BIBLE WONDERINGS

A QUAKER PHILOSOPHER READS THE BIBLE

T H U R S D A Y, J A N U A R Y 1 9 , 2 0 0 6

Two Creation Stories

Genesis 1:1-3:24

What I first noticed as I started reading the Bible is that there are two different creation stories. The first
is Genesis 1:1-2:3, and the second is Genesis 2:4-25. Lots of people have noticed this -- the helpful textual
notes in the edition of the Bible I am using point that out, and tell me that it is thought that the two
versions come from two different sources.

It is the first that sets out the seven days of creation:

Day 1: heavens, earth, light, day and night.

Day 2: the "dome" (sky) that separates the waters below (on earth) from the waters above the sky.

Day 3: dry land and vegetation.

Day 4: stars, moon, sun.

Day 5: water creatures and birds.

Day 6: land animals; humankind (both male and female). The number of human beings created is
not specified. Also, God here gives to people "every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all
the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food" (Gen 1:29) -- no
prohibitions.

Day 7: God rested, and blessed this day.

In the second creation story, things are a little different. First of all, individual days are not specified. And
the sequence is very different:

earth and heavens; no rain yet but a spring would well up and water the ground

from dust, man was created (not woman yet)

garden of Eden -- man is put here; garden includes the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of
good and evil

God tells man to till and keep the garden of Eden, but not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil (note that Woman has not entered the scene yet! Man is alone).

God notices that Man is alone and wants to find him a helper and partner, so He first creates
animals and birds and Man names them. But still there was no helper as partner.

God makes Man fall asleep, pulls out a rib, and makes Woman.

The story of original sin then ensues.

In the first story, all of creation is good. In the second story, even the garden of Eden is not a place of
relaxed enjoyment, but a place of work (Gen 2:15), and a place where something is off-limits (Gen 2:1617). God tells Man that if he does eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will die that very day
(Gen 2:17). But later, that's not what happens.
While it may seem unjust that Woman, who wasn't even there yet when this prohibition was originally
stated, then gets punished for eating of that tree, it is clear that she knew of the prohibition (Gen 3:2-3).
Once Woman and Man eat of the tree, God says, "'See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good
and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live
forever'" (Gen 3:22) and this is why they get kicked out of the garden of Eden -- so they won't become
immortal.
While I find many aspects of this second creation story troubling, I am fascinated by the relating the
concept of "knowledge of good and evil" with "wisdom" and that being a divine characteristic. Also, it is
true that perceiving the world through a moral lens makes existence more painful. But what troubles me is
that, as the story is told, originallyamoral beings are yet held morally accountable and are punished.
Without knowledge of good and evil, they couldn't have known it was bad or wrong to disobey God.
So, maybe the story shouldn't be read morally. Maybe it is not, after all, a story of punishment for
disobedience. Maybe God really was trying to say, "if you eat of this tree, everything will change, and you
might not like it." Eventually, they do eat of that tree. Sure enough: everything changes. God says, "ok,

now this kind of existence will be much harder, so you won't want to live forever anymore..." and closes
off access to the tree of life as an act of compassion.
If so, does this mean that the concept of "original sin" (the most common interpretation of this second
creation story) is not so much due to a moral disobedience somehow present in us in the start (because
this contradicts the original amoral casting of human beings), but is better taken to express the essential
pain inherent in moral awareness? It's not that we've done anything wrong -- its that awareness of right
and wrong simply does make life difficult and painful.
Anyway, the word "sin" has not at all come up yet in this passage of the Bible. So even interpreting this
story as a tale of original sin must have been a later interpretation of it.
P O S T E D B Y C O N T E M P L ATI V E S C H O L A R AT 8 : 2 9 AM
LABELS: GENESIS

46 COMMENTS:
1.

Alice M.January 19, 2006 3:16 PM

Hi

CS,

Have you ever read Daniel Quinn's musings about Genesis, in his novel 'Ishmael'? I think
his
take
on
it
is
really
interesting.
If I remember rightly, he proposes that the Eden/fruit/fall story is a myth of the origin of
the agrarian peoples, as observed by the Semite herders. Agriculturalists decide what is
good and what is evil - they decide to move some plants and plant others, they store up
food against leaner times and so on. Hence, the myth says - they must have eaten from
the tree of the Gods - and are now punished by labour - because much more labour is
necessary to live an agrarian life than a nomadic herder or hunting/gathering lifestyle.
Thanks for starting this blog, I am looking forward to reading more of your thoughts.
Reply

