Genesis: A Comparative Analysis

Over the past few months theres been an lingering issue in the religious section about Genesis.

After reading over both Genisis 1 and 2, you can clearly see they do contradict one another... For instance on the second day...

And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

..............

Moving on to later in that chapter... God creates man on the 5th day...

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Etc etc.......

Then we move to chapter 2, where we find a similar account, but slightly rearanged...

Genesis 2

5 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, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

....................

The question is if this is truely inspired by God, would he not know the sequence of events in his own creation?

Apparently this site has the answer....

Genesis chapters one and two describe the creation of the universe, the earth, and life on the earth. Some have said that these accounts are purely mythology. One of the reasons for this perception is because of the apparent contradiction between chapters one and two in the creation accounts. Chapter one describes the creation of plants followed by the creation of animals then humans. Chapter two seems to describe the creation of humans followed by the creation of plants then animals. If this assessment is true, it would seem that there is a contradiction between the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis one, the first chapter of the Bible, begins with the creation of the "heavens and earth"1 - a phrase that describes the entire universe. The Genesis one account is notable for being sequential, since the events are listed numerically by the day in which they occurred. Where does this creation take place? Locations mentioned include the heavens (the Hebrew termshamayim can refer to the atmosphere, interstellar space, or God's abode),2 earth (the Hebrew term erets can refer to the entire planet, a people group, or a local piece of geography),3 Sun, moon, and stars.4 How do we know the Hebrew term erets refers to the entire planet as opposed to local geography? Verse 2 describes the "surface of the deep,"5 which describes the primordial ocean.6 Subsequent verses indicate that there was no land until God caused it to appear from the midst of the waters.7 These facts, in the absence of specific place names, suggests that Genesis one describes creation on a global scale.

Besides describing the formation of land and seas, Genesis one describes the creation of plants and animals. The account begins with the creation on plants. Following this is the creation of birds, large sea creatures and swarming sea life. On the final "day," God creates the large grazing mammals and carnivores, along with small scurrying mammals. Creation culminates with the creation of mankind - the last creatures God creates. For a more detailed explanation, see The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account and Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation.

Genesis twoContrary to what many "scholars" have reported, Genesis two is not a retelling of Genesis one. How can we determine this to be true? First, we should examine the overall context. Genesis two is considerably different in regard to the emphasis of the content. Genesis one dedicates 4 verses (13%) to the creation of humans, beginning with verse 26. However, Genesis two dedicates 19 verses (76%) to the creation of humans, beginning with verse 7. Actually, since there are no real chapter breaks in the original Hebrew manuscripts, the story of the creation of humans continues throughout chapter 3 (another 24 verses). Obviously, the emphasis of the two "versions" is quite different. Part of the problem understanding this passage is because of the poor choice of English words in the common translations. The Hebrew word erets can be translated as "earth" (meaning global) or "land" (referring to a local geographical area). In the Old Testament, erets almost always refers to local geography and not the planet as a whole. We need to examine the context to determine whether erets refers to the entire earth or only a portion of it.

www.godandscience.org...

Though im sure some might argue their conclusion...

Theres also some that will contend that Genesis and the "big bang theory" are compatible...

Why does it appear that the theory of evolution and the Genesis account of creation are at odds? Simple genealogical math gives us a total of less than 6,000 years since God created Adam and Eve as described in Genesis, yet Science tells us the fossil records go back 3.6 billion years? How can we reconcile this paradox? See History: Life Evolves and Early Man Before Adam.

reluctant-messenger.com...

This thread is dedicated to those that would like an opportunity to voice their opinion on the creation/big bang theory.

