What were the Genesis editors thinking when they put two contradictory creation stories right next to each other?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Genesis 1 & Genesis 2-3
What were the Genesis editors thinking when they put two contradictory creation stories right next to each other?
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
where's the contradiction?
In Genesis 1 plants and animals are made before man, while in Genesis 2 man is made before plants and animals.
Genesis 1 is an overview of the week of creation, Genesis 2 is merely going in further detail about the creation of man. Also Genesis 2 is talking specifically about the creation of Eden, not the whole earth.
Just read the chapter, it talks about a lot more than “merely” the creation of man and the garden of Eden. I also don’t see how this resolves the contradiction in order of creation.
>Just read the chapter, it talks about a lot more than “merely” the creation of man and the garden of Eden.
Genesis 1 does, Genesis 2 is specifically about Eden.
>I also don’t see how this resolves the contradiction in order of creation.
Because the creation of Eden must have happened before the creation of the whole Earth, it's basic logic.
Shit, sorry, I meant AFTER the creation of the Earth.
>Genesis 2 is specifically about Eden.
Genesis 2 is about creation as a whole, it’s an entire creation narrative. Open up your Bible and read it.
No, it's about placing man in the Garden.
I think this question will explain it to you,
Were plants or man made first?
That depends, are you refering to the plants of the earth or the plants of Eden?
Of earth
Then that would be before,
Yet Genesis 2 says there were no shrubs or plants on the Earth until man was made
its to highlight that this is a parable of the human creation story but the reality is we are dealing with an eternal being whose literally been doing this FOREVER and needing beginnings when talking about something like that is low IQ
>this is a parable-
Cucked.
ahhh your one of those sola scriptora gays. you have done more damage to the souls of man then any damage done by satan. i rebuke you demon, go cry about how lucifer put the fossils under the ground to test your faith right after you have a nice day you covert fedora gay
>ahhh your one of those sola scriptora gays.
Nope, I'm Catholic.
........Catholics understand not everything in the bible is meant to be interpreted literally (which is why low iq individuals like you wouldnt have been allowed to read the bible back in the day) so what exactly are you trying to argue? matter of fact i dont evne care cause now your just backpedalling "im a catholic' go be a hero anon
>........Catholics understand not everything in the bible is meant to be interpreted literally
I know, but Genesis is defintely meant to be read as real historical events, absolutely nothing in Catholic doctrine makes sense if Genesis didn't literally happen.
nothing in Catholic doctrine makes sense regardless. Catholics don't even believe in the Bible, so what does that have to do with the start of Genesis?
>nothing in Catholic doctrine makes sense regardless. Catholics don't even believe in the Bible
'sup, prottie.
So you have nothing to add, you just want to poison the discussion?
You're the one attacking me.
no the frick its not you idiot. the catholics official stance is that the big bang is compatable with scripture. now im not saying what was written didnt go down but to transfer something to words will always leave stuff out as it is a llimited framework of conveying information and god obviosly knows that. you either are larping as a catholic for contrarian cool points or are a covert fedora gay and i cant figure out which is grosser
Where in Catholic doctrine does it say that Genesis should be read as a parable?
......i just told you dumbass?
Lol where? In the CCC?
okay let me repeat this to you. if the catholic church accepts the big bang then the phrasing in the genesis story is obviously written from a time in place where words like "day" is from the perspective of god. this is obviously understood unless, again, you are a sola scriptora gay and if so please go jump off a bridge as to save us from your malevelant moronation
>. if the catholic church accepts the big bang then the phrasing in the genesis story is obviously written from a time in place where words like "day" is from the perspective of god.
Absolutely not, none of this follows. The Catholic Church accepting the Big Bang has no bearing on our historical understanding of Genesis.
okay my work is done. please go seek help for your inability to critically think. i feel bad for the people that gotta deal with you irl
Bless you anon.
Where does it say Adam and Eve weren't people who literally got tempted and fell? Are you an idiot who thinks they weren't real people?
there was obviosly a first man and woman. if were talking about the hypostatic but mutable souls of the first created beings then yes to that too. i belive the bible you dork, i just dont have an autismic need to leverage my understanding over other followers for cool points like you sola scriptora gays. but common dude, show me where the churchs doctrine says the genisis account is meant to be taken literally? and if its understood that there is room for interpretation (given that nothing is perfect other than god) thats called a parable. jesus dude how old are you?
