Why two accounts of creation?

[simpleas]

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Along with the creation of the days, nights, water, vegetation etc.

God blessed the man and woman, and told them ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’

Would the blessing of man and woman be seen as God giving them a soul?

It is only in the second part of creation were God is described as breathing life into the man. The woman is taken from the man :

21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

‘This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called “woman”,
for she was taken out of man.’

In this account, woman does not have life breathed into her as the man did, she has been formed from man by bones and flesh.

As we believe we are given a soul at conception, how did the woman receive her soul, as she could not have been given it from the man?

I just wondered as I’ve read at some point it was believed that women did not have souls,(i think christians always believed women had souls, but some didn’t) and thought perhaps that is why men were and are regarded to some degree, as more spiritual than women.

The only women I believe has ever been hailed as a spiritual equal to man is Mary. She gave birth to the son of God, yet we are not born of Mary and God, we are born of Adam and Eve, and so always to know we are born wounded.

 

[grannymh]

Because creation is so very, very wonderful!

Because it takes more than one account to probe God’s marvelous creation!

Because our human minds are not infinite, we need many accounts to even grasp a molecule of what has happened!

Because God loves our limited material physical spiritual being so much that He wanted us to understand the beauty of our own personal human nature!

Because the first three chapters of Genesis are just the beginning of God revealing Himself and His goal for all humankind. And yet, the first three chapters of Genesis give us the basics we need to know in order to answer God’s invitation to share in His Divine life here on planet earth and after bodily death, to live in joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision.

 

[Zipply]

Because there were two traditions (at least) in the culture and the scribes didn’t want to delete either one of them.

Or, you can go with the mumbo-jumbo above.

 

[Padster]

I have been doing a brief study of the ancient Mesopotamian and Greek religions. It appears that the Sumerians also had their own creation ‘myth’:

here is the story of the making of man in the ancient Mesopotamian religion:

“…Enki (the ancient Mesopotamian god whose name means ‘Lord of the Earth’)then advises that they create a servant of the gods, humankind, out of clay and blood.[11] Against Enki’s wish the Gods decide to slay Kingu, and Enki finally consents to use Kingu’s blood to make the first human, with whom Enki always later has a close relationship, the first of the seven sages, seven wise men or “Abgallu” (Ab = water, Gal = great, Lu = Man), also known as Adapa. Enki assembles a team of divinities to help him, creating a host of “good and princely fashioners”. He tells his mother
‘Oh my mother, the creature whose name thou has uttered, it exists,Bind upon it the (will?) of the Gods;Mix the heart of clay that is over the Abyss,The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clayThou, do thou bring the limbs into existence;Ninmah (the Earth-mother goddess (Ninhursag, his wife and consort) will work above thee(Nintu?) (goddess of birth) will stand by thy fashioning;Oh my mother, decree thou its (the new born’s) fate.’
Adapa, the first man fashioned, later goes and acts as the advisor to the King of Eridu”

Note the name ‘Adapa’ as the first man. I think it is entirely plausible that the scribes included or ‘culled’ parts of the ancient religion for use in the Old Testament, which would explain talk of human sacrifice in the OT (the Sumerians were big on that). There are also similarities in both religions’ Deluge stories.

I have a theory, still requiring lots of research, that many of the gods in the ancient religions could be referring to Jesus Christ, or the LORD of the OT. Enki, for example, is ‘Lord of the Earth’, and his sacred number is forty. Dionysus, from the Greek Pantheon, is 'god of the grape harvest, winemaking and wine; a god of epiphany: “those who partake of his mysteries are possessed and empowered by the god himself” He is the only god in the Olympian Pantheon that was born of a mortal woman. And that when he was captured by the Titans his leadership was mocked and he was given a giant fennel stick to hold instead of a sceptre.

Best wishes,
Padster

 

[tanachanswers]

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Along with the creation of the days, nights, water, vegetation etc.

