Number of Creation Accounts

[Difflugia]

In another thread, we have this assertion:

There are not two different creation accounts. Chapter one of Genesis gives us the outline of God's creation. Chapter 2 just fills in some details.

Question for debate: Are Genesis 1 and 2 two different creation accounts by two different authors, a unified account by a single author, or something else entirely?

[Difflugia]

The other interesting part of the discussion is, why does an unbeliever care, and should an unbeliever care about itty bitty particulars within a religion that he does not believe in.

That sounds like an interesting topic for a different debate.

People who don't believe in the Metamorphosis don't usually spend a significant part of their lives thinking about it, discussing it, or debating it.

You and I travel in different circles, apparently.

The question's about the literary provenance of Genesis 1-2, not whether magic is real.

And I question the relevancy of the question, to an unbeliever.

When you have nothing else, what can you do, right?

You seem to be focused awfully hard on a religion you do not believe in.

Have you never met anyone with different hobbies than you?

Do you find book clubs equally confusing and terrifying?

?

I'm sorry. I thought you would know what a book club is.

You know, the Bible is what this discussion is nominally about.

Right, and if you leave it, leave it.

?

Do you also find people talking about baseball and try to convince them to stop? That must be fun at parties.

I will ask anyone; if you don't believe in X and it isn't effecting[sic] your life, why are you so heavily investing in it?

I suppose it's for the myriad reasons other people also enjoy their hobbies. Why do baseball fans invest time and money watching baseball games? Why do history buffs spend time and money on Civil War reenactments? Why do Star Wars fans invest time and money buying stuffed baby Yodas?

I never deflect.

I guess I unfairly assumed you'd know what deflection is, too:

Deflection is a defense mechanism characterized by redirecting a conversation away from a challenging topic or issue to something less emotionally charged.

If you're trying to convince me that you aren't doing that, perhaps you need to look up "gaslighting."

"This conversation has no emotional impact on me, but please, please stop having it."

But it does, though.

I gathered.

John Calvin said that, not "Christianity."

I wasn't aware of that..but I am aware of the Scripture which states it.

If you want to hit me with proof texts for Calvinist perseverence of the saints, feel free. It's still off topic, but we'll at least be talking about the Bible again. Baby steps, eh?

But, somebody did ask.

Then I'm sorry I missed it.

Me, too.

But some of these questions and thread topics are sensationalized

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[SiNcE_1985]

That sounds like an interesting topic for a different debate.

The fact that it's worthy of debate, is part of the problem.

You and I travel in different circles, apparently.

Apparently.

If you don't believe in the Boogey Man, you don't spend any significant part of your life debating with people who do, about whether the BM hides in closets, or under the bed.

When you have nothing else, what can you do, right?

I find it more worthwhile to discuss the relevancy of such a question to an unbeliever, than the question itself.

In other words, let us (believers) discuss/debate such questions related to our fairy tale faith.

Unbelievers should simply stay out of it. Such questions doesn't concern you.

Have you never met anyone with different hobbies than you?

Yeah.

Do you find book clubs equally confusing and terrifying?

No.

I'm sorry. I thought you would know what a book club is.

I was yet again questioning the relevancy of one of your questions.

I suppose it's for the myriad reasons other people also enjoy their hobbies. Why do baseball fans invest time and money watching baseball games? Why do history buffs spend time and money on Civil War reenactments? Why do Star Wars fans invest time and money buying stuffed baby Yodas?

So basically, your hobby is discussing particulars about a religion that you do not believe in.

Gotcha.

Deflection is a defense mechanism characterized by redirecting a conversation away from a challenging topic or issue to something less emotionally charged.

I repeat; I do not deflect.

If you're trying to convince me that you aren't doing that, perhaps you need to look up "gaslighting."

I've been a victim of gaslighting. I know from experience what it means.

If you want to hit me with proof texts for Calvinist perseverence of the saints, feel free. It's still off topic, but we'll at least be talking about the Bible again. Baby steps, eh?

Makes no sense.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

That's the closest word I know of to describe what I see on here.

It is close enough.

[benchwarmer]

If you don't believe in the Boogey Man, you don't spend any significant part of your life debating with people who do, about whether the BM hides in closets, or under the bed.

If churches preaching about the BM starting popping up and trying to convert people to their 'truth', you can bet some like us will show up to debate them as well.

It seems to me you are afraid that the issues and perspective we bring to the debate are inconvenient for you and thus wish us to stop. Rather than getting down to debating the topic at hand (the number of creation accounts in this thread, remember?) you have gone down the road I suggested was futile and is often a sign of a lost debate. Start attacking the debaters and not the ideas.

We get it you don't like it and/or are confused by it, but you'll have to deal with it. We are here and showing readers our side of the debate. I believe readers need to see the best of both sides in order to make an informed opinion on any given matter.

So far it seems the best you have to offer is change the subject and go after our intentions for being here. I'm guessing that's probably not too convincing to readers interested in learning about the debate topic.

[Difflugia]

The fact that it's worthy of debate, is part of the problem.

If you don't believe in the Boogey Man, you don't spend any significant part of your life debating with people who do, about whether the BM hides in closets, or under the bed.

If there were a significant body of Boogey Man literature with an interesting history behind it, I would. You keep focusing on the belief part of it, as though that's the part that I find interesting. The history of the text is the part that I'm most interested in. In fact, what I find most interesting about belief itself is how it alters one's approach to the literature.

I find it more worthwhile to discuss the relevancy of such a question to an unbeliever, than the question itself.

So, start a debate topic about that.

In other words, let us (believers) discuss/debate such questions related to our fairy tale faith.

When you want to discuss what temperature the real Goldilocks preferred her porridge and your theories about how Mama Bear learned English, I'm unlikely to butt in. This debate isn't about that, though. The text of Genesis 1-2 as it stands is the product of multiple authors and at least one redactor. Finding clues to that past within the text is something I find interesting, even if you have dogmatic reasons for thinking the whole thing was written by Papa Bear.

Unbelievers should simply stay out of it. Such questions doesn't concern you.

I'd love to explore why you keep trying to convince me of this. You just keep repeating it as though the reasons are self-evident, but I've no idea what they are.

I was yet again questioning the relevancy of one of your questions.

This is quite literally a book club discussion. That seems pretty relevant.

So basically, your hobby is discussing particulars about a religion that you do not believe in.

Gotcha.

That's exactly right. Belief has little to do with my interest in the Bible as such and I suspect your focus on it is giving you a false perception of my hobby, but your statement is nonetheless true as you've written it.

I repeat; I do not deflect.

Since your entry into this discussion was to shift focus away from the actual debate to questioning my motives and you haven't wavered from that tack, you're engaging in textbook deflection behavior. Why you continue to deny this is probably a fascinating topic in itself.

If you want to hit me with proof texts for Calvinist perseverence of the saints, feel free. It's still off topic, but we'll at least be talking about the Bible again. Baby steps, eh?

Makes no sense.

Calvinists disagree with you. Since you said you thought perseverence of the saints was scriptural, I assumed you agreed with them.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

That's the closest word I know of to describe what I see on here.

It is close enough.

Then what about the creation accounts is being presented as sensational?

[Base12]

Question for debate: Are Genesis 1 and 2 two different creation accounts by two different authors, a unified account by a single author, or something else entirely?

It is a unified account.

As to the author, I believe it was God who had various Scribes write it all down.

[Base12]

It may be that Adam was actually not the man that was created in the beginning, because according to the Genesis 2, Yahweh formed Adam. But, it may be that the Genesis 2 is just more detailed version of Genesis 1.

God created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen. 1:27
Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground...
Gen. 2:7-8

Maybe the first man was actually Jesus, because it is said:

[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him were all things created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him.
Col. 1:14-16

This is the most inspired comment I have seen in a long time. Congrats. You basically figured it out.

The Creation Account is monumentally profound and goes over most people's heads.

[Perspectivo]

God created the heavens and the earth <----> Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens. This curious reversal suggests an intentional modification. Whether this was a mystical rehash by the same author or a clever redacor is uncertain. Redactions are never this clever, so I assume its the same author.

[1213]

It may be that Adam was actually not the man that was created in the beginning, because according to the Genesis 2, Yahweh formed Adam. But, it may be that the Genesis 2 is just more detailed version of Genesis 1.

God created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen. 1:27
Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground...
Gen. 2:7-8

Maybe the first man was actually Jesus, because it is said:

[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him were all things created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him.
Col. 1:14-16

This is the most inspired comment I have seen in a long time. Congrats. You basically figured it out.

The Creation Account is monumentally profound and goes over most people's heads.

Thank you

I am worried that someone may understand wrongly what I said, therefore I want to remind that I don't think Yahweh and Jesus are the same, because it is said:

... ‘The Lord (Yahweh) said to my Lord (Adonai), sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’? “If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
Matt. 22:41-45 (Ps. 110:1)

[Difflugia]

It is a unified account.

Can you support this? This is a debate thread, after all.

[Tcg]

Redactions are never this clever, so I assume its the same author.

Never is an absolute claim. Have you any absolute evidence to support it?


Tcg