There's debate over day because of what yom means in Hebrew but some things have to be taken as is
"II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.
III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.
the only way you can take something 'as is" is if you can explain what about it is eternally true or its a verifiable historical event. but yea sola scriptora gays need to be educated or eradicated
Do you disagree with this?
In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.
i believe the stories in the bible are more real than i can fathom (given we are all limited) and anyone who claims divine understanding is a satan
Adam and eve would still literally exist and get tempted by Satan into the fall.
Part one is God makes his creation and part 2 is the fall. The text is criptic either because they wanted things inscrutable to the uninitiated or the text was revised when the faith fell into the hands of lesser men.
>5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
I'm not seeing the part where the plants were made after Adam.
Genesis 2 says there were no plants because there was no water and no one to work the land, then the very next verse says that water comes and man is made. Water and man are the two prerequisites to plants being created, so they have to come first.
It said right there that it was NO RAIN, not "no water".
>But there went up a mist from the earth
you know, like morning dew
>and watered the whole face of the ground
The verse obviously means there were no plants because they’re was no water, it doesn’t matter whether it’s specifically rain water or mist from the ground. This is besides the point though.
it says starting verse 5 that
>very plant of the field before it was in the earth
If they were "in" the Earth, they were seedlings, and the mist nourished them to sprout up.
>But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground
Which is why
>every herb of the field before it grew
but
>there was not a man to till the ground
therefore
> the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
I'm not seeing the contradiction here.
>If they were "in" the Earth
They weren’t though. Genesis 2 says there were no plants or shrubs in the earth. Water and man had to come first, then plants.
They were, though. It said it right there. They (the seedlings) were in (encased) the (in) Earth (dirt). And the water was already there as a mist over the ground.
You're just reading the KJV wrong. It's not even a mistranslation, you're an idiot for using a version in an english you can't read. "and every plant of the field BEFORE it was in the earth, and every herb of the field BEFORE it grew, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth" means this was BEFORE the plants and herbs were in the earth or growing, it's describing the state of the plants and herbs (dormant or non-existent just like the man)
Here's a perfectly literal version (YLT):
Genesis 2:5 and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, for Jehovah God hath not rained upon the earth, and a man there is not to serve the ground,
Another literal version (LSV):
Genesis 2:5 and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouts, for YHWH God has not rained on the earth, and there is not a man to serve the ground
This of course contradicts Genesis 1:
11 And God says, “Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth”: and it is so. 12 And the earth brings forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind
>warps scripture to say something it doesn't say
>cites corrupted translations to back the point
yikes...
If you take Earth in Genesis 2 to mean the garden, no contradiction exists. Voila.
The same word is used for the earth that is not sprouting plants and the earth that God created alongside the heavens. (mentioned at least 3 times in the same chapter)
When God makes the garden (after creating man) and makes plants sprout in it, it's called the garden, and its ground is called ground.
It's not contradictory.
It's the same event of creation told from two different perspectives, God's and man's.
Genesis 1 is told through God's objective, absolute perspective, timeless but unfolded over seven distinct iterations.
Genesis 2 is Adam's subjective, limited experience of his creation in time. He perceives creation as if it were oriented around him, which is why he comes before the animals. It's not strictly true, but it's how things actually appeared to Adam.
That's why in Genesis 1, the creation of man takes one verse, and in the second it is drawn out and made into a chronological sequence. It's an illustration of the difference between God's perspective and ours. One timeless, one in time.
Sure okay, so was Adam made before the animals (and before Eve) or not?
No, because in Genesis 1 God creates Adam last. It just appears the other way around to Adam, who's unique perspective from within creation and time is the topic of Genesis 2.
You'll note that in Genesis 1, God creates men and women at the same time. Whereas in Genesis 2, Adam is created before Eve.
That's because God sees all events has happening simultaneously, whereas man perceives events in linear time and in a way that is subjective and self centered.
Adam's perspective is the same as ours, we are all the center of our own personal worlds. But to God we aren't really the center, he sees things objectively.