God blessed the man and woman, and told them ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’

Would the blessing of man and woman be seen as God giving them a soul?

It is only in the second part of creation were God is described as breathing life into the man. The woman is taken from the man :

21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

‘This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called “woman”,
for she was taken out of man.’

In this account, woman does not have life breathed into her as the man did, she has been formed from man by bones and flesh.

As we believe we are given a soul at conception, how did the woman receive her soul, as she could not have been given it from the man?

I just wondered as I’ve read at some point it was believed that women did not have souls,(i think christians always believed women had souls, but some didn’t) and thought perhaps that is why men were and are regarded to some degree, as more spiritual than women.

The only women I believe has ever been hailed as a spiritual equal to man is Mary. She gave birth to the son of God, yet we are not born of Mary and God, we are born of Adam and Eve, and so always to know we are born wounded.

To put it simply, the two creation stories are there to teach us that creation can not exist without mercy.
In the first story of creation, the title for G-d is the title meaning ‘Justice’.
Then in the second story of creation the name of G-d is used with the title for G-d meaning ‘Justice’.
So this teaches us that the universe can not exist without mercy !

 

[sirach2v4]

I think the previous post was mistyped. In the first account, using “elohim” the implication is God as judge. Elohim can be translated as judges or divine spirits, it’s sort of a generic term, but is sometimes, as here, translated according to its meaning, as God. Elohim is plural in form but usually takes a singular verb (as I understand from reading Jewish commentaries). [Notice that in Genesis 1, God creates something and “judges” that it is good? that’s the implication - justice and judging ]

YHWH or YHVH implies mercy, which the previous poster probably meant to say.

But, more to the point, the Jewish commentaries point at that there are evidences of multiple sources for parts of the Torah (here meaning the pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible).

For example, the book of Exodus describes that Aaron and his sons and descendants ONLY are the temple priests, and the Levites are like laborers doing tasks around the wilderness tabernacle. But, in Deuteronomy, with a centralized temple in Jerusalem in mind, it is all the Levites who are eligible to function as priests and as high priest in the temple.

The Jewish commentaries over the centuries have a goal of harmonization, to harmonize the differences that crop up. And, so, in this instance, they simply say what they see, that two traditions have been preserved, side-by-side.

Now, I can’t see it, but they say that there are three interwoven traditions about the flood of Noah’s time.

These analyses just aren’t fabricated, they are based on the Hebrew text, being closely studied, meditated on, and prayed over for centuries, even over two millenia for sure.

Another example: the listing of the Ten Commandments (called such only in Deuteronomy) in Ex and Dt are slightly different. In one case, the commandment about the Sabbath says to remember it and in the other it says to observe it.

What does that mean? well, with the goal of harmonization, I think (if I remember correctly) that “observe” is meant to imply all the positive things about the Sabbath, about what should be done on that day of rest. “Remember” on the other hand refers to all the negative things that should not be done on that day. Again, some religiously and pious interpretation going on.

As far as interpretation of the laws of the Torah are concerned, in Dt it says that the Torah was “given” to the Israelites, or Hebrews as Moses refers to them. That verse and some others I didn’t look up last night indicate that “given” implies the right and duty to interpret the commands of the Torah.

And, a modern example of that: the command in Dt that one should not move a boundary marker on a piece of land. Now, that is serious, not only because of the theft of land involved, but it is an affront to God because the land was divided by divine lot – so this is cheating God as well. Now, that has been extended and interpreted to mean that one should not plagiarize another’s work or violate someone’s copyright rights – because these involve crossing a boundary of sorts and theft as well.

I have several Jewish commentaries from the Jewish Publication Society. the one I am citing here is Etz Hayim (The Tree of Life – meaning the Torah) which is well worth the price of purchase and reading its 1500 pages.

Nevertheless, Judaism does not have an official interpretation of any scripture text – so says The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford U Press). Etz Hayim sometimes has two, three, or even four interpretations of a verse, compiled from over centuries of study.

