The Order of Creation

[katiesevenfour]

Would anyone be able to shed light on why there are two differing orders of creation within the bible? To my mind it's because it was changed by men over the years and they didn't edit very well and remove their contradictions once the new material had been written. I'm sure there are other views than mine. The orders are as below. In the second account, women are made from a man, not equal to men as in the first account. I would guess because this is a reflection of the times it was written in when men were seeking to dominate women and make them second class citizens, an achievement that still exists to this day in many countries around the world. Not an achievement of God who considers all beings equal regardless of gender, colour, race, religion or sexuality in my humble opinion. It's humans who have a problem with the boiling pot of diversity alive on our planet today, not God.

The Differing Orders of Creation:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

[Shermana]

I have discussed this quite often, it appears that the Creation account may not be so contradictory but simply misunderstood.

Some rabbinical Jewish tradition says that Lilith was created before Eve. There is also some. though rarer tradition of a Pre-Adamic race and around 900 generations before Adam. Otherwise, those who say that Adam and Eve were created on Day 6 must contend that that the entire affair of the garden and the serpent and the fruit and being fruitful and multiplying happened all before the Sabbath.

Also, the garden is a separate location than the rest of the Earth, a special location for the Prime man. This may be indicated by use of the article "Ha-eretz" versus simply "eretz". So it wasn't so much that plants did not exist because they were not tilled on the "Earth" but in "the land" of the Garden itself. The language seems to indicate that the plants requiring to be tilled were those of the garden, not the 99.9999% rest of the Earth.

[Slopeshoulder]

Two different authors, J and E if I recall correctly, with different emphases, from two regions, both included when edited together. The details don't matter, the themes do.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Would anyone be able to shed light on why there are two differing orders of creation within the bible? To my mind it's because it was changed by men over the years and they didn't edit very well and remove their contradictions once the new material had been written. I'm sure there are other views than mine. The orders are as below. In the second account, women are made from a man, not equal to men as in the first account. I would guess because this is a reflection of the times it was written in when men were seeking to dominate women and make them second class citizens, an achievement that still exists to this day in many countries around the world. Not an achievement of God who considers all beings equal regardless of gender, colour, race, religion or sexuality in my humble opinion. It's humans who have a problem with the boiling pot of diversity alive on our planet today, not God.

The Differing Orders of Creation:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

There are several stories about why there are two creation accounts in Genesis. I like this one.

According to the Documentary Hypothesis there were several different authors of the various writings that were merged and redacted into the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. Two of those authors are called J (Jahwist) and P (Priestly). Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 (the seven day story) are taken to be the work of P and the Adam and Eve version the work of J. P represents the viewpoint of the Temple priests. A key element of the Temple tradition is a single transcendent all-powerful God, who happens to be accessible only by priests in the Temple. Genesis 1 shows such a God, one who is rather different from the more personal and directly accessible Yahweh who shows up in Genesis 2. The J section is older and references various Middle Eastern myths. I will leave it to someone else to document that part and will tackle the P section.

Genesis 1 was not intended to be a scientific description of the origin of the universe. The creation of light on Day 1 the creation of sources of light (sun, moon, stars) on Day 4 is a big clue. Even the most primitive of people understand that light comes from these sources and that the day/night cycle is associated with the sun. To represent it otherwise suggests that a different kind of story is being told.

If one compares the opening of Genesis with the Sumerian Enuma Elish one is struck not so much by the similarities, as are strongly evident elsewhere in Genesis, as by the apparently deliberate differences. Genesis 1 is taking a story from Enuma Elish and changing it to underscore the differences between it and Hebrew theology.

The Babylonian Exile would have acquainted the Jews with the old Sumerian myths, still very popular in Babylonian times. The Priestly author is using that familiar platform to jump to this new concept that distinguished Jews from others and bolstered the authority of the priests.

Points being made in Genesis 1 by contrast with the Enuma Elish.

* There is a single supreme deity who is the one and only authority. The Enuma Elish has loads of gods of varying goodness who are not necessarily all that worthy of respect.

* The supreme deity has absolute power over the world. In the Enuma Elish, the forces of chaos (the sea beast) must be overcome and this must be ritually renewed every year. The God of Genesis 1 simply speaks commands and chaos (the water) is subjugated. There is no opposing supernatural "sea beast" force and it never needs repeating. (On the 7th day he rested.)

* The world is an orderly, lawful, hierarchical place with man at the top of the pyramid. In the Enuma Elish, man is created as an afterthought when the lesser gods go on strike and refuse to dig more irrigation canals.

* The six day business is a complex structure of couplets where cosmic realms or kingdoms are created, then rulers are created for those kingdoms.

[mrow][mcol][b]Create Kingdoms[/b][mcol][b]Populate Kingdoms[/b][row][b]Light from Dark[/b][col] Day 1 – light is created, separating day from night[col]Day 4 - sun, moon, stars[row][b]Sky from Water[/b][col]Day 2 - the sky is separated from the water[col]Day 5 - birds and fish[row][b]Land from Water[/b][col]Day 3 - dry land is separated from the water[col]Day 6 - animals, and man to reign over everything

In this context, the creation of light on Day 1 and the creation of light sources on Day 4 suddenly make sense. First there is the separation of things, defeating the primeval disorderly chaos. Then the things that rule these newly distinguished realms are created.

