What can we gather from Genesis?

[marco]

Can we extract anything good from the Genesis account of creation? God apparently told Adam, the first human: "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." He didn't say why he had planted poisonous berries in a perfect orchard. Adam seems to have lived on, having escaped the dangerous garden.


We can extract beautiful meanings from the tales of Hans Andersen, such as the Little Mermaid who learns that pleasure comes at a great price. From the story of Orpheus and Eurydice in Greek mythology we can understand that a man can enter his dark psyche to find something precious, only to have it snatched away.


Can we learn anything useful from the Genesis creation story?

If we accept the existence of Neanderthal man do we simply throw Genesis in the bucket?

[1213]

...
Can we learn anything useful from the Genesis creation story?
...

I have (for example how earth was formed), but maybe you can’t.

[bluegreenearth]

The following are just some thoughts based on my impression of the text, and I have no idea if they line-up with what the qualified experts may have been able to determine:

I have learned from the book of Genesis that there are actually two different creation accounts contained within the text. This indicates to me that the creation story in the book of Genesis is neither the author's original work nor a single comprehensive creation account.

The two creation stories in Genesis read as if they have been borrowed, adapted, and compiled into a single text from the origin myths of two separate tribes of people. Otherwise, I would have expected the author of Genesis to have simply written a single culturally unique creation account.

Because the two stories share many similarities with each other, their external sources were probably located geographically adjacent to each other. Archaeology and anthropology informs me that it would not be unexpected for ancient people to share their origin myths with people they encountered from neighboring tribes. Over time, each tribe's origin myth would gradually incorporate aspects of their neighboring tribe's origin myth.

One possible explanation for the appearance of these separate creation stories in the book of Genesis is that the culture from which the author of Genesis belonged was comprised of people whose ancestors originated from those earlier separate tribes who later merged with each other to become a single cohesive unit.

If this newly established culture had been too preoccupied with trying to feed and protect themselves in the early stages of their development, as was the case for every newly established bronze-age society, then the true story of their foundation from a convergence of separate tribes could have easily been lost to history. Consequently, by the time this society advanced enough to permit an individual the capacity to acquire the rudimentary skills required for documenting a creation account, the only origin stories to draw from would have been the two which were verbally communicated up through the generations.

For some undisclosed reason, the author of Genesis had an inability to perfectly harmonize the two creation accounts into a single comprehensive story. Instead, the author just placed the two different accounts next to each other in the text.

Maybe this was done for political reasons in order to appease two dominant groups within his culture who each preferred their own version of the creation myth.

Another possibility is that it was never the author's intention to harmonize the two creation accounts because his purpose was to merely compile whatever sources he had into a single reference book.

Unfortunately, all I can do at this point is speculate. Maybe someone who has done some research into this topic will be able to offer some more insight.

[Thomas123]

I have studied this in the past and it is most likely that the origins of much of this story comes from an oral nomadic tribal tradition, Willum mentioned Sumerian myths earlier which contain Flood stories.. I agree that the Genesis story is a mix that has probably been tidied up as late as Isaiah. I am no expert in this by any means.

[bluegreenearth]

I have studied this in the past and it is most likely that the origins of much of this story comes from an oral nomadic tribal tradition, Willum mentioned Sumerian myths earlier which contain Flood stories.. I agree that the Genesis story is a mix that has probably been tidied up as late as Isaiah. I am no expert in this by any means.

Why the two separate accounts rather than a single comprehensive story?

[Thomas123]

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
.........
2:7 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.
2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


These two accounts are very different. My guess would be that the Genesis 1 version might be more recent than the other one. What do you think?

[bluegreenearth]

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
.........
2:7 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.
2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


These two accounts are very different. My guess would be that the Genesis 1 version might be more recent than the other one. What do you think?

Without any other information, I find no justification for presuming one account to be more recent than the other. One is certainly more concise than the other, but this need not necessarily imply anything about their relative ages.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 15 by Thomas Mc Donald]

Upon doing some further research online (yes, I know information posted on the internet isn't always reliable), I've been given the impression that most qualified experts in Biblical scholarship are inclined to accept that the first account (Genesis 1) is the oldest having more similarities with the even older ancient Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish. It has been proposed that Genesis 1 was the Jewish attempt to modify the previous polytheistic creation myth to comport with their recently developed monotheistic belief.

[Thomas123]

Hi bluegreenearth, (nice name), it looks like Genesis 1 is based on older mythology but is modified later by a Hebrew scribe in the 4th Century BC. Genesis 2 has affinities with Mesopotamia myths..?? Walk away quietly!

[amortalman]

What a start for a book, what a creation myth!
I cannot say for certain whether there is wisdom in it or whether I have extracted wisdom from it. Perhaps neither.
I have been instructed with this story since childhood like many others.
I could not possibly disagree more with the shallow presentation of this story's merits that I see here on this debate.
This is not a scientific journal explaining man's early evolvement from his primate origins. Can you explain how this happened, to me in simple terms. Are we more or similar to other primates. If more then, in what way. Adam in primate oblivion emerges to the glare of conscious awareness on a journey out of Eden away from Yahweh, the Eden God.That is the Genesis explanation of our distant past. What is yours?

Thomas, it would be helpful if you would let us know who you are responding to. Instructions on the proper way to do that are available on this site.

[Thomas123]

Amortalman, I take your point as I am new to the forum. At the time of posting I appeared to be alone in favour of 'the wise myth' side of the argument so that my response was for all others. Since then we have had new views from 1213 and bluegreenearth.