2.
Contemplative ScholarJanuary 20, 2006 8:54 AM
Wow, thanks for sharing that reference! It reminds me too of William Ury's take on the
origins of violence in human society (in Getting to Peace later re-titled The Third Way) --

he argues that humans didn't become violent toward each other until settling down to an
agrarian lifestyle. It is only when cultivating land that the notion of
land ownership begins to come into focus. After working so hard on the land, people get
upset if others then come along and take the fruits of their hard labor. Also, settling down
on the land means that some places start to get crowded, and when tensions do flare, it is
harder
to
get
away
from
each
other
to
cool
down.
It is interesting to wonder whether the Biblical story is a reflection of this important
transition
in
how
human
societies
are
organized.
Thanks again!
Reply

3.
AnonymousSeptember 19, 2008 11:41 AM
Re: two accounts of creation - the transition to agriculture & herding from
hunter/gatherer
and
issues
of
their
distinct
teachings.
**POINT
1
It would seem clear that the second version of creation in Genesis (v2) is a later version
relative to v1. Indications of this can be observed in the following:
In v2 the original state is: "no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field
yet sprouteth" because "a man there is not to serve the ground". Hunter/gatherers do not
"serve
the
ground"
whereas
farmers
do.
Furthermore, after creating man from the "dust from the ground", God "setteth there [in
Eden] the man whom He hath formed" and then "causeth him to rest in the garden of
Eden,
to
serve
it,
and
to
keep
it".
This is in contradistinction to v1 where (1) God simply grants the following blessing to
Man: "every herb sowing seed... and every tree ... to you it is for food". Which is consistent
with the hunter/gatherer who subsists on wild produce. And (2) there is no "Garden of
Eden" in v1, and no cataloging of river/place names or geographical limits. Thus the
Earth is seen in v1 as a completely open virgin landscape, whereas in v2 the Earth is
defined by specific geographical features with (presumably) familiar names. (3) In v2 the
diety is refered to as "Jehovah God" whereas in v1 He is simply "God". This indicates that
the Indo-European origins of the traditions are being refined into a specifically Hebrew
context,
again
pointing
to
its
later
development.
Notice also that following v2 creation all mankind is destroyed excepting Noah and his
clan. The flood is clearly a "second-creation" story [see Gen 9.1-3] that transfers the
Creator's affections [eg Gen 9.9] from the pre-sedentary pantheistic hunter/gatherers
[aka "sons of God" Gen 6.1 and 6.4; "the heroes/the men of name" Gen 6.4] to the
sedentary personal-supernatural-God worshipers who before the flood are called: "fallen
ones" [Gen 6.4]; "daughters of men", [Gen 6.2 and 6.4]; "man in the earth" [Gen 6.5, 6.6]
but
after
the
flood
become
the
chosen
people.
And thence commences the remainder of Genesis, a catalogue of land disputes, intertribal warfare and semi-nomadic wanderings which culminate in the establishment of the
Hebrews
as
a
distinct
nation
with
a
"god-given"
homeland.

According to http://netministries.org/Bbasics/BBGen.htm, Genesis - as a written

document - was compiled by three different authors between 950 B.C. and 539 B.C.
Hence we may assume that v1 is closer to 950BC and v2 closer to 539BC.
The earliest written account of creation of the Indo-European peoples is documented in
the Rig-Veda and perhaps gives us an insight into the origins of Genesis v1. I include the
following quote in full to avoid you dismissing my connection of these traditions out-ofhand:
"According to the generally accepted view the oldest of them [Rig-Veda poems] dates
back to 1,500 B.C., when the Aryan conquerors spread over the Punjab in Northern India
and occupied the land on both sides of the Indus. The texts themselves show that the
collection is the result of the work of generations of poets, extending over many
centuries.... [A]pproximately 500 hymns are addressed to two gods alone: Indra, the god
of lightning and storms, and Agni, the god of fire.... The value of the great collection as
presenting the earliest record of the mythology of an Indo-European people is apparent.
Several of the gods go back to the time of Indo-Iranian unity, e.g. Yama (the Avestan
Yima),
Soma
(haoma),
Mitra
(the
later
Persian
Mithra)."
[Source:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15318a.htm]
And

here

is

the

Rig-Veda

creation

poem:

