Christians/Jews: Why does the Bible contain two different creation stories?

Because the Bible was written by a bunch of different folks, not just one author.

The Bible is a book of parables for you to study and find the meanings to.

The bible contradicts itself left and right… This isn’t the only place where that happens. Unfortunately I have no explanation for you, other that what @Darwin said – it’s a conglomeration of things written by many people, hence it is inconsistent.

maybe the answer is all in how you read it
This is an excelent starting point for anyone seeking to know more about the Bible and how it should be read.

What about Adam’s first wife Lilith? That’s the best one.

If you want a realistic answer its that the stories existed before they were commited to the page, like most myths. When they were committed to page it wasn’t the Bible or the Torah they were written in. The texts that became those books started out as separate texts that were later compiled. So essentially the stories and texts that later became the Bible probably didn’t have a common origin much of the time and even when they did, time and oral tradition always produces disparites.

When they got around to compiling a single volume they were faced with a lot of contradictory material and not a lot of ways to sort it out. They could have re-written things to make sense, but they certainly didn’t do this all of the time if they did. And they could excluded troublesome or suspect passages which was certainly done some of the time. But the rest of the time I suspect the scribes missed the contradictions or, not knowing which was right, left both in. They may have even convinced themselves that there were no contradictions (plenty of people do) or they may not have been concerned about them. I’ve heard fundamentalism is a relatively recent phenomenom in Christianity though I don’t think that is completely true.

As for the awkward chapter breaks, you shouldn’t pay attention to them. The Bible is chaptered and versed differently than the Torah. In fact no one started adding chapters to the Old Testament until 586 BC and the first published New Testament with chapter and verse divisions wasn’t published until 1557.

So even if you think everything else about the Bible is the perfect word of God, the divisions are totally manmade and they are definitely wonky from time to time.

@tinyfaery Lilith isn’t in the canon Bible, I think she appears in the Catholic Apocrypha. So that particular story won’t haunt the average Protestant fundamentalist. Just the Catholics who are practically forbidden to read the Bible at all any way. Problem solved :).

@tinyfaery yeah not in there

@patg7590 I tried reading some of that, and it is extremely interesting and well-written. However you have to note that it is written by a Bishop.

For those who want a less religious view on the bible, I would try reading the Wikipedia page for The Bible. I’m not saying it’s not slanted, but really, anything you read about the bible is going to be slanted! Anyway, I’ve skimmed it before, and mainly I remember finding the existence of New Testament apocrypha to be extremely interesting… (Which @fundevogel just mentioned! Those pesky apocrypha. I just want to know who chose which ones were going to be canon and which ones weren’t!)

Just the Catholics who are practically forbidden to read the Bible at all any way.

That couldn’t be any more false.

And not to be rude to any of the answers given, but I understand the non-Christian view of why the differences exist, but I was wondering if a believer has an explanation for how it all works out. Though I am glad that everybody is answering this.

@DominicX Remember that the books of the Bible aren’t always in exact chronological order (sometimes rather side-by-side). There are many examples of this- where different books describe the same event and are just written by different people. It doesn’t mean that one isn’t true.

@fireinthepriory From what I’ve read they seem to have done a decent job of judging what is and isn’t apocryphal. I mean I don’t think any of it’s true but the apocryphal texts almost all seem to be much newer than the texts that made it into the Bible. Politically helpful apocrypha also had a habit of popping up at just the right moment to support various political and religious movements. If you know what i mean. wink wink, nudge nudge.

@DominicX Both of my parents were raised Catholic and they told me reading the Bible was not encouraged. My dad went to Catholic school and everything and apparently never cracked a Bible in his whole life. This may not be the current stance the Catholic church has on the Bible but it certainly was the case in the recent past at least at a number of parishes.

Because the creations stories are allegorical. The point is God made the heavens and the earth, not to provide a step by step commentary on how he did it.

