Two Stories of Creation

[jaydam]

Leaving behind all the previous assumptions and just reading the Bible for a moment, absent of outside input, I find that Genesis presents two stories of creation. Even going to the original language, the order of one story to the other is completely different. In one, man is the culmination of creation, and in the other man is the first thing made after the earth is made inhabitable.

The premise I'm working on:

The first story (Gen 1:1-2:3) is an object lesson using days of the week, teaching a hierarchy of nature, demonstrating the sabbath, etc.

The second story (Gen 2:4-22) is the real story of creation. Reasons include:
1. This second story is the first of 10 divisions of Genesis separated with such wording as "These are the records of..."

2. Also, the order presented is one that seems to better fit man being a co-ruler over earth with God. Man is made first and then gets to watch as God creates the animals, and names them as each is made. It is then during this process, as man serves beside God during the creation process that eventually no suitable helper is found.

3. The second story does not give a timeline, but a relationship with no knowledge of how long it goes on.

4. The wording used for God moves from formal thru 2:3 to a more personal form.

The second story seems to show a relationship with God that I see better fits his relationship to man. Maybe we weren't made at the end of creation just to be plopped into it to reign over it, but we were made as soon as the earth was inhabitable to begin our relationship with God, and participate in the rest of the creation process.

I've read multiple reasons how these stories are really parallel stories, but it seems to make them parallel some linguistic gymnastics must be used, when the original language seems to plainly show two different stories.

Any input would be appreciated. I don't claim to be the most knowledgable Bible scholar, so I could use some help here. I know the view I'm heading towards is the minority, and I've already been told by some, just to not go there, but I'm a truth seeker, not just an appeaser who goes with an interpretation that is taken for granted.

Thanks for any input anybody can give!

[jeremiah]

Hello Jaydam,

Just so I'm understanding you correctly; your position is that the first account is poetic and the second is historical?

Also, precisely what are you referring to as linguistic gymnastics when harmonizing the two accounts?

Welcome to the forum,
jeremiah

[jaydam]

Hello Jaydam,

Just so I'm understanding you correctly; your position is that the first account is poetic and the second is historical?

Also, precisely what are you referring to as linguistic gymnastics when harmonizing the two accounts?

Welcome to the forum,
jeremiah

Thanks for the welcome!

I don't know enought to know if the first account is poetic. All I know is that from one account to the other the order is different.

The linguistics I refer to is that some people I've read seems adamant that the first account is an ordered account of creation, and the second one is an account focusing on man, and is not to be read in order. Yet, I see no support for these positions anymore than if I said the second account is the right order and the first account is not to be read in order, but understood as a hierarchy of creation.

Maybe here is a better ordering of my thought process:

1. Since the second account is opened with the term "records" that is used for each account of history told through the rest of Genesis, it seems to add authenticity that the second account is the one on par with the rest of the historical records recorded in Genesis.

2. With man being put in charge of earth, and the relationship we are to have with God, it strikes me as a very probable account, that God made man as soon as earth was livable, and God wanted man to be by God's side as God created and man named.

Thus, point #1 seems to provide factual reasoning for the second account being the "true" one, and #2, while not as provable, seems to deduce from what I know about God, his love for man, and man's place that the second account shows more relationship between God and man as they work side-by-side as God continues with creation.

What to do with the first account then? For this I don't have as much support in a premise as I did with the second account, other than I am leaning towards the second account being the true account so I have to figure out something with the first account.

The best I can figure is that the first account is like an object lesson using a week to teach about resting on the sabbath, the hierarchy of creation, and more. This first account being just as true in what it teaches as the second, but not claiming to be the "record" like the other records in Genesis.

I'm just wondering if I'm way off base here.

[steve]

Hi Jaydam,

Your suggestions are plausible. I tend to go with the view that both accounts are true, and that the apparent chronological differences are due to the Hebrew language not distinguishing between the simple past tense ("formed"–v.19) and the past perfect tense ("had formed"). This, however, is a pretty standard explanation, which you may have already considered and found unconvincing.

My view does not smooth out every difficulty, but is plausible. Yours is definitely a simpler solution.

[Singalphile]

I have tended to think of the creation account (at least Genesis 1) as a stylized and poetic or symbolic account or fable, only because it seems to me to be what the author intended. Maybe I would have lumped chapters 2-3 in there, too. But I think you make good points (1. and 2.) and I may go with what you're thinking.

Incidentally, this might be easier to see if chapter 2 started with "This is the history ..." (2:4). I can't understand why they (whoever) started chapter 2 where they did.