Nor
Aught
nor
Naught
existed;
yon
bright
sky
Was
not,
nor
heaven's
broad
woof
outstretched
above.
What
covered
all?
what
sheltered?
what
concealed?
Was
it
the
water's
fathomless
abyss?
There
was
not
death

yet
there
was
naught
immortal.
There
was
no
confine
betwixt
day
and
night;
The
Only
One
breathed
breathless
by
itself,
Other
than
it
there
nothing
since
had
been.
Darkness
there
was
and
all
at
first
was
veiled
In
gloom
profound

an
ocean
without
light

The
Germ
that
still
laid
covered
in
the
husk
Burst
forth,
one
nature,
from
the
fervent
heat.
Then
first
came
Love
upon
it,
the
new
Spring
Of
mind

yea,
poets
in
their
hearts
discerned,
Pondering,
this
bond
between
created
things
And
uncreated.
Comes
this
spark
from
the
earth
Piercing
and
all
pervading,
or
from
heaven?
Then
seeds
were
sown
and
mighty
powers
arose

Nature
below
and
power
and
Will
above

Who
knows
the
secret?
Who
proclaimed
it
here?
Whence,
whence
this
manifold
creation
sprang?
The
gods
themselves
came
later
into
being

Who
knows
from
whence
this
great
creation
sprang?
He
from
whom
all
this
great
creation
came,
Whether
his
will
created
or
was
mute,
The
Most-High
Seer
that
is
in
highest
heaven
He
knows
it

or
perchance
even
he
knows
not."
**POINT
2
I have pondered your thought about the issues impied in the various differences between
v1 and v2. I am aware of the multiple and diverse moral issues that can be raised through
these texts, and certainly the matter of the inherent "pain" of moral awareness is a valid
one,
I
would
like
to
add
to
the
debate
as
follows:

In the version I am using (Youngs Literal Translation) version one runs:

"And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. And God
prepareth the man in His image... a male and a female He prepared them."
You rightly draw attention to the fact that in v1 the creation of "man" is in fact the
creation of "mankind", not of a single individual, but both male and female. There is no
Adam and Eve (as well as no Garden of Eden). This is beautiful because it teaches that
woman is not the servant of man and does not exist "for" man, but exists for herself and is
related directly to God and not firstly to man and only secondly to God. It is also beautiful
because it teaches that man is also a complete being in himself. Finally, it is beautiful
because
it
teaches
that
man
and
woman
together
are
a
unity.
As spiritual beings man and woman are equal in version one. Version one teaches a
purely
spiritual
message,
with
no
social/culture
accretions.
Version two, on the other hand, teaches existential, moral, cultural and social lessons. As
indeed
you
rightly
point
out.
To discuss all these issues would lead me into a Masters length essay, so I'll finish by
saying that: because v2 is a later version and clearly written with a culturally-specific
mindset in place (Hebrew) we as intelligent people should seek to isolate the universal
spiritual messages in the Old Testament rather than adopting an uncritical ahistorical
approach.
Books

and

websites

of

interest:

<1> The Prehistory of the Mind: A Search for the Origins of Art, Religion and Science, by
Stephen Mithen, Thames & Hudson, 1996 -- the final chapter, "Epilogue: The Origins of
Agriculture" discusses the end of hunter/gatherer existance and the emergence of
agricultural
communities
in
the
Middle-East
<2> Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, Dee Brown, Vintage 1991 -- account of the
collision
of
nomadic
and
settled
societies
<3> Indian Spirit, Eds. M & J Fitzgerald, World Wisdom, 2006 -- beautiful quotes from
Native Americans of a spiritual character shows us that Judeo-Christianity has much to
learn
from
nomadic
spirituality
<4> The following website has a searchable directory of dozens of different bibles,
including
the
one
I
quote
here,
Young's
Literal
Translation.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=15
<5> Another (annotated) online bible and searchble edition of the fascinating "Catholic
Encyclopaedia"
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/
I
-TReply

hope

you

find

my

comments

interesting.

4.

Visionary JourneySeptember 21, 2008 2:14 AM

I have been inspired to set up my own blog after reading yours. So please feel free to
delete my rather over-long comment if you like (by anonymous). And also you're welcome
to
come
and
visit.
- Visionary Journey Reply

5.
Contemplative ScholarSeptember 21, 2008 11:34 AM
Thank you, anonymous/Visionary Journey! Your comment is very interesting. And the
Rig-Veda creation poem is fascinating. I very much appreciate your sharing more history
and
multifaith
perspectives.
I have had a look at your blog: nice mixture of poems, reflections, and visual images!
Reply