You shouldn't read Genesis 1 as if it were happening in time, you should see the 7 iterations of creation not as literal days but more like an order of operations.
Even though a mathematical algorithm appears to us to work itself out over time, ideally the steps involved take place simultaneously.
Genesis 2 meanwhile takes the single verse of the creation of man in Genesis 1, and draws it out into a chronological sequence.
they are not contradictory
See
why does it matter?
The question will illustrate where the contradiction is
why dont you point out what you think are the contradictions
I already did,
Genesis 1 says plants were made before man
Genesis 2 says man was made before plants
so why does it matter?
Because I'm wondering why the Genesis authors would put two contradictory stories right next to each other
can you post the passage to see the difference?
saw it
no contradiction
>OP asks interesting question
>thread immediately derails into arguing with inerrantist morons
I don't know OP, but I suspect it was a result of compromise. Like, if some priests really like the seven days story but others really like the Adam and Eve story plus it's important genealogically, and you want to make an authoritative text that's acceptable to as many Yahwists/Jews as possible, maybe the safest thing to do is just to include both. And if it leads to some minor inconsistencies, maybe nobody minds too much because both stories still agree on the main point: that God created the world and everything in it.
>This homie can’t tell that Genesis 1 is the macro creation story while genesis 2 is the micro creation story
Literally basic reading comprehension would save half of you idiots so much ti
Were plants or man created first?
Plants
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a man
That is not the KJV.
You are incapable of reading the KJV:
that post has been debunked
Your mom has been bonked.
The real Bible wasn't written in English you know.
Okay, then bring the verses in Hebrew and Aramaic and a dictionary for us to decipher it then.
Read Genesis 1 and 2 in YLT
Do you know the word "gullible" in hebrew?
I can do you one better
https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
side-by-side english and hebrew
Genesis 1 is about El Elyon (the perfect platonic Demiurge), and is an account of natural philosophy's cosmology (4 elements theory).
Genesis 2 and further is about a terrestrial storm god Yahweh, and is solely mythological.
During the writing about Exodus, the israeli priests decided to retcon it, and conflated these two characters.
There's absolutely no reason to assume the contradiction is a result of editing.
In fact, much the opposite. Malicious editors don't like contradictions, they would have made the account more consistent not less.
It's not as if they didn't notice, editors are paid to notice these things. Especially when the event is critically important to their religion, and the difference is on the very next page.
No, the proximity and relation of this contradiction actually suggests the difference is entirely intentional.
It's supposed to subtly illustrate the difference between man and God. That's what the whole book is about, it would make sense for a microcosm of that theme to be present in the beginning.
Most people the first time they read the book don't even notice this. That's part of the point. When a student has learned enough about scripture to actually notice this and ask about it, his master knows he's ready to receive this teaching concerning his own perspective. That's how you're supposed to learn scripture, someone explains it's deeper meaning to you when you're ready for it. Not before.
>In fact, much the opposite. Malicious editors don't like contradictions, they would have made the account more consistent not less.
You don't understand the Documentary Hypothesis. The editor isn't "malicious", he's taking multiple sources and combining them into one account. The amount of editing is purposefully kept to a minimum because the editor wanted to preserve the differences between the sources.
It's the same as the different accounts of Saul's death. The author of Samuel did not intend for these two accounts to be reconciled. They're two accounts of Saul's death that differ, and he chose to leave them side-by-side for us to interpret.
There is no issue here except if you're coming at it with the assumption that every sentence of the Bible is literal, 100% factual truth, rather than religious/political texts written by Judahite scribes who had their own written sources that they utilized. Some of these sources are even cited despite being lost to history, such as the annals used in Kings, or the Book of Jasher.
>You don't understand the Documentary Hypothesis.
I don't need to. Academic consensus around it has disappeared since 50 years ago because of it's flawed assumptions.
>editor isn't "malicious"
Yeah, they would be. You claim they are deliberately misrepresenting and appropriating texts they didn't author for ideological or religious reasons. That's the definition of malice.
>Book of Jasher
Dude the texts of the bible weren't even compiled into a single volume and canonized until after year 0. Before then they were all individual works related to the same or related subjects.
