4 ms·
That's stupid, ask any orthodox jewish scholar, or hell, read the passages yourself. The first section is 'foreshadowing' for lack of a better term, and the se
by revoltingx 17y ago
That's stupid, ask any orthodox jewish scholar, or hell, read the passages yourself. The first section is 'foreshadowing' for lack of a better term, and the second is the accounts in detail.
- gort 17y agoThey're not exactly the same. Genesis 1 places the creation of animals before humans, whereas the natural reading of Genesis 2 has the reverse: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them" (Admittedly some modern evangelical Bibles make this "God had formed every beast". But this seems to be motivated by a desire to harmonize rather than honest translating.)
- revoltingx 17y agoDoesn't really matter what evangelicals say. This has been widely discussed in many Hebrew speaking universities by very able individuals. Not sure what good it does to try to interpret the English version.
- gort 17y agoThis has been widely discussed in many Hebrew speaking universities by very able individuals. Well then. Does Genesis 2 put the creation of animals after Adam, or what? Not sure what good it does to try to interpret the English version. First you tell people to read the passages, then you tell them not to.
- revoltingx 17y agoGoogle is your friend. Of course, you should read it. But that's a double edged sword, because to truly 'read' it you'd have to learn Hebrew. Also, the order doesn't matter, as the first section is 'foreshadowing' or a 'condensed explanation' as long as the result is the same. Also, there is an accompanying book to Genesis called the book of Enoch. (also Job was the first book NOT Genesis.) There is a backstory, even before the creation, you should read it.
- gort 17y agothe order doesn't matter, as the first section is 'foreshadowing' or a 'condensed explanation' How can a condensed explanation put things in a different order? The very least I expect of a condensed history is to get things in order.
- revoltingx 17y agoI'm sorry if the writers of thousands of years ago don't meet your expectations. Also, I'm not sure how you can call a paragraph(s) a story. Considering they're in the same chapter of the same book. (Actual chapters were added later, the chapter is genesis and the book is the old testament.) Complete non-sense.
- gort 17y agoI'm sorry if the writers of thousands of years ago don't meet your expectations. As if writing things in the wrong order made more sense thousands of years ago. they're in the same chapter of the same book So what? It's entirely possible that Genesis 1 and 2 were written by different people, and later placed together.
- olavk 17y agoWe should probably distinguish between two levels of explanation: The religious explanation, and the historic/scientific explanation. The "foreshadowing"-explanation is a religious explanation. The historic/scientific explanation is that the two versions are from two different oral traditions that have been merged into the same book. Both kind of explanation are interesting, but they are also largely incompatible, and I think it always should be made very clear which perspective one is arguing from.