1. If God inspired Genesis, why are the events in the incorrect order when compared to one another?

2. Is there any Scientific reality to the Creation account, or the Big bang theory?

3. Do these theories actually complement one another as opposed to contradicting each other?

This discussion is open to everyone including Every belief / Non belief

This is not a thread to bash one anothers beliefs, please do that elsewhere...

reply to post by Akragon


reading later

so genesis 1 – god makes everything – ok

genesis 2

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

So god’s made everything its all working and god decides to have a rest then - bam

2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Its like the author has a whole new thought or is suggesting a new process a whole new genesis but a copy of the first – like maybe some one watched the master craftsman do his thing and the apprentice thinks “well that looked easy I could do that”

it’s now the LORD God who's doing the creating, and he only gets a day to do it

Very interesting, I like this thread! I've never thought about the fact that the Torah is not grouped into chapters the same as is the bible, though I was aware of this. Thank you for exercising my brain!

As for the Big Bang and Creation going hand in hand, it's very plausible, it just depends on the perspective from which you choose to view the subject. For example, looking at it from a logical point of view, you tend to come to the conclusion that fossils and geological records proving the planet to be ancient would point away from any kind of possibility of the Genesis creation even being possible, yet if you consider time dilation you suddenly realize that it just might have happened that way. Of course, as always, we are unable to prove this either way.

Thank you for sharing once again!

It was inspired by God, not written by God. Humans are not perfect. That is one reason for the discrepancies. Don't forget that the book has gone through many translations which plays a huge role in dialogue..

reply to post by racasan

it’s now the LORD God who's doing the creating, and he only gets a day to do it

Unfortunatly i do not believe anything involving "creation" takes a single day...

Though some consider that single day to be "God's day" which could mean millions of years. At least this is logical...

Originally posted by Akragon

This thread is dedicated to those that would like an opportunity to voice their opinion on the creation/big bang theory.

1. If God inspired Genesis, why are the events in the incorrect order when compared to one another?

2. Is there any Scientific reality to the Creation account, or the Big bang theory?

3. Do these theories actually complement one another as opposed to contradicting each other?

This discussion is open to everyone including Every belief / Non belief

This is not a thread to bash one anothers beliefs, please do that elsewhere...

edit on 22-8-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

I have been pondering this myself...and here is the way I have come to interpret the beginning of Genesis....

Chapter 1

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

I take it to be speaking of the first people that God made.

Chapter 2

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

This leads me to believe that much time passed between what occurred in Chapter 1 and what is about to occur in chapter 2.

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.

This is a seperate "man" from the creation mentioned in Chapter 1.

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Adam was to live in Eden away from descendants of the 6th day creation and therefore not know sin, evil, right or wrong. The reason it mentions God making plants, trees, etc is because he is making the place called Eden.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

This supports again that Adam and Eve were special from the first people that God created in the fact that they did not know sin. Once they ate from the tree of knowledge they became like those of the 6th day creation.

This also validates how many people were on the Earth when Cain was sent to Nod and found a wife. He married one of the 6th day creations.

And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived.

I personally think this view does not contradict our findings that lead us to believe the Earth is that old. I think it validates and compliments that assumption, in my opinion. Once you realize that there were people before Adam and Eve and that 'generations' had passed before as well, you begin to realize that Earth was here for quite some time!
I don't know if I am interpreting Genesis/Creation correctly but for me it makes sense.

for a great topic!

reply to post by Akragon


But genesis 2 does look like a whole other creation, the genesis 1 guy gets 7 days to do it in and the other only gets a day and the guy that only gets a single day and does the creation thing in a different order to the genesis 1 guy, and genesis 2 only make 1 human

Maybe its like one makes the internet and the other just makes a home network

reply to post by racasan


That second line made me twitch...

How could that be when as it states in the bible, "there is only one God"?

reply to post by Akragon


I’m only working with what’s in the book


Now you never said if you thought what I wrote was a permissible reading of the text?

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by Akragon

 

I’m only working with what’s in the book


Now you never said if you thought what I wrote was a permissible reading of the text?

If thats your understanding of it, then so be it...

Who am i to tell you what is permissable?