@DominicX I don’t think that @Darwin and my point (having many writers being the source for any inconsistencies found in the Bible) is from the point of view of a non-believer, necessarily. I mean, I would never call myself a “believer,” but my mother is an Episcopal priest, and she herself gives this reason. It’s a fact. Just think, there are four (canonical) gospels. Each is “according” to a different apostle. These books were not written down during these mens’ lives, thus the stories all have slight changes and inconsistencies. Imagine the inconsistencies when we’re talking about the OLD testament, let alone Genesis! The inconsistencies between Genesis 1 and 2 are because it was two different people (or groups of people) writing them down, after the story was passed down from generation to generation in oral tradition.

@fundevogel Cool, thanks.

@fundevogel That’s absurd. Reading the bible is encouraged by the Catholic Church. I am Catholic, and attend mass. Every weekly bulletin lists the weekly bible readings to do at home.

Lilith is from the Zohar, a Hebrew text, which is thought of by some to be older than the Bible. Just sayin’.

I also read somewhere that some people think the Genesis 2 story is a “zoom in” on the 6th day of creation. I haven’t really read enough to see if that’s an accurate description, however.

@fireinthepriory

Oh I know, and that certainly does make sense. I didn’t mean to say your responses weren’t valid, it’s just that I’ve come across believers who say that the Bible is perfect and does work out perfectly and I was wondering how that would happen with the so-called “discrepancy” between Genesis 1 & 2.

@fundevogel

All I’m going off of is how Catholicism worked out while I was raised Catholic. It’s just that there are so many misconceptions about Catholics that it bugs me when I see something that seems like yet another misconception.

@DominicX one of the points that N.T. Wright makes in that paper is that the Bible is often read in a literal, sequential, culturally impacted, way. It’s not two different stories, its just a continuation of the story. The whole thing is a story. A Narrative. Mars Hill’s Narrative theology is one such example of this view.—it’s only about a page

There are many misconceptions about Christ followers in general, some terrible things have happened in the name of Jesus

Try reading it as a story and I think you will have greater success.

@SpatzieLover – Just going by what my ex-Catholic mom and bad-Catholic dad told me.

@DomincX
Understood. I’m curious, what are the other misconceptions?

It’s possible that different Catholic churches may put different emphasis on the Bible as well. Though I’m sure they’re more consistent than the Protestant churches.

@DominicX Well, the only explanation that I can come up with is that the people who say “the Bible is perfect and does work out perfectly” (and I have met some people who think like that, too) haven’t actually read the Bible. Or if they have, they don’t have very good critical thinking skills.

@fireinthepriory I would definitely agree with ^^^^this statement. I’ve met them & they can be scary ignorant.

@fundevogel a few things that people often assume that a Christian subscribes to off the top of my head: Global warming is made up, Going to Church is the goal, Science is false/the enemy/the devil, Gays are the enemy, Raping the planet of resources is okay, Muslims are the Enemy, Everyone is the enemy, The Bible is meant to be read literally, Slavery is ok

@DominicX The two Genesis stories are open to interpretation as scriptural writings. I suppose you are interested in some drawn out answer.

Think of it as the creation story written by different authors. No two people see things exactly the same way.

@fundevogel

Some misconceptions are that Catholics worship Mary and the saints (they don’t; Catholics worship God alone. Mary and the Saints are intercessors and all they can do is pray to God for you), they worship statues (wrong; statues are reminders, nothing else), they believe salvation is by works not by faith (wrong; salvation is by faith but works come from faith; see James 2:14–17. If you have have faith, your works will show it). I’m sure there are tons more, those are just a few I thought of.

My uncle refuses to pick a Bible up because the priest tells him all he needs to know. Regardless of what you are claiming in defense of the church, it is widely known that overall Catholicism generally discourages actual personal reading of the Bible, or even prayer that differs from their own prescribed prayers.

I’ve been to many a Catholic Church and have not at any of them seen anything to the contrary. I know there must be some, but it’s fairly consistent.

@Anon_Jihad What your describing sounds like the belief (which many Christians share) that if you go to Church, you’ve done enough. That is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. Nor is it the advice of an active Catholic.

It is widely known that Catholics do not discount science, nor do they take the bible as literal teachings.

I predict this thread to get very messy very quick

@patg7590 – a lot of those are just right wing things (or nutso things). They add up to a stereotype but they are based on cultural trends, at least the ones that aren’t totally nuts.