6.
igetthedigitsMay 06, 2009 2:50 PM
there isn't two creation stories. The second part of genesis refers to the first part.
Everything was made in the order of the seven days. Then god made the garden of eden
and adam. adam grew lonely and needed a companion(not the animals) but a womaneve. adam and eve were considered dead that very day because the wage of sin is death.
since they rebelled against god, they were dead in there sin nature and in need of a savior
and thats why jesus christ died on the cross for our sin. So man and woman didn't need to
stay a slave to sin, but rejoice in god's precious gift-SALVATION! Romans 10:9-11 you can
accept jesus as your savior too. just read this!!
Reply

7.
Some Kid That Had To Write a ReportMay 06, 2009 5:11 PM
Thanks for this! It gave me lots of great ideas!
Reply

8.
BrianApril 20, 2010 8:23 PM
Great post, Thanks CS! I love the perspective. The responses and comments left by
everyone
were
well
thought
out!
I
love
this
stuff.
Thanks -T- for the great points you made! I just want ot address one thing about the
woman
being
portrayed
as
a
"servant"
of
a
man.
This point is misunderstood by too many Christians and non-Christians alike! A man and
a woman were created to fullfill different roles. One is not superior to the other because
the role is different. The difinition of those roles needs to be examined in context of
society. For example, you will see in the New Testament references that are almost always
referred to by those who proport what seems to be biblical support for suppressing
women! These particular references are usually taken from the letters written to the early
churches (Corinthians, Ephesians, etc.). The period in which these letters were written
were near the end of an era of oppression of women by the cultures and society of that
time and in that that area. It would take far too long to go into detail about the context of
each
passage
in
this
comment!
lol!
One quick example would be of where it says in Corinthians that a woman should not be
in a position in the church where they would have authority over a man. Although I would
have to do more intense study of the Corinth, their culture, and so on to say for sure, but
I'm pretty sure that there was a violent uprising of some sort of womens Lib movement.
While in the context of today, perhaps it could be argued that there is no threat to the
church and the divine roles that each gender was created to fullfill. But perhaps not.
Paul also wrote to Timothy to drink more wine because the water was making his
stomach ill. Should Christians start drinking more wine than water...no that was specific
to Tim's situation and when we take the letter in context its easy to see how people can
blow
the
whole
gender
thing
out
of
proportion.
I'll

leave

you

with

this

weak

analogy.

lol!

Man and Woman were never meant to be partners. "partners" implies that one can be
superior to the other. On the other hand, a in a Team (togetherness), no one is superior to
any other. They all have roles to fulfill to accomplish the same or similiar goals.
On a sports team, the captain is in a role position to make certain judgements and
decisions on behalf of the team. Do the other team members not have a say? Not if
everyone is fulfilling their roles properly. The captain takes into account, genuinely the
concerns, views, and wishes of the team mates. But in the end he still makes the final call.
Someone has to lead. The point is that God has simply made the man as a captain, and
woman the assistant captain for the sake of having a consistant lead instead of a constant
determining of who should make the final call. It is meant to avoid conflict caused by
power
struggles.
In my opinion, I think that the roles defined in the scriptures, when taken in proper
context, reveal another case where our Creator is looking to make things more peaceful
for
those
who
obey
His
Word.
I wish I had more time to go more into detail and really pull out my points a little better.

A man should love, honor, and respect the final say of her husband BUT it only works if
the husband loves his wife like Jesus loves the church. He must love her above all else
except God, He should be concerned for her joy and ultimate good, he must be willing to
give himself fully to her. A Godly man loves his wife so, that to oppress her would be
unthinkable.
Anyway, Thanks again! Great great stuff!
Reply

9.
AnonymousJuly 17, 2010 12:22 AM
hey, think about this twist. the first week God created everything, including people. then
he rested the 7th day then after they 7th day he created a special garden and made adam
espically for that garden to perserve it, and made eve espically for adam. so adam and eve
are living in the garden, and everyone else is living outside the garden. after adam
disobayed God God punishes adam by sending them to the world to live with the rest of
the humans. if u read further it talkes about cain and abel and after cain killed abel he
went to a city, i think it was Nod and got married. if cain and abel are the only too people
on earth besides adam and eve how did he he marry?
Reply

10.
AnonymousJuly 20, 2010 8:17 PM
I am a follower of Jesus and I believe in 2 accounts of creation. He made man and female
which would make sense as to why there are Jews and Gentiles and I'm pretty sure God
doesn't believe in incest. It also makes perfect sense with science and mankind being here
longer. Maybe we all should read the Bible for ourselves and let God lead us and not man.
Jesus never seemed to happy with the church leaders. No offense. Just a thought.
Reply