 

[tanachanswers]

I think the previous post was mistyped. In the first account, using “elohim” the implication is God as judge. Elohim can be translated as judges or divine spirits, it’s sort of a generic term, but is sometimes, as here, translated according to its meaning, as

Which is why it denotes the aspect of only Justice in the first creation story.

YHWH or YHVH implies mercy, which the previous poster probably meant to say.

I believe that i stated that the second story Justice tempered with Mercy.

But, more to the point, the Jewish commentaries point at that there are evidences of multiple sources for parts of the Torah (here meaning the pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible).

No Orthodox Jewish states such. As for other Jewish sources, they are merely copying Christian Scholars.

 

[simpleas]

I have been doing a brief study of the ancient Mesopotamian and Greek religions. It appears that the Sumerians also had their own creation ‘myth’:

here is the story of the making of man in the ancient Mesopotamian religion:

“…Enki (the ancient Mesopotamian god whose name means ‘Lord of the Earth’)then advises that they create a servant of the gods, humankind, out of clay and blood.[11] Against Enki’s wish the Gods decide to slay Kingu, and Enki finally consents to use Kingu’s blood to make the first human, with whom Enki always later has a close relationship, the first of the seven sages, seven wise men or “Abgallu” (Ab = water, Gal = great, Lu = Man), also known as Adapa. Enki assembles a team of divinities to help him, creating a host of “good and princely fashioners”. He tells his mother
‘Oh my mother, the creature whose name thou has uttered, it exists,Bind upon it the (will?) of the Gods;Mix the heart of clay that is over the Abyss,The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clayThou, do thou bring the limbs into existence;Ninmah (the Earth-mother goddess (Ninhursag, his wife and consort) will work above thee(Nintu?) (goddess of birth) will stand by thy fashioning;Oh my mother, decree thou its (the new born’s) fate.’
Adapa, the first man fashioned, later goes and acts as the advisor to the King of Eridu”

Note the name ‘Adapa’ as the first man. I think it is entirely plausible that the scribes included or ‘culled’ parts of the ancient religion for use in the Old Testament, which would explain talk of human sacrifice in the OT (the Sumerians were big on that). There are also similarities in both religions’ Deluge stories.

I have a theory, still requiring lots of research, that many of the gods in the ancient religions could be referring to Jesus Christ, or the LORD of the OT. Enki, for example, is ‘Lord of the Earth’, and his sacred number is forty. Dionysus, from the Greek Pantheon, is 'god of the grape harvest, winemaking and wine; a god of epiphany: “those who partake of his mysteries are possessed and empowered by the god himself” He is the only god in the Olympian Pantheon that was born of a mortal woman. And that when he was captured by the Titans his leadership was mocked and he was given a giant fennel stick to hold instead of a sceptre.

Best wishes,
Padster

Thanks all for your replies.

Yes I have been researching alittle more into how many creation myths/stories were told before or around the time of the writer in Genesis. I’ve heard it said that some of the accounts in genesis are taken from other sources as they were the belief at the time. We know that most other stories have more than one God, genesis indicates more than one, but we know it to be three persons into one, and that the hebrews spoke of only one God. (Please correct me if i’m wrong)

The Epic of Gilgamesh has a few similar accounts to that of genesis. It’s all very fascinating to read anicent texts, and it seems we find traces of the ancient world and their beliefs, practises, and humanity even today.

Reading Gen 1 it seems more like a clear view of creation and man’s purpose upon the earth. More like the writer expressing what knowledge he had of God and so put it down onto paper. And it is more in line with how we would accept the creation of the world in a scientific view for the 21st century.

Gen 2 is more like a view of how man see’s God, God having a rest on the seven day, and there being no man to til the soil, so God makes a man to take care of the garden. And then man needs a partner, so God creates the animals, but none are suitable, not sure why God would make the animals thinking they would be a match for Adam? But then Eve is made from Adam, so all is good.

There is so much to discover!

 

[tanachanswers]

Thanks all for your replies.