@DominicX I don’t get how saying Hail Mary’s aren’t praying to Mary. You’re praying, you’re you’re addressing Mary as the recipient of the prayer. That sounds like praying to Mary to me. At best you might distinguish praying to Mary as a intercessor from a prayer of worship but it’s still a prayer.

@fundevogel yes I agree those things are most often right wing ideas, but for some; and many people on this site I would argue (present company excluded) these are the views of all who claim the name of Christ.

@fundevogel No we are not praying to Mary we are asking Mary to pray for us…That’s a distinct difference.

We ask Saints to PRAY FOR US, such as the Litany of the Saints.

The religious schooling I had taught that the Bible is infallible, every word is true . . . I’m racking my brain to remember what they said (that I try really hard to forget . . . )

I this is their viewpoint – there is only one creation story, the “second” one is just an elaboration of what God did and how. When it says that “God created man in His own image”, that means that man was created perfect, like God. Which was undone by the fall of mankind into sin.

And I guess no one really knows what’s up with the whole rib and dust business . . . it’s pretty poetic, I guess. I think my school just skated over that particular detail.

Ugh, how did I know this would turn into Catholic apologetics discussion?

@fundevogel

Basically, it’s a prayer asking Mary to pray for you as an intercessor, which is what she is. It’s a prayer of petition; it’s not a prayer of worship. The confusion arises that “prayer” is usually used in reference to worship.

@patg7590 @SpatzieLover

I agree, which is why I’m going to pull out of it until people start talking about Genesis again. Read the Catechism if you want to understand. That’s all I can say.

Thank you, @efritz.

You’re welcome :)

It’s my assumption that one tells the general creation story (...was created in his image) and the latter is just a further description of that event (...was formed from dirt and ribs). Mmm… ribs. I’m hungry.

They put what I’d like to say about Genesis 1 & 2 best on this site, @DominicX

I do think they are best left open to interpretation, and to be read with “intellectual humility”.

The Bible was written over a long period of time by a succession of different authors, all of whom had been exposed to multiple stories and ideas by written and oral literature. As just one very brief example, compare the flood story in Gilgamesh with the flood story in the Bible.

Also remember that it was assembled arbitrarily to a certain extent, and we often have the overlapping of two or even more voices simultaneously which leads to some textual anomalies.

@SpatzieLover I’m in step with @DominicX on this. Prayer seems to be the only method of talking to someone through mystical means. Especially when that someone that is not among the living (in the traditional sense). It’s a fairly specific and unique practice.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any moral objection to praying to Mary or whoever else you want. So you don’t need to argue to justify the morality of mystic communication with Mary.

It isn’t apologetics, we’re not talking about whether or not Catholicism is right. We’re just discussing the trappings, the practice. But we can stop, we’re definitely off topic. :)

@pdworkin applause

I don’t see how these two are contradictory. If the second quote appeared in Luke, it wouldn’t be considered contradictory.

The most famous Torah commentator, Rashi, explained that the first story was a general account, while the second was a more detailed explanation of the event. I’ve heard that this type of narrative occurs in several other places, though I don’t where in the Torah specifically.

the bible was written by literally thousands of authors and was rewritten thousands of times. It can not possible be all in line with itself.

Well I guess a religious explanation would be that you’re looking at small details which are not really contradictory. In one text it describes how man was made by mud and then woman was made from a rib off his side, and in the other it says “so they were made”. I don’t see the problem. They were not made simultaneously, but it was on the same day, so there’s no real difference there.
Similarly, God created man in his image, out of mud. Where’s the problem there? Just like I can make a statue of myself, out of marble. “In his image” simply means that our God has no tentacles or 6 arms like Kali. Not that He is made of mud too.

There are many obvious problems with Bible passages, and a huge difference between what the Bible actually says and what people think it says, but I don’t see a major problem with Genesis. It’s pretty straight-forward. Whether it’s an accurate description of what really happened or simply a parable, is a different issue.