I once heard a very fantasical version to gen. 1&2. You may laugh.
So it goes like this.....

Chapter one, was the first true creation. But Satan became very jealous and came
down to earth and destroyed it. The first true war in heaven. They said the evidence
of this was in the astroid belt. The piece's of 1st earth.

Chapter two, was God recreating everything Satan destroyed. God then stripped
Satan of most of his powers and threw him to earth.What better punishment then to dwell
somewhere that you hate. Where once again Satan tries to destroy the creation. But this
time outta revenge.
So by this telling the actual creation of earth happend twice.
Not sure if I believe that or not but its another explanation of why the 2 version's.

For me though, what I truely have become to believe is it is the creation of light,
then the creation of darkness. As above, So below. The first version is the creation of light[above].
The whole planet is a beautiful paradise.
The second is the creation of darkness [below], only a garden of paradise.

But I am just starting to truely see things in a new light, So you may not wanna listen to me.

LOTZA LUV

EDITED TO SAY:
P.S. Akragon, Huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and love the chester cat theme

reply to post by Mividau


Interesting...

What are your thoughts on "satan"?

Who is he?

What is he?

Does he exist?

These questions intrigue me. Of course my thoughts on "the devil" are quite different then most...

reply to post by Akragon


My old point of view was he was an angel doing his job. Not a true bad guy.
Just an average joe doing what he's told so to speak.
I have heard some say he is the duality of Jesus due to the morning star thing.
I heard that one several times from different denomination's & even on ats now.
So that one might be the most common.

In the new way I am starting to see things though, any being that harms another
on purpose is not of the light which I am begining to understand. But still learning
and trying to understand.

Whats you're view on it. I always like hearing them.

LOTZA LUV& thanks for the meditation advise. I am starting to get a lil better at it.
With the 20 free minutes I can find a day lol.

reply to post by Mividau

My old point of view was he was an angel doing his job.

hahaha....its weird you said that

for your consideration
www.abovetopsecret.com...

LOTZA LUV& thanks for the meditation advise. I am starting to get a lil better at it.
With the 20 free minutes I can find a day lol.

Good for you hun...

You gotta make time for yourself

Focus on love

Originally posted by kimish
It was inspired by God, not written by God. Humans are not perfect. That is one reason for the discrepancies. Don't forget that the book has gone through many translations which plays a huge role in dialogue..

I will be gracious and let the "inspired by 'god' " stand unmolested for the duration.

As to the rest:

Here we have a (greater, as it encompasses 'all and everything') parallel to a manual in "Nuclear power-plant construction and maintenance" allegedly originating from someone in the know.

This manual has from the initial oral form recieved by people, whose level of technology had led them to prefer round wheels instead of square ones, been transferred to writing. As in this case korean.

As the interest in nuclear power-plant construction and maintenance grew, partly as a result of political machinations, the korean original text was then translated to japanese. Whether the translators were such brilliant lingustics or not, that they carried the finer points of this manual accross the language barrier is an open question, but one thing is for sure, they didn't have the necessary science/technology/objective-procedure competence to even guess at, what the bleep the manual is talking about.

Now where I live, we have in parts of my country indigenous cultures, which mainly exist through migrating animal husban-dry (for politically correct use and for later and broader implications also wife-dry) and these people have recently been politically blessed by having their area suggested as a dump for radioactive waste-materials. So while not especially interested on nuclear power plants as such, many of them have developed an interest in what consequences they can expect, and they relate to the above-mentioned manual for information.

As it's unlikely, that any of these indigenous people speak old korean well enough to make a direct translation to their own language, they have used english (contemporarily THE language of the alleged manual writer) as another intermediary on their way to enlightenment of how best only to die slowly of radiation illness (instead of quick).

I must admit to a personal position of philosophical scepticism, but I AM very sure, that my following comment is neither very sceptical, even less cynical: This manual is WORTHLESS in all ways for the present needs. It has to be rewritten based on contemporary knowledge and in a linguistic form suitable for contemporary applications.