Yes I have been researching alittle more into how many creation myths/stories were told before or around the time of the writer in Genesis. I’ve heard it said that some of the accounts in genesis are taken from other sources as they were the belief at the time. We know that most other stories have more than one God, genesis indicates more than one, but we know it to be three persons into one, and that the hebrews spoke of only one God. (Please correct me if i’m wrong)

Actually, Genesis is monotheistic. And there was no triune godhead included.

Reading Gen 1 it seems more like a clear view of creation and man’s purpose upon the earth. More like the writer expressing what knowledge he had of God and so put it down onto paper. And it is more in line with how we would accept the creation of the world in a scientific view for the 21st century.

Gen 2 is more like a view of how man see’s God, God having a rest on the seven day, and there being no man to til the soil, so God makes a man to take care of the garden. And then man needs a partner, so God creates the animals, but none are suitable, not sure why God would make the animals thinking they would be a match for Adam? But then Eve is made from Adam, so all is good.
There is so much to discover!

Actually, if you read:
(Gen 1:27 BBE) And God made man in his image, in the image of God he made him: male and female he made them.

G-d created Adam both male and female at the same time. And as is stated in the Hebrew, G-d separated Eve from Adam’s side. She was not molded from his rib as has been taught by the church for centuries.

 

[TankGirl]

G-d created Adam both male and female at the same time

Actually, if you read the account carefully, God decided to create two sexes after the fact upon noticing Adam’s loneliness. Therefore, according to the account Adam would have had no sex at all at first, since God didn’t anticipate the need for human reproduction.

This is, of course, silly and impossible, and is just one of dozens of reasons the account is not true, cannot be true, and in fact is not compatible with Catholic theology anyway.

 

[juliamajor]

Could be two different source materials going on or as Nahum Sarna claims that one version was just there to thoroughly clarify the other account.

 

[grannymh]

Actually, if you read the account carefully, God decided to create two sexes after the fact upon noticing Adam’s loneliness. Therefore, according to the account Adam would have had no sex at all at first, since God didn’t anticipate the need for human reproduction.

This is, of course, silly and impossible, and is just one of dozens of reasons the account is not true, cannot be true, and in fact is not compatible with Catholic theology anyway.

Please refer to Genesis 1: 26-27. Thank you. It contains Catholic theology.

In addition, you might consider that a transcendent super-natural Pure Spirit, without material anatomy restrictions such as decomposition, would not be limited by a time frame in the material/physical universe He created. Genesis 1: 1

 

[TankGirl]

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Please see v20. Surely you don’t think God was looking for a mate for a human from among the animal kingdom. If God didn’t anticipate the need for human mating, then why would Adam have been sexual? Chapter 2 exists on the same plane of inspiration as ch 1. And ch 2 is plainly false in both the physical and theological sense.

 

[tanachanswers]

Actually, if you read the account carefully, God decided to create two sexes after the fact upon noticing Adam’s loneliness. Therefore, according to the account Adam would have had no sex at all at first, since God didn’t anticipate the need for human reproduction.

It seems to me you have over thought the whole story. So i will quote the verse:
(Gen 1:27 BBE) And God made man in his image, in the image of God he made him: male and female he made them.

According to the literal word G-d created both Adam and Eve as one being. For you will notice that, “God made man … God he made him: male and female he made them.”
As you can see G-d only created one being Adam, but it states at the end of the verse that He created Adam male and female, He created them.

Let me clarify Adam and Eve were like conjoined twins with Eve in a non-conscious state. Does this help ? If not, i can tell you the biblical commentator that agrees with me.

This is, of course, silly and impossible, and is just one of dozens of reasons the account is not true, cannot be true, and in fact is not compatible with Catholic theology anyway.

What ever Catholic theology has to do with understanding the bible, i have no idea. For the Popes have removed the Catholic beliefs from what the bible states when they stated that their beliefs superseded the word of G-d. Hence, i do not discuss Catholic theology, but just the plain meaning of the text of the Tanach.