Genesis 1 and 2 are not chronological, Chapter 1 gives an overview of creation and in the following chapters the writer (Moses) gives details of different aspects of the creation.
The following is taken from Richards, L., & Richards, L. O. (1987). The teacher’s commentary (29). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

“It’s popular in some circles to think of Genesis 2 as a second, somewhat contradictory account of human creation. In fact, Genesis 2 employs a common literary device. Background is sketched first, and then one feature is highlighted with additional details.
There is every indication that this is what we have in Genesis 2. The phrase in verse 4, “This is the account of,” sets off the introduction of each new section in Genesis (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2). The Creation scenery is set in place in Genesis 1; now the writer invites us to take our seats and observe the play.”

Many of the overly-devout Christians that I know explain the discrepancies in Genesis and in other books of the Bible as being things that man simply doesn’t understand but that all is known and understood by God. Others with better critical thinking skills support the idea that these were written by different people over time who may or may not have been “channeling” the word of God but in any case imposed something of themselves on their accounts. And still others figure the first chapter is the wide-shot, while the second is the close-up.

As to Catholics not reading the Bible: certainly during the Middle Ages this was discouraged in order to give the priests and the church a greater leadership role. However, very few folks at that time could read anyway, and even fewer could read Latin, the language in which the Bible was written at the time. Martin Luther was one that defied this edict by insisting on translating the Bible into German so that the common man could read it for himself.

However, these days typically most Catholic churches and priests encourage the congregation to read either the Bible itself or the Lectionary, the compilation of Bible verses and responses to be read each day. Some priests are more old fashioned and so are some parishioners. At least one church in our town offers mass in Latin still.

@jbradc chapter 1 most certainly is chronological. It explicitly states the sequence of events and numbers the days they occur on. Chapter 2 does not lock down specific days, but it does none the less indicate a concrete sequence with words like “then” and “next” and explains creation events (the creation of animals and woman) as consequences of the earlier creation of man.

@Jack79, @filmfann, @drdoombot, @jbradc etc

Though some of the issues in Genesis 1 & 2 can be chalked up to varying levels of detail, there are some things that directly contradict. This isn’t just about dust, although I do think the distinction between creating man in God’s image and creating him from dust is significant.

contradictions between chapters

* the sequence of creation changes. In ch. 1 mankind is created last, in ch.2 man is created before plants or animals.

* In ch. 1 plants are created before the sun, moon & stars. In ch. 2 they come before.

* mankind is set apart as made special in ch. 1, he is saved for last and made in God’s image. In ch. 2 man comes from dirt, the same way that plants and animals come from the dirt. He also appears to have some sort of design flaw since God then makes all of the animals in a naive attempt to alleviate the man’s unforseen loneliness.

*in ch. 1 man and woman are made together equally after everything else. In ch. 2 God makes man and then the animals and plants and then he makes the woman for the man. This establishes inequality in creation for men and women which is a staple in creation stories of cultures where one sex dominates the other. It establishes God given superiority for the original sex. In this case woman is made explicitly to make life more pleasant for man.

* in ch. 1 God commands things into existence, in ch. 2 he gets his hands dirty, forming men and animals from dust.

condradictions with the real world

* on the first day God creates light and day and night (1:3–5), but God doesn’t get around to making the sun until the fourth day (1:16–19)

* (1:6–8) describes the sky as a solid dome that keeps out the water above the sky (we’ll find out in a later chapter that the dome has windows that God opens to create the rain that floods the earth)

* When God gets around to making the stars and moon and sun he affixes them in the solid sky dome or possibly within the sky dome, either way it doesn’t reflect reality.(1:14–15)

* the creation of plants (1:11–13) and animals (1:20–21) specifies that all types were made by God in the original creation. This conflicts with what we know about evolution and the “grapple”.
——-
In all fairness it’s easy to miss some of these unless you’re reading the chapters side by side. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

@fundevogel I didn’t say chapter 1 was not in chronological order…I said that the transition from chapter 1 to Chapter 2 is not chronological. Chapter 2 is a restating and greater explanation of some events in chapter 1.

@jbradc That may be what you meant but it’s not what you typed. And the transition doesn’t bother me, chronolgically or otherwise.

As I mentioned earlier, chapter divisions were not present in the original text. I believe that the second story actually starts at 2:4 or 2:5 based on the content and language style of the two texts. When you divide the stories there you don’t have any transition issues at all. Just two stories about the same event.