There were a voluminous number of writings that referenced one another. This diversity of distribution would have meant that if one group edited one version of a particular work, other people would eventually realize this because those editors wouldn't have exclusive access to the writings. This would cause a lot of problems for the editors.
Basically the same reason you can't get away with editing the bible during the late classical period. Too many independent cooberating witnesses, but in this case the witnesses are all the other books in the bible and those which didn't get canonized too. Too many cross references in separate works to get away with it.
It doesn't make nearly as much sense as people claim.
>I don't need to. Academic consensus around it has disappeared since 50 years ago because of it's flawed assumptions.
Bro, if you're going to argue against the theory, then yes, you need to understand it.
>Yeah, they would be. You claim they are deliberately misrepresenting and appropriating texts they didn't author for ideological or religious reasons. That's the definition of malice.
That's not what I'm claiming. Ancient historians rarely cited their sources, even when they were clear they used a number of them. The hypothetical editor isn't lying by omitting his sources. His highly literate elite audience was probably familiar with the accounts he was utilizing.
We can see examples in the OT of authors citing other OT accounts and combining them similarly.
Example: Chronicles 35:13
>They roasted the Passover animals over the fire as prescribed, and boiled the holy offerings in pots, caldrons and pans and served them quickly to all the people.
The author of Chronicles does not say this, but it is clear he is referencing Exodus 12:8-9 which says the passover lamb is roasted. Deuteronomy 16:7 says that the lamb is boiled.
Chronicles is seeking to reconcile the two, and he does that by essentially saying the lamb is "boiled" with fire. He does not cover up one or the other, he combines them.
The editor of the Torah is doing something similar with his sources, which are lost to history unfortunately.
>There were a voluminous number of writings that referenced one another. This diversity of distribution would have meant that if one group edited one version of a particular work, other people would eventually realize this because those editors wouldn't have exclusive access to the writings. This would cause a lot of problems for the editors.
This is simply not true. There was a lot of variation in manuscript traditions of biblical texts before the printing press, since all copies were handwritten. I don't want to get too much into that, however.
frfr tho
How are you gonna sit there and tell me that they stitched together two different creation stories and tried to pass it off as if they were always just one story, and somehow that isn't just a malicious lie?
If his highly literate audience was indeed familiar with the literature already, they would have immediately noticed that these separate works have been spliced together to mean something different. And they wouldn't have accepted this butchery of their holy books.
There's no evidence they took issue with it. My explanation, at least regarding Genesis 1 and 2, is far more parsimonious.
>There was a lot of variation in manuscript traditions of biblical texts before the printing press, since all copies were handwritten.
We really don't have any manuscripts from the period in which these supposed editors are supposed to have been active though. All the copies we have now more or less reflect the same basic narrative printed in modern bibles.
>How are you gonna sit there and tell me that they stitched together two different creation stories and tried to pass it off as if they were always just one story, and somehow that isn't just a malicious lie?
Anon I have an interlinear book of the 3 synoptic gospels, which places all the similar accounts side-by-side.
In the Documentary Hypothesis, that's essentially what it is, it just doesn't clearly cite the sources, as many ancient writings didn't. His contemporaries would have had copies of these texts they could refer to and see what he was doing.
Overtime, this redacted form of the different sources became more popular and people just stopped making new copies of the sources, just like they didn't for other biblical sources like the book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua.
>We really don't have any manuscripts from the period in which these supposed editors are supposed to have been active though. All the copies we have now more or less reflect the same basic narrative printed in modern bibles.
You're right, but this is just a likely hypothesis based on the evidence we have. We won't know for certain unless we happened to find copies of these sources, which isn't likely to happen, at least any time soon.
>Anon I have an interlinear book of the 3 synoptic gospels, which places all the similar accounts side-by-side.
>Documentary Hypothesis, that's essentially what it is
Anon, we don't have three different versions of the Pentateuch. Never have.
Are you saying the DH presents it's hypothetical reconstructions of the source material side by side? In Hexaplar fashion, per Origen.
>Overtime, this redacted form of the different sources became more popular and people just stopped making new copies of the sources, just like they didn't for other biblical sources like the book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua.
People didn't just stop making copies of Jasher. It was lost somehow, for reasons we might only be able to guess at. Something similar happened to Enoch and other important works.