The old manual is best considered as a historical curiosity, which actually can be dangerous to rely on. E.g. when radioactivity is considered anthropomorphically and is expected to be made harmless by talking with yourself or by mantra-like group mumblings.

This long-winded allegory I just have dished out, ofcourse isn't a rational argument. It's just to build up an 'athmosphere' for further and better factual considerations.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by racasan

 

That second line made me twitch...

How could that be when as it states in the bible, "there is only one God"?

Verily....I will even go so far as to say,....thusly

....it appears, that there are TWO (possibly several) manual inspirators at work, and as in my post above, momentarily disregarding claims of direct or indirect writing of a (the) manual, it could be of interest to consider that possibility.

A possibility which can imply either one alleged 'inspirator' with a mutlible personality disorder syndrom or several competing 'inspirators'.

reply to post by SouthernRain55


There's much speaking for the points in your initial post, but it DOES contain several optional approaches from cosmogony, cosmology, epistemology, ethics and general semantics.

My personal attitude is to approach gen. 1-3 from a deductive perspective; and step by step. The alternative (what I believe is called hermeneutics, courtesy of another ATS contributor) VERY easily grows into endless cherry-picking, twisted semantics and even scholastics.

Originally posted by Akragon
Over the past few months theres been an lingering issue in the religious section about Genesis.

After reading over both Genisis 1 and 2, you can clearly see they do contradict one another... For instance on the second day...

And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

..............

Moving on to later in that chapter... God creates man on the 5th day...

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Etc etc.......

Then we move to chapter 2, where we find a similar account, but slightly rearanged...

Genesis 2

5 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, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

....................

The question is if this is truely inspired by God, would he not know the sequence of events in his own creation?

Apparently this site has the answer....

Genesis chapters one and two describe the creation of the universe, the earth, and life on the earth. Some have said that these accounts are purely mythology. One of the reasons for this perception is because of the apparent contradiction between chapters one and two in the creation accounts. Chapter one describes the creation of plants followed by the creation of animals then humans. Chapter two seems to describe the creation of humans followed by the creation of plants then animals. If this assessment is true, it would seem that there is a contradiction between the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis one, the first chapter of the Bible, begins with the creation of the "heavens and earth"1 - a phrase that describes the entire universe. The Genesis one account is notable for being sequential, since the events are listed numerically by the day in which they occurred. Where does this creation take place? Locations mentioned include the heavens (the Hebrew termshamayim can refer to the atmosphere, interstellar space, or God's abode),2 earth (the Hebrew term erets can refer to the entire planet, a people group, or a local piece of geography),3 Sun, moon, and stars.4 How do we know the Hebrew term erets refers to the entire planet as opposed to local geography? Verse 2 describes the "surface of the deep,"5 which describes the primordial ocean.6 Subsequent verses indicate that there was no land until God caused it to appear from the midst of the waters.7 These facts, in the absence of specific place names, suggests that Genesis one describes creation on a global scale.

Besides describing the formation of land and seas, Genesis one describes the creation of plants and animals. The account begins with the creation on plants. Following this is the creation of birds, large sea creatures and swarming sea life. On the final "day," God creates the large grazing mammals and carnivores, along with small scurrying mammals. Creation culminates with the creation of mankind - the last creatures God creates. For a more detailed explanation, see The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account and Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation.

Genesis twoContrary to what many "scholars" have reported, Genesis two is not a retelling of Genesis one. How can we determine this to be true? First, we should examine the overall context. Genesis two is considerably different in regard to the emphasis of the content. Genesis one dedicates 4 verses (13%) to the creation of humans, beginning with verse 26. However, Genesis two dedicates 19 verses (76%) to the creation of humans, beginning with verse 7. Actually, since there are no real chapter breaks in the original Hebrew manuscripts, the story of the creation of humans continues throughout chapter 3 (another 24 verses). Obviously, the emphasis of the two "versions" is quite different. Part of the problem understanding this passage is because of the poor choice of English words in the common translations. The Hebrew word erets can be translated as "earth" (meaning global) or "land" (referring to a local geographical area). In the Old Testament, erets almost always refers to local geography and not the planet as a whole. We need to examine the context to determine whether erets refers to the entire earth or only a portion of it.

www.godandscience.org...

