Two creation stories

[pmurray]

The two creation stories in Genesis can easily be reconciled when you recognise that the early parts of the bible are fully polytheistic. The writer of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers etc does not question the reality of the other nations' gods.

Gen 1 talks about the "elohim" in the plural. Apologists claim that the use of the plural refers to the majesty of God, but it makes more sense to take it literally. "Elohim" simply means "the gods", or even "the spirits". The spirits created the world, the plants and animals, and the various races of men each in their own image and likeness. The reason that the tribe over the hill looks different to us is that their god who created them looks different to our god, as any fool can tell by looking at their images of their god. This is why the various tribes are called "the children of so-and-so". It is meant quite literally. This is also where Cain's wife came from. He went to the land of Nod and found a wife there.

Gen 2 talks about one particular one of the elohim, named "Jehovah", and his private little eugenics experiment. Presumably, each of the other tribes has their own story about what their particular god did to establish them.

Once you get your head around this, it all makes perfect sense. Ch 1 is about the gods in general, ch 2 is about Jehovah in particular. Of course, christians cannot accept this literal interpretation, because it blows "original sin" out of the water.

 

[Unnamed]

For a less condensed explanation: We are the other people by Oberon Zell. This interpretation is fascinating.

Apparently there was a shift to denying the other gods toward the New Testament (see, e.g., the Skeptics Annotated Bible), culminating with "Allah is the only God" in the Quran. I wonder how that happened.

 

[luchog]

(a bunch of stuff snipped)

Of course, that whole thing only makes sense if one has little knowledge of ancient Hebrew languate, and none whatsoever of the idiom and literary convention used.

The use of Elohim as a name for G-D is, and always has been, a common Jewish convention, in order to distinguish Him from the eloh, the gods of the surrounding pagan tribes. It also contains, unlike the singular, part of the description of the nature of G-D as a being that is not simply a singular entity, but a triune being. All names of G-D, save only the Tegragrammaton YHVH, are plural in nature, eg. Adonai (sing. adoni. Only the Name is singular, though it is used as both a singular and collective.

Interestingly, this exact same argument also invalidates the arguments of the Biblical Literalists, since the literary convention used in the Genesis creation story, which was known as a "Royal Chronicle", does not lend itself at all to literal interpretation. It is not purely metaphorical; but neither is it a literal description of the creation process. It's more of a brief precis that is intended to chronicle an event where the specific details are unnecessary (or, on occasion) unknown.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

For what's it's worth, I don't understand the poll question. Does what make sense?

Is it:

Can the Bible be consistent and have two creation stories?

Are the two creation stories compatible with one another?

Does Mr. Randi's presumption that both stories can't be true make sense?

 

[pmurray]

Re: Re: Two creation stories

Of course, that whole thing only makes sense if one has little knowledge of ancient Hebrew languate, and none whatsoever of the idiom and literary convention used.

And was this literary convention used by the ancient writers in the sense you calim, or was it invented after the fact by persons attempting to explain away the plain meaning of the bible?

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Two creation stories

And was this literary convention used by the ancient writers in the sense you calim, or was it invented after the fact by persons attempting to explain away the plain meaning of the bible?

No it comes from using other texts, other writings and so on and comparing that with the Bible, or rather the Torah. Over the last century or so we’ve learnt a lot about the "biblical" world that previous translators just didn’t know about so we can today probably waeve together more accurate interpretations/translations then ever before. There is also an internal consistency that can be used i.e. does our interpretation work with all such usage throughout the Torah. I would recommend Richard Elliott Friedman's Commentary on the Torah for an in-depth understanding of the Torah. It is fascinating and well respected book.

 

[BillyJoe]

The vote was split evenly between "perfect sense" and "arrant nonsense", till I came along.

Either I'm the only dumb one or the only honest one....
(Um....don't answer that.)

BJ

 

[sphenisc]

The two creation stories in Genesis can easily be reconciled when you recognise that the early parts of the bible are fully polytheistic. The writer of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers etc does not question the reality of the other nations' gods.

Gen 1 talks about the "elohim" in the plural. Apologists claim that the use of the plural refers to the majesty of God, but it makes more sense to take it literally. "Elohim" simply means "the gods", or even "the spirits". The spirits created the world, the plants and animals, and the various races of men each in their own image and likeness. The reason that the tribe over the hill looks different to us is that their god who created them looks different to our god, as any fool can tell by looking at their images of their god. This is why the various tribes are called "the children of so-and-so". It is meant quite literally. This is also where Cain's wife came from. He went to the land of Nod and found a wife there.

Gen 2 talks about one particular one of the elohim, named "Jehovah", and his private little eugenics experiment. Presumably, each of the other tribes has their own story about what their particular god did to establish them.

Once you get your head around this, it all makes perfect sense. Ch 1 is about the gods in general, ch 2 is about Jehovah in particular. Of course, christians cannot accept this literal interpretation, because it blows "original sin" out of the water.

Is this like the General and Special Theory of Relatives?

 

[Flange Desire]

This poll is nonsense, because the poll question is unclear.

The pollster says "..... Once you get your head around this, it all makes perfect sense".
I can 'get my head around' the language analysis of the two myths presented with no great problem, but 'it' certainly does not make 'perfect sense'!
Remember, the pollster is discussing some old creation myths.

While this review of the language used in some old creation myths may or may not be correct; the underlying premise (ie, of creation by a supernatural power) is incorrect.
There is no god, and no need to invent a god to explain creation.

Maybe this poll is a little bit like the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?".

 

[Atlas]

Re: Re: Two creation stories

... The use of Elohim as a name for G-D is, and always has been, a common Jewish convention, in order to distinguish Him from the eloh, the gods of the surrounding pagan tribes. It also contains, unlike the singular, part of the description of the nature of G-D as a being that is not simply a singular entity, but a triune being. ...

A triune being? Judaism rejects the triune being. One God is plenty. This claim calls your assertions into question.

 

[Ririon]

Apparently there was a shift to denying the other gods toward the New Testament (...), culminating with "Allah is the only God" in the Quran. I wonder how that happened.

If you wonder enough to read a book, I suggest this one:

A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam
by Karen Armstrong

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-1958301-9743949?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

She explains the whole thing along the same lines as some of the posters here. And she is a believer herself, so no sarcasm or anti-religious remarks. Of course fundamentalists of any religion would go into convulsions after about half a page...