11.
Generic CialisSeptember 14, 2010 10:12 AM
At the end it is only theories, no body knows the real truth behind creation, an interesting
point of the bible is that it speaks about beings long before and after the flood, beings
more advance and maybe they are our real creators.
Reply

12.
AnonymousSeptember 22, 2010 12:10 AM
Thank you for your insights CS, I think it's hilarious how quickly the story of Adam and
Eve can erupt into debates on the meanings. I think the true essence of the Bible is that is
lives on in obscurity sometimes. If it was factual, we could read it and put it down.
Instead, reading the Bible plants a seed in your mind that sets fire to you. You cannot stop
rethinking your interpretations because the Bible is a work meant to develope you as a
person; a process that disagrees strongly with stagnant thought.
Reply

13.
AnonymousNovember 10, 2010 2:52 PM
Wow - in reading all the comments, what I find amazing is all the twisting contorted
reasoning people go to in order to 'make sense' it all. Rather than jumping thru hoops of
logic and reasoning, couldn't it simply be a fact that they are just stories - myths &
legends - to provide some 'reason' for why things are the way they are? I don't know why
we are so inclinded to reject the idea that Cronus spat forth Zeus, or that Apollo holds up
the Earth, but go thru such painful bending of logic and reason to make these bible stories
somehow 'fit' to be 'real'.
Reply

14.
KarasJanuary 12, 2011 3:13 PM
Anonymous above, I could say the same thing about the scientific theory of the big bang.
Just because science has become central to our lives, people are more willing to believe
that theory even though it bends logic and reason to make it 'fit' to be 'real' when the
essence of the theory is that something came all of a sudden out of nothing SCIENTIFICALLY impossible because all the atoms the athiests natter on about are
bound by the laws of nature and cannot change suddenly to create a world. And the
question
'where
did
these
atoms
come
from?'
remains.
Many people are as equally quick to assume that anything 'scientifically proved' must be
correct, even though there are several loops in the theories themselves.
Reply
Replies

1.

JAMOBJanuary 07, 2014 8:55 AM

Do we have an example of nothing? I mean real nothing, where there is not
anything, not just empty space. I admit that it seems unlikely that
something could come from nothing but we can't know this definitively.
I would like to point out that your understanding of the Big Bang Theory is
flawed - it actually makes no claims about what happened before it, but
simply says how things may have happened. Scientists and, yes, Atheists,
generally say that we don't know what came before the Big Bang, but those
who are religious say that God caused it. It was a christian, originally, who
proposed the theory. There is a multitude of evidence to support the Big
Bang Theory to the point that it has been accepted by pretty much all
scientists and most people who have heard of it. Certainly everyone that
understands it. It is not necessarily true, but it is the most likely answer
that we have (just like the two stories simply being two stories is the most
likely answer we have).
Reply

15.
Abdallah MuslimFebruary 23, 2011 3:14 PM
Dear

All,

I am a muslim, and i would to confirm to you that both stories are true but after decoding
some
of
their
wordings.
Please

read

the

correct

explanation

on

the

following, hope

you'll

like

it:

The Story of Creation (3) Earth Formation in 6 Days, Matching between Quranic,
Biblical
and
Science
Calendars
on
http://debatewithatheist.blogspot.com/
Reply

16.
ShibaJuly 16, 2011 7:02 PM
Hi.
God told Adam not to disobey Him (and Adam clearly told Eve the same). Eating the fruit
was a choice: a choice to live away from God. Adam certainly understood the severity of
his action. We do not know everything that happened in the Garden of Eden, but as God
is mentioned as walking in the garden with Adam, it seems clear that He would have
explained these things to Adam. By eating the fruit, Adam was stating that he did not
want to be under God's authority any more. By eating the fruit, Adam was obeying Satan,
who had tempted Eve in the first place. In effect, Adam was taking the keys to the world
and handing them to Satan. That seems pretty blatant to me. Adam may not have had an

in-depth knowledge of sin, but he wasn't stupid, and he realised that he was taking his life
into his own hands.
Reply
Replies

1.
JAMOBJanuary 07, 2014 8:59 AM
A couple things. One, I feel like God explaining that to Adam would be a
fairly important part of the story and would have been included. Two, he
clearly had no knowledge of good or evil as he hadn't yet eaten from the
tree of knowledge of good and evil... Why do you think he knew what he
was doing? Did you know that seeing the snake as Satan wasn't introