeed evolve. I do not try to alter mny science to fit the book, but rather I think we just need to accept that it was not written literally, but rather to explain certain truths, that God created the world and man, and that man fell by his own free will.
Today’s Church teaches that this is a perfectly acceptable view, which Pope John Paul II also subscribed to.

You have it backwards, friend.

It is, rather, that we are not to alter the Book to fit the “assured results” of science.

WALTHER