 

[tanachanswers]

Could be two different source materials going on or as Nahum Sarna claims that one version was just there to thoroughly clarify the other account.

That’s great for people that do not want to believe in G-d. But, for people that want to understand the teachings of G-d it is important to understand what is written how it was written.

 

[TankGirl]

Let me clarify Adam and Eve were like conjoined twins with Eve in a non-conscious state. Does this help ?

This is silly.

If not, i can tell you the biblical commentator that agrees with me.

And I can ‘tell you’ thousands who do not.

It seems to me you have over thought the whole story. So i will quote the verse:
(Gen 1:27 BBE) And God made man in his image, in the image of God he made him: male and female he made them.

I’m pointing out that everyone who wants to debate and discuss the Genesis account use ch 1, while ch 2 is the interesting one. Nobody takes Ch 2 literally, because it flatly contradicts everyone’s theology. Jesus did this too, of course. His account of marriage references ch 1 only. Imagine if the plan for marriage was based on ch 2.

 

[tanachanswers]

20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found Please see v20…

Surely you don’t think God was looking for a mate for a human from among the animal kingdom. If God didn’t anticipate the need for human mating, then why would Adam have been sexual? Chapter 2 exists on the same plane of inspiration as ch 1. And ch 2 is plainly false in both the physical and theological sense.

Then you do not understand either chapter 1 or 2. Chapter one is there to give the creation story from the point of view of Justice, i.e. a literal and lineal point of view.

Yet, in comes chapter two the give the point of view of Justice tempered by Mercy, i.e. a world created with the focus on Adam. Both accounts are necessary in order to give the complete creation story in the eyes of G-d.

 

[TankGirl]

Then you do not understand either chapter 1 or 2. Chapter one is there to give the creation story from the point of view of Justice, i.e. a literal and lineal point of view.

Yet, in comes chapter two the give the point of view of Justice tempered by Mercy, i.e. a world created with the focus on Adam. Both accounts are necessary in order to give the complete creation story in the eyes of G-d.

Reporting that mankind was created with one (or no) sex originally has nothing to do with mercy.

 

[grannymh]

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Please see v20. Surely you don’t think God was looking for a mate for a human from among the animal kingdom. If God didn’t anticipate the need for human mating, then why would Adam have been sexual? Chapter 2 exists on the same plane of inspiration as ch 1. And ch 2 is plainly false in both the physical and theological sense.

Before I tackle verse 20, which affirms the rational human species as peerless, I respectfully suggest that you consider the whole context of the first three chapters of Genesis.

Regarding these three chapters, I cannot speak for all theology or for all the different theological senses which many people present. Catholic theologians, starting with St. Paul, seek Divine Revelation, that is, what God is telling us about Himself and His interactions with humans.

For example. Genesis 1:1 plainly says that God is the Creator of all. However, God did not give us His blueprints for His physical/material universe. What we do find is a dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26.

Bingo! God has shifted from the material creatures in a physical world to a new and completely unique creature known as man (meaning humankind, humanity, human race or species). To understand the words “in our image” or “in His image” we must consider God as a transcendent supernatural Pure Spirit without restrictions. Because God is not a physical material being, we know that He is not like us with arms and legs. That being obvious, Catholic theology tells us that we unique human organisms have a spiritual principle which is the “image” of our Pure Spiritual God. Because of our spiritual principle, our Spiritual God can interact with all humans all the way back to the first genuinely human “man” Adam.

By starting with Genesis 2: 15, we find ourselves in a muddle. Who is this new gardener? Where did he come from? Where is he going?

 

[TankGirl]

By starting with Genesis 2: 15, we find ourselves in a muddle. Who is this new gardener? Where did he come from? Where is he going?

My point. Ch 2 is inspired scripture on the same level as Ch 1, but it is contradictory to Ch1, and to Catholic theology, so everyone (dishonestly) ignores it. You just did.