Though im sure some might argue their conclusion...

Theres also some that will contend that Genesis and the "big bang theory" are compatible...

Why does it appear that the theory of evolution and the Genesis account of creation are at odds? Simple genealogical math gives us a total of less than 6,000 years since God created Adam and Eve as described in Genesis, yet Science tells us the fossil records go back 3.6 billion years? How can we reconcile this paradox? See History: Life Evolves and Early Man Before Adam.

reluctant-messenger.com...

This thread is dedicated to those that would like an opportunity to voice their opinion on the creation/big bang theory.

1. If God inspired Genesis, why are the events in the incorrect order when compared to one another?

2. Is there any Scientific reality to the Creation account, or the Big bang theory?

3. Do these theories actually complement one another as opposed to contradicting each other?

This discussion is open to everyone including Every belief / Non belief

This is not a thread to bash one anothers beliefs, please do that elsewhere...

edit on 22-8-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

Not sure if this helps or hurts or whatever but, from my research, Genesis had more than one author.
If you look it up, you'll find that some of what was found shows an author who would use the Divine name and there is another who didn't.
I believe that these 2 different 'versions' are attributable to that.
Two Different Authors For Genesis

Originally posted by Mividau
I once heard a very fantasical version to gen. 1&2. You may laugh.
So it goes like this.....

Chapter one, was the first true creation. But Satan became very jealous and came
down to earth and destroyed it. The first true war in heaven. They said the evidence
of this was in the astroid belt. The piece's of 1st earth.

Chapter two, was God recreating everything Satan destroyed. God then stripped
Satan of most of his powers and threw him to earth.What better punishment then to dwell
somewhere that you hate. Where once again Satan tries to destroy the creation. But this
time outta revenge.
So by this telling the actual creation of earth happend twice.
Not sure if I believe that or not but its another explanation of why the 2 version's.

For me though, what I truely have become to believe is it is the creation of light,
then the creation of darkness. As above, So below. The first version is the creation of light[above].
The whole planet is a beautiful paradise.
The second is the creation of darkness [below], only a garden of paradise.

But I am just starting to truely see things in a new light, So you may not wanna listen to me.

LOTZA LUV

EDITED TO SAY:
P.S. Akragon, Huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and love the chester cat theme

edit on 22-8-2011 by Mividau because: (no reason given)

I find it very sympathetic, that you are a 'jigsaw puzzle layer' looking at the bits, not trying to pre-decide if the finally assembled motive turns out to be a ship, a melancholic little girl or a Jesus with a couple of decorative vegetarian lions in the background.

That you include material from what (possibly) could be channelled information from the earthly representative of the galactive federation isn't a contending issue with me, as you simply just try to present one OPTIONAL way of 'fitting' the puzzle-bits with each other.

Some puzzle-bits ALMOST fit together in various constellations. With time, interest and stamina it's possible to consider several such constellations and arrive to the one with the highest 'reality' probability.

Regretfully withdrawing from such lofty considerations and getting pragmatic, it IS very reasonable here to use a 'local' environment, e.i. both in a time-perspective and in an astronomical perspective...a certain period in THIS solar system...as a basis for gen 1 and 2.

The common christian claims of cosmogony and general cosmology in gen. 1 and 2 thus disregarded makes for a more sensible analysis of gen.1 and 2 (but still remembering that the victor of any conflict writes 'history').

Your 'suggestion' is imo a functional perspective, if taken broadly.