3 ms·
I'd be careful connecting anything from Genesis 1 to elements from Genesis 2-4. They're different and unrelated stories written at very different times. Reading
by mcv 5y ago
I'd be careful connecting anything from Genesis 1 to elements from Genesis 2-4. They're different and unrelated stories written at very different times. Reading too much into these sort of connections could easily lead you to completely different conclusions than what the authors intended.
Although it's certainly true that Genesis 3 suggests thorns, thistles and other nastier parts of nature weren't around at first, which again fits the "man came first" aspect of the Genesis 2 creation story.
- reedlaw 5y agoWhat if we assume skilled authorship which made connections purposefully in order to emphasize important points? Genesis is full of such connections. If we assume harmony between Genesis 1:11-13 (fruits/grains) and Genesis 2:5 (bush/plants of the field) then it is clear that fruit was the chief food in the garden and agriculture came later.
- b_spinoza 5y agoYour point that the two creation accounts are different stories written at different times is well taken, and many people underappreciate that fact. However, it is also important to recognize that they were brought together and redacted by an editor (or committee of editors, perhaps even spread out over time) that arranged and tweaked the stories. At the very least, it is easy to glean from the text that they are intended to form a whole "collection," with connections between the various myths. The textual evidence suggests that the connections are stronger than that. So while it is the more common error to underappreciate the differences between the accounts, it is a less common but equally erroneous mistake to underappreciate the "unity" (of a sort) that they have.