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?

[Tcg]

Still can't wrap my mind around why unbelievers have these urges to invest time/energy with stuff (Christianity) they don't believe in.

Urges? That's unfounded.

In any case, I for one believe in Christianity. In the U.S. anyway, one can hardly drive around the corner without being reminded of its existence. It's frightening, thus the well-founded attention to and concern of.


Tcg

[Base12]

It is a unified account.

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

Yes,

I created a new thread here that does just that...

viewtopic.php?p=1167232

I will probably not post in 'Christianity and Apologetics' anymore due to the rules, sorry.

[SiNcE_1985]

Urges? That's unfounded.

In any case, I for one believe in Christianity.

I said unbelievers.

In the U.S. anyway, one can hardly drive around the corner without being reminded of its existence.

Reminded in what way?

It's frightening, thus the well-founded attention to and concern of.
Tcg

A discussion pertaining to the # of creation accounts, doesn't strike me as a conversation of concern.

[Perspectivo]

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

Easily, its redaction 101: doublets don't acknowledge each other in the Bible, but this one does_ Crossan, Bart Erhman, Marcus Borg, Groves, Richard Hess, Peter Enns, ... literally every critical scholar I'm aware of.

[RugMatic]

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.

Yes, the author flips 1:1 around at 2:4. They also share a couple elements: Creating life from the ground, 1:24 with 2:9. Man's dominance over creation, 1:26 with 2:19. Both stories start with the word bara\create , 1:1 with 2:4, but use different words thereafter. The 1st story uses the word asah\make, 1:7, but the 2nds uses the words yatzar\form, 2:19, and [ i] banah\build[/i], 2:22. It seems reasonable that the author of the 2nd story was building upon the 1st, unless we assume a ridiculous amount of coincidences between two unrelated stories. The heavens to earth-then earth to heavens switcheroonie is a smoking gun that the 2nd story was indeed a mystical rehash by the same author. The redactors were too lazy to do stuff like this, as every other doublet shows . If it was a clever unification of two stories, then what happened to this editorial mojo?

[The Tanager]

I lean towards multiple authors that someone/group edited together into Genesis, but I think they could have both been created by the same author as I see them as more metaphorical renderings of the deeper truth they are trying to proclaim; they aren't literal scientific treatises, but it makes a little more sense to me that the person/group had multiple stories that they collected together.

[marke]

Nobody needs to understand the consistent Biblical accounts of God's creation if they have already determined within themselves to believe the nonsensical secular big bang theory lie.

[Clownboat]

Nobody needs to understand the consistent Biblical accounts of God's creation if they have already determined within themselves to believe the nonsensical secular big bang theory lie.

Nobody needs to understand the consistent accounts in the Quran of Allah's creation if they have already determined within themselves to believe the nonsensical Biblical story.

Both claims assume fact that are not in evidence and are examples of poisoning the well.
This tit for tat is displayed in hopes that you realize that arguing from emotion is not debate.

[Diagoras]

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.

This reads like someone who is so uncomfortable with questions about their beliefs that they make a big deal about ‘relevance’ in order to deflect.

The smarter tactic would have been to simply ignore the thread - which might have then quietly slipped down the list and forgotten.

[Diagoras]

I lean towards multiple authors that someone/group edited together into Genesis, but I think they could have both been created by the same author as I see them as more metaphorical renderings of the deeper truth they are trying to proclaim; they aren't literal scientific treatises, but it makes a little more sense to me that the person/group had multiple stories that they collected together.

<bolding mine>

That ‘deeper truth’ then seems to be a matter of interpretation rather than objective fact. If we are allowing for ‘metaphorical’ creation, then couldn’t the ‘deeper truth’ in fact be that the heavens and earth formed through natural processes rather than by the action of a deity?