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 consensus view for over a hundred years now has been that Genesis 1:1-2:4 and 2:5-4:26 are independent creation accounts by different authors. What support exists for the assertion that the two accounts are unified?

From Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman (p. 28):

Until the past generation there were orthodox Christian and Jewish scholars who contested the Documentary Hypothesis in scholarly circles. At present, however, there is hardly a biblical scholar in the world actively working on the problem who would claim that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses—or by any one person. Scholars argue about the number of different authors who wrote any given biblical book. They argue about when the various documents were written and about whether a particular verse belongs to this or that document. They express varying degrees of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the usefulness of the hypothesis for literary or historical purposes. But the hypothesis itself continues to be the starting point of research, no serious student of the Bible can fail to study it, and no other explanation of the evidence has come close to challenging it.

Is Friedman overstating things?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1]

If both accounts were written by the same author, then that author must have been either drunk, confused, forgetful, or all three. The accounts don't line up. Anyone can crack open their Bible (or use an online one) and compare them side by side. They don't match in order of events, thus they are not the same. One is not a more detailed account, they are different and that's that.

The difference between the two is why people assume different authors. The fact that these 2 different accounts were crammed into the same document now is only an issue for the faithful that must have everything between the covers of the Bible to be true and accurate.

This is all before we even get into the fact that neither of the accounts line up with modern knowledge of the world and how things work.

If both of these accounts actually lined up and actually matched modern scientific findings, then we would have something to chew on as far as these being reliable. Instead what we have is an interesting look into the past and what humans believed about the world around them. That in itself is useful and interesting, but definitely a thorn in the side of some faithful.

[POI]

a) The fact that these 2 different accounts were crammed into the same document now is only an issue for the faithful that must have everything between the covers of the Bible to be true and accurate.

b) This is all before we even get into the fact that neither of the accounts line up with modern knowledge of the world and how things work.

c) If both of these accounts actually lined up and actually matched modern scientific findings, then we would have something to chew on as far as these being reliable.

d) Instead what we have is an interesting look into the past and what humans believed about the world around them. That in itself is useful and interesting, but definitely a thorn in the side of some faithful.

These four points alone is yet another reason as to why 'Christian apologetics' is so necessary

[1213]

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?

If we are literal, there is only one creation account. Only Genesis 1 is speaking of creating. Genesis 2 speaks of forming and planting. For example:

In the beginning God created...
Gen. 1:1
Yahweh God planted a garden eastward, in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed...
Gen. 2:7-8
...Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky...
Gen. 2:18-20

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

[SiNcE_1985]

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?

To answer the OP question; a unified account by a single author.

But question to you: Does the answer to this question effect whether you will remain an unbeliever, or become a believer?

If, in your opinion, a satisfactory answer is given to your question, would you become a believer?

If the answer is no, then the answer to the question is irrelevant.

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

[benchwarmer]

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

Because some of us like to counter bad arguments, bad ways of thinking, and just wrong information. Some of us do this because we once believed some of this stuff and would like to share with the readers our perspective and reasoning.

Often times in these debates some of our interlocutors think we are trying to convince them of something. This is wrong in my case. I'm trying to convince readers of my position. I'm under no illusions that I'm going to change the mind of the person I'm debating (though I guess that would be nice every now and then), but the main focus is to provide readers of these debates with both sides.

If you(generic you) are focused on me (your debate opponent), then I suggest you are going about this wrong. Give the best argument and evidence for your position that will hopefully convince readers. The rest is up to them and out of our hands.

[POI]

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

Because some of us like to counter bad arguments, bad ways of thinking, and just wrong information. Some of us do this because we once believed some of this stuff and would like to share with the readers our perspective and reasoning.

Often times in these debates some of our interlocutors think we are trying to convince them of something. This is wrong in my case. I'm trying to convince readers of my position. I'm under no illusions that I'm going to change the mind of the person I'm debating (though I guess that would be nice every now and then), but the main focus is to provide readers of these debates with both sides.

If you(generic you) are focused on me (your debate opponent), then I suggest you are going about this wrong. Give the best argument and evidence for your position that will hopefully convince readers. The rest is up to them and out of our hands.

Excellent response, and I might add, as I've also already told him as well...

Some of us come here because:

-- Debating core topics can be fun.
-- Exchanging in such debate with family and friends can get a little too heated, and even drive a wedge within your own family, as politics and religion are "not to be discussed at the dinner table."
-- Religion gets us into many sub-topics, really fast, which keeps my brain sharper (hopefully).
-- Exchanging in an echo chamber is boring.
-- I like having my own positions challenged.

Maybe more.........

[SiNcE_1985]

Because some of us like to counter bad arguments, bad ways of thinking, and just wrong information.

Yeah, it sounds good.

Of all the atheists/agnostics/unbelievers on this forum that you know of..

How many of their bad arguments have you countered?

How many have their bad ways of thinking (or wrong information) have you challenged or corrected?

I'll wait.

I can name one bad argument/position right now from an unbeliever on this forum, that I doubt you'll challenge.

Oh, I get it, you only challenge or correct the positions of believers...not atheists.

Some of us do this because we once believed some of this stuff and would like to share with the readers our perspective and reasoning.

But from our (believers) perceptive, no reasoning will ever be good enough to leave the faith.

If your reasons ain't good enough for God, then it ain't good enough for us..so save it.

There, I just saved you time and effort.

Often times in these debates some of our interlocutors think we are trying to convince them of something. This is wrong in my case. I'm trying to convince readers of my position.

Gotcha. Ok, we are convinced of your position.

You have us persuaded and convinced of your position that God does not exist and Jesus is not Lord and Savior.


There, saved you more time and effort.

I'm under no illusions that I'm going to change the mind of the person I'm debating (though I guess that would be nice every now and then), but the main focus is to provide readers of these debates with both sides.

We got it.

If you(generic you) are focused on me (your debate opponent), then I suggest you are going about this wrong. Give the best argument and evidence for your position that will hopefully convince readers. The rest is up to them and out of our hands.

The Bible says what it says. It is on your hands whether you want to take it or leave it.

You left it.

End of discussion.

[SiNcE_1985]

Excellent response, and I might add, as I've also already told him as well...

Some of us come here because:

-- Debating core topics can be fun.

Sure, it can be fun.

I have distain for the sport of baseball and will debate whether it is a fun sport to watch (as subjective as it is).

But, I'm not going to spend any significant part of my life discussing a such a matter.

Years, years, and years talking, researching, and debating a sport that I don't like and care nothing about.

But hey, we are all different.

-- Exchanging in such debate with family and friends can get a little too heated, and even drive a wedge within your own family, as politics and religion are "not to be discussed at the dinner table."

Those conversations can get heated anywhere...work, home, bus stop, airport, etc..heck, even on message forums (hint, hint).

-- Religion gets us into many sub-topics, really fast, which keeps my brain sharper (hopefully).
-- Exchanging in an echo chamber is boring.
-- I like having my own positions challenged.

Maybe more.........

Yeah, and included in that "many more" stockpile is the..

"Maybe you need to convince yourself against your own convictions...and you use these debates as a confirmation bias against those Holy Spirit conviction."

Let's throw that one in there too.