The argument that chapter 2 expands chapter 1 does not eliminate the problems between the two. It certainly doesn’t explain the issues with chronology.

Don’t forget there is another account of Creation in John 1:1–14 “In the beginning was the Word…”

When did God create the Angels? That’s not in either of the two Genesis accounts. And accounts about that differ.
http://bible.org/seriespage/survey-bible-doctrine-angels-satan-demons

The two stories were indeed written by two different groups of people. The first story (1’st day…and it was good.) was written by the Priestly tradition around 500 BCE. The second story (Adam from dust, God walking around like a person) was written by the Yahwist tradition around 1000–900 BCE. (Yeah they were out of order)

They were written for different reasons. They are about about God, not about us or creation really. The first shows an all-powerfull God, but one that seems distant. (He merely speaks and creates the world) The second shows how God is a loving personal God, (he walks around with us) then it goes on to the explanations of why there is pain and suffering in our world in Chapter 3 (our close relationship with God dies because of disobedience of God).

As for the contradictions between the stories and with the real world. They are not to be taken litterally. Some of the bible reveals historical truth, such as Jesus. He was a real person and is known to history outside the bible. Or the exile of the Jewish people many times. That is also verifiable.

No one was around or knew how to write when the world was formed. It isn’t meant to tell us how it happened, only to describe God and our rightful relationship with him.

@tramnineteen – I had assumed the second story was newer since it is written with more literary grace and skill than the first one (in my opinion). Do you know if there is any particular reason the Priestly and Yahwist traditions were mixed together? Was it just that they were old enough no one knew that they didn’t belong together when the text was compiled?

No, the redactors (editors) did it on purpose. Used their judgement. Their primary goal would have been to create a book that most accurately and beautifully (in their estimation) reveal the character of God. The final form emerged around 450 BCE

Interesting, I didn’t realize there was any solid historical knowledge about the compilation of the Tanakh. I thought it was put together back it in the murky nethers of history. You wouldn’t happen to have any reading recommendations on the subject would you?

@fundevogel Any good biblical commentary would have info on this. Find one written after 1985 and it should be pretty reliable. Around then commentary became far less subjective and more historical.

@tramnineteen Cool, I’ve already got some of those on my reading list.

@fundevogel just one possible explanation I can think of as far as the chronological order is concerned. It is possible (though I don’t have the original text before me) that ”before (just like I just used it) is not a chronological word. It could also mean “above” or “beyond” and in this sense, Man is more important than planets and animals, but that does not mean Adam and Eve were created earlier.

In any case, we’ve probably figured out by now that we’re not meant to take the Bible that seriously, right? Or are we still looking for a literal interpretation?

@Jack79 The word before does not appear in either the first or second chapter of my Bible.

I said that humans were created after animals in the first chapter because the days are numbered. And in the second chapter man is made and then the animals are made to cure his loneliness, which doesn’t work so God makes a woman. In neither instance is the chronology of the creation of man dependent on ambiguous terms.

hmm…no idea then, would have to look it up, I always thought it was pretty clear that what you mention as the second chapter was the official version.

I think the trouble is that they’re both supposed to be the “official version”. But you’re right on the whole, its best not to take these things seriously, or at least not literally.

It was written by a ton of people.

@SpatzieLover ”Hail , Mary , Mother of God. Blessed art thou amongst women. And blessed are the fruits of thy womb, Jesus.”
That is praying to Mary, no question. So what? I think it’s fine. If it isn’t praying to Her, to whom is the prayer directed?? Noah?
I think everyone should use their brain, look at things objectively and just admit stuff. Open your eyes.

I’m messianic jew. I can tell you the delegates that put the books together had to pick and choose what was going to be officially published. Thats why everything is mixed up. What shouldn’t be denied is the actual works of jesus and what he has said, or how he lived. He displayed the perfect example of being the ultimate loving, hippie, giver there ever was. Furthermore, there are far more stories that have never made it to the bible. Such as the teachings of Lilith, Adams first wife who was disobedient as well.

It’s the same creation story with different emphases. See here.