This kind of orderly structuring is typical of the P author. As a priest he would have been concerned with detailed rules and regulations. P is the one who put in all those elaborate dimensions for the Ark later in Genesis and is obsessed with exact counts of days and with dates and people’s precise ages. I guess to keep track of all those mitzvot plus all the Temple procedures and rituals would require an OCD type.

I have expressed this opinion on another site and was greeted by two different kinds of response. On the one hand there were those who claimed that this was yet another ‘proof’ that absolutely everything in the Judeo-Christian heritage was a totally unoriginal and grossly inferior copy of earlier material. How dare I suggest that there might have been some purpose and cleverness in the Bible! On the other hand there were those who claimed that the Pentateuch was without any doubt entirely the literally inerrant divinely inspired work of Moses himself. How dare I suggest that there were multiple authors! There was virtually no middle ground on that site.

I present this here for general perusal and commentary. But I have no intention of defending it any further than saying that it makes sense to me and I like it. Genug ist genug.

[Slopeshoulder]

what she said.
genug indeed.


It's funny and alarming that the "middle ground," the theory and information itself, that is so deplored by people on websites and forums, is precisely what is taught in good seminaries and is not controversial at all.

[1213]

Would anyone be able to shed light on why there are two differing orders of creation within the bible?

If we are strictly literal, only in the "first" creation story there is used word "create". In the "second" one there is used word "form". So, the question is, is there really any good reason to say create = form?

The second story tells only more accurately what happened at that time when all was created.

This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth and the heavens.
Genesis 2:4

It may be possible that man was already created before, but then this second story tells how Adam was formed.

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

Notice, in the Genesis 2, plants were not yet started to grow, because God had not caused rain. In my opinion it means, plants were only seeds at that time, but were already created.

Also, in Genesis 2 God planted trees. It is not same as create, in my opinion.

Also, animals were formed of the ground in the Eden, not created.

This leads me to think, maybe all was first created in mind, or in other words, planed. After that they were formed.

[Slopeshoulder]

Created and formed have interesting philosophical implications for those so inclined.

But it's not in any way an accurate historical account and was never meant to be.

[Shermana]

"But it's not in any way an accurate historical account and was never meant to be."

Care to back that assertion?

[Slopeshoulder]

"But it's not in any way an accurate historical account and was never meant to be."

Care to back that assertion?

Sure, I refer you to every Bible 101 class in every mainstream university, seminary, or divinity school that, by definition, takes higher criticism seriously. As well as the settled consensus among scholars, commentators and spiritual leaders outside of fundy and fringe (now's a good time to reach for a mirror) circles. So my "back up," about which you seem so unaware, could fill several libraries. I'm amazed you or anyone has to ask. It's sort of like the grown up version of saying "I know you are but what am I" when confronted with basic truth claims.
Have you accepted that the earth is round, or shall we search for back up for that too?
Genesis as history is an utterly debunked and wrong headed notion that does violence to scripture.
If you want more, I refer you to the libraries that catalog the last several hundred years of theological writing and biblical exegesis and criticism.

[Shermana]

"But it's not in any way an accurate historical account and was never meant to be."

Care to back that assertion?

Sure, I refer you to every Bible 101 class in every mainstream university, seminary, or divinity school that, by definition, takes higher criticism seriously. as well s the settled consensus among scholars, commentators and spiritual leaders outside of fundy and fringe (now's a good time to reach for a mirror) circles. So my "back up," about which you seem so unaware, could fill several libraries. I'm amazed you or anyone has to ask. It's sort of like the grown up version of saying i know you are but what am i when confronted with basic turth claims.
Have you accepted that the earth is round, or shall we search for back up for that too?
Genesis as history is an utterly debunked and wrong headed notion that does violence to scripture.
If you want more, I refer you to the libraries that catalog the last several hundred years of theological writing and biblical exegesis and criticism.

I think you're under the assumption that the general "scholarly" theory regarding the Documentary Hypothesis somehow proves what was for sure and what was not and what was intended by the original author. That's nice that you feel the "proof" of your assertion of which you think I'm "unaware of", could fill libraries, but that's not exactly backing your assertions and claims which you are required to do when asked, and your "grown up" comment I could possibly interpret as an insult, just possibly. The Earth is most definitely round, we have photographs from Space for that. But what kind of evidence do we have to show the Genesis account is incorrect exactly? You say it is "utterly debunked". Please, feel free to show how. If you want to use scientific proofs, link to the exact data for examination.

SO back your assertion or do as you are required to do and retract your claim if you cannot adequately show evidence for your claim. You said it was "never meant to be". Okay, so please prove the original intent of the author. Not just a theory by a modern concensus by modern scholars, but with actual "good evidence".

It is one thing to cite scholarly arguments of which you think I"m "unaware" of, it's another to say that they effectively prove anything about the intent of the original authors. So are we going to see some backup or are we going to see a retraction or are we going to see more "grown up" comments?

I also would use a more respectable term than "fundy".

And your "mirror" comment is a defacto ad hominem. I love how much ad hominem I get when I ask secularists to simply back their claims personally.