4 Answers

  1. The Bible usually interprets itself and does not give any reason to believe that there were supposedly two different actions and two different people. It's just looking at the same thing from different perspectives and focusing on different details.

  2. The answer depends on who you ask.�

    A couple of hundred years ago, German liberal theologians of the Tübingen school came to the conclusion that the Pentateuch in general (and the account of Creation in particular) is a compilation of at least two ancient sources. This conclusion was drawn from the assumption that the Hebrew words Elohim (God in the Russian translation) and Yahweh/Jehovah (Lord in the Russian translation) could not have existed together in the original text. Based on this setup, speculative attempts have been made over the years to establish the source texts. Since these words do not occur evenly in the first and second chapters of Genesis, it has been suggested that these texts represent different accounts of Creation.

    If you look at this problem from a traditional (conservative) point of view, the answer may be: in the first chapter, a general story about the creation of the world is written – the Six-Day Anniversary. And in the second chapter, details are written that relate directly to the Earth and to man. Well, it's like if you were asked what kind of tribe you are, first you would tell about the history of Russia as a whole, and then you would start telling about the history of your family.

  3. Still, what is the meaning of the two creations described in the Old Testament: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

    I believe that these are two different stories about two different events. Genesis 1 speaks metaphorically about the formation of the Earth, the origin of life on it, and its subsequent evolution. Genesis 2 is about God choosing a particular pair of people to make a covenant.

    Here is a quote from the bookArmina Held “Creationism”:

    The hypothesis that Genesis 2 is the second account of creation makes the beginning of the Bible implausible, which means that the whole book is implausible. So we want to understand Genesis 2 as a sequential continuation of Genesis 1. This simple step significantly shifts the arrows in our reasoning. It gives us access to a correct understanding of the subsequent text and leads to far-reaching consequences:

    • Adam and his wife lived in a clearly described area in the Middle East, which was also the cradle of human culture;

    • He was a descendant of the sixth day (God's) people, who had already settled the Earth during this period, and lived on the seventh day of God, which continues to this day;

    • Adam was the first of the chosen ones with whom God entered into a personal covenant relationship.

    A little confusion arises due to the fact that the first chosen one gets a nameAdam, which at the same time means man. However, the original Hebrew text clearly distinguishes sixth-day humanity from seventh-day Adam:

    – Adam in Genesis 1: 26 et seq. is a collective concept. It refers to all of humanity, which on the sixth day inhabited the entire land and conquered the animal world. Plants and birds that appeared before it are also designated as collective concepts. Adam in Genesis 2, on the other hand, is a very definite person. It gets a nameAdam, which has the Hebrew article from the very beginning.

    • Genesis 1 emphasizes the creation of mankind in the form of two sexes: “male and female he created them (plural!),” and uses the Hebrew concepts of zechar and nek'eva – the same ones that are used in relation to animals (for example, in Genesis 7: 16-approx. perev.). Genesis 2, on the other hand, clearly refers to the male= ishAdam and his wife= isha.

    • Therefore, it was not a problem for mankind in Genesis 1 to settle the land for one “day “(“fill the earth”, Genesis 1:28), while Adam and Eve in Genesis 2, on the contrary, were limited to the immediate vicinity.

    There was bound to be a seam somewhere between the first and second biblical genealogies. It was inevitable that a person would be called by name, so that the genealogy of heaven and earth would continue through him after Genesis 2:4. After the humanity of the sixth “day,” there would be a “first man” coming from among them, who would enter the field of history as a concrete individual. What name is more appropriate for this “missing link”, the first person to be named in the Bible, thanAdam= human?

  4. It is generally understood as a compilation of two books written at different times – the earlier Jahvist and the later Priestly Codex. Both versions are recognized as canonical, and therefore true, and on this basis are included in the unified text of the Pentateuch.

Leave a Reply