There are two creation accounts in Genesis. Which one is (more) correct? Does it matter?
Who wrote this part of Genesis? Are the accounts literal, fiction, allegorical, mythical, something else?
There are two creation accounts in Genesis. Which one is (more) correct? Does it matter?
Who wrote this part of Genesis? Are the accounts literal, fiction, allegorical, mythical, something else?
Oh, that's where the Lilith story comes from. She was Adam's first wife but wasn't submissive enough so God got rid of her and created Eve who WAS submissive.
From Wikipedia: In some Jewish folklore, such as the satiric Alphabet of Sirach (c. AD 700–1000), Lilith appears as Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time (Rosh Hashanah) and from the same clay as Adam – compare Genesis 1:27[5] (this contrasts with Eve, who was created from one of Adam's ribs).[6] The legend of Lilith developed extensively during the Middle Ages, in the tradition of Aggadah, the Zohar, and Jewish mysticism.[7] For example, in the 11th-century writings of Isaac ben Jacob ha-Cohen, Lilith left Adam after she refused to become subservient to him and then would not return to the Garden of Eden after she had coupled with the archangel Samael.[8]
The second account expands on the first. Creation of man and woman in chapter 1 is the summary, chapter 2 gives the details.
Moses assembled them from the stories his people had handed down. The "days" are creative acts, guiding the course of evolution where God wanted it to go. And as we know, the crown of God's creation is Google.
The actual accounts would not support that interpretation. They are too different.
Surely, as a scholar, you must know Moses is not really the author. Unless he could write from beyond the grave.Quote:
Moses assembled them from the stories his people had handed down.
I always wondered about google - now I know.Quote:
The "days" are creative acts, guiding the course of evolution where God wanted it to go. And as we know, the crown of God's creation is Google.
Thanks for participating. See you next month.
Wow - that is fascinating! I never knew the details although I had heard the name Lilith over the years being connected to that old-time religion.
Fits right in to your theory of woman in the Bible. I also didn't know Samael was an archangel. My archangel knowledge was limited to Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael. Ummm - "coupled"? Is that like, ummm, "know" in the biblical sense? Must be - after all, it's in the Bible.
Did Sam and Lilly have any kids/little angels - little demons?
In Hebrew-language texts, the term lilith or lilit (translated as "night creatures", "night monster", "night hag", or "screech owl") first occurs in a list of animals in Isaiah 34,[10] either in singular or plural form according to variations in the earliest manuscripts. The Isaiah 34:14 Lilith reference does not appear in most common Bible translations such as KJV and NIV. Commentators and interpreters often envision the figure of Lilith as a dangerous demon of the night, who is sexually wanton, and who steals babies in the darkness. In the Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q510-511, the term first occurs in a list of monsters. Jewish magical inscriptions on bowls and amulets from the 6th century AD onwards identify Lilith as a female demon and provide the first visual depictions of her.
Read the Wikipedia article on him to learn more. He was quite a cute guy!Quote:
Fits right in to your theory of woman in the Bible. I also didn't know Samael was an archangel.
One Wikipedia paragraph:
In the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch,[5] he is the dominant evil figure. Samael plants the Tree of knowledge, thereupon he is banished and cursed by God.[7]:257–60 To take revenge, he tempts Adam and Eve into sin by taking the form of the serpent.[5][6]
Yup, you nailed it!Quote:
Ummm - "coupled"? Is that like, ummm, "know" in the biblical sense? Must be - after all, it's in the Bible.
Sounds like a fun research project!Quote:
Did Sam and Lilly have any kids/little angels - little demons?
I clicked on the Adam and eve link and got this:
Adam and Eve according to the creation myth of the Abrahamic religions,[1][2] were the first man and woman. They are central to the belief that humanity is in essence a single family, with everyone descended from a single pair of original ancestors.[3] They also provide the basis for the doctrines of the fall of man and original sin that are important beliefs in Christianity, although not held in Judaism or Islam.[4]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Rubens_004.jpg
The Fall of Man by Peter Paul Rubens, 1628–29
In the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible, chapters one through five, there are two creation narratives with two distinct perspectives. In the first, Adam and Eve are not named. Instead, God created humankind in God's image and instructed them to multiply and to be stewards over everything else that God had made. In the second narrative, God fashions Adam from dust and places him in the Garden of Eden. Adam is told that he can eat freely of all the trees in the garden, except for a tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Subsequently, Eve is created from one of Adam's ribs to be his companion. They are innocent and unembarrassed about their nakedness. However, a serpent convinces Eve to eat fruit from the forbidden tree, and she gives some of the fruit to Adam. These acts give them additional knowledge, but it gives them the ability to conjure negative and destructive concepts such as shame and evil. God later curses the serpent and the ground. God prophetically tells the woman and the man what will be the consequences of their sin of disobeying God. Then he banishes them from the Garden of Eden.
The myth underwent extensive elaboration in later Abrahamic traditions, and it has been extensively analyzed by modern biblical scholars. Interpretations and beliefs regarding Adam and Eve and the story revolving around them vary across religions and sects; for example, the Islamic version of the story holds that Adam and Eve were equally responsible for their sins of hubris, instead of Eve being the first one to be unfaithful. The story of Adam and Eve is often depicted in art, and it has had an important influence in literature and poetry.
The story of the fall of Adam is often considered to be an allegory. Findings in population genetics, particularly those concerning Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve, indicate that a single first "Adam and Eve" pair of human beings never existed.
Last sentence - proof positive that the story is an allegory?
1. If the Genesis creation account is to be seen as purely allegorical, what allegorical meaning is to be drawn from it?
2. Why could Moses not have been the author of all of the Pentateuch except for the end of the Deuteronomy account?
3. From an atheist's perspective, what do you gain from "getting rid" of Genesis? Don't you still have the enormous challenge of the literally dozens and dozens of NT scriptures which speak of wrath, judgment and hell? Compared to that, the flood is a nothing issue, isn't it?
4. If all of Genesis is fictional, then how do you replace the Abraham narrative which is central to Christian theology?
5. Why could the two Genesis creation accounts simply be seen as complementary?
6. Considering the supposed difficulties of the two creation narratives, why do you think some scribe in the many centuries before Christ didn't simply clean it up and do away with that supposed problem?
Easily found on google. Many interpretations - take your pick.
Maybe because he was dead? Plus the obvious answer all (most) scholars believe - that a famous name was used as author to make the account more credible. You should know this if you want to continue as some sort of expert on the literalness of the Bible.Quote:
2. Why could Moses not have been the author of all of the Pentateuch except for the end of the Deuteronomy account?
You would have to ask an atheist.Quote:
3. From an atheist's perspective, what do you gain from "getting rid" of Genesis?
You said it, not me. Look up the definitions of "fiction" and "allegorical". Then answer your own question.Quote:
4. If all of Genesis is fictional
Abraham is OK, but not the flood? Cherry-pick much?Quote:
then how do you replace the Abraham narrative which is central to Christian theology?
Because they're different.Quote:
5. Why could the two Genesis creation accounts simply be seen as complementary?
Because they're from different traditions.Quote:
6. Considering the supposed difficulties of the two creation narratives, why do you think some scribe in the many centuries before Christ didn't simply clean it up and do away with that supposed problem?
But I'm asking what yours is. Either you or WG.Quote:
Easily found on google. Many interpretations - take your pick.
Only at the end of Dt.Quote:
Maybe because he was dead?
You have data for that?Quote:
Plus the obvious answer all (most) scholars believe
Quote:
You said it, not me.
Actually, I didn't. I offered them as suppositions.Quote:
Abraham is OK, but not the flood? Cherry-pick much?
Isn't that how the concept of complementary works?Quote:
Because they're different.
I'm not sure there is any evidence for that, but even if there is, wouldn't they have seen the supposed discrepancies you claim to see and have viewed it as a serious problem?Quote:
Because they're from different traditions.
Why?
Well, he certainly wasn't alive during the creation.Quote:
Only at the end of Dt.
Look it up - it's all over the internet. Surely you knew that.Quote:
You have data for that? (Moses' authorship)
Depends on the nature of the difference.Quote:
Isn't that how the concept of complementary works?
Plenty of evidence.Quote:
I'm not sure there is any evidence for that
I did not "claim" to see "discrepancies" - they are there in black and white for anyone who can read to see. Also, they have differences, not discrepancies - a nuanced understanding.Quote:
wouldn't they have seen the supposed discrepancies you claim to see
Obviously not, since they exist. Genesis was assembled over time and put together at different times. The latest and the version most of us are familiar with today was finalized during the Babylonian Exile. It's called the Priestly Tradition.Quote:
and have viewed it as a serious problem? (previous scribes)
1. You two say it is allegorical. It seems strange to me to claim something is an allegory, and yet have not idea what the moral meaning is. Oh well.
2. Most of the biographers of the lives of George Washington, Lincoln, King George, Martin Luther, the emperors of Rome, and generally all other figures of history were not alive when those events happen. It is simple history. The writer does not have to be alive when it happens
3. All over the internet? Sure it is.
4. "Depends on the difference." I'd agree with that.
5. "Plenty of evidence." I'm not saying there's not, but I am saying that I would need to see that evidence to believe your statement.
6. Discrepancies or differences, why didn't the scribes simply make the correction?
7. You have no idea how or when Genesis was put together. No one has a certain answer to that question.
This makes no sense. You're confusing yourself - not for the first time. You didn't answer the question of WHY do you want to know my (our) interpretation of Genesis?
If no one was alive, how did "Moses" know?Quote:
2. Most of the biographers of the lives of George Washington, etc., etc., ......were not alive when those events happen. It is simple history. The writer does not have to be alive when it happens
This evasion of Jl refers to Moses' debatable authorship of the first five books of the OT. It certainly IS all over the internet. It's been a major topic for scholars since forever. Denying it doesn't cause it to go away.Quote:
3. All over the internet? Sure it is.
These are easy questions to research and answer. Jl is just playing the troll to cast confusion - a trick he does well.Quote:
5. "Plenty of evidence." I'm not saying there's not, but I am saying that I would need to see that evidence to believe your statement.
6. Discrepancies or differences, why didn't the scribes simply make the correction?
7. You have no idea how or when Genesis was put together. No one has a certain answer to that question.
The answers are accessible via that great library we all have at out fingertips - the internet. If Jl is willing to spend the necessary time reading, he can get all the answers he wants verified by scholars and those who have undertaken the examination of the Bible over the years.
But that's not what Jl wants. He wants to muddle the discussion by demanding long and complex ideas in the space of a Q&A forum. He thinks that gives him the upper hand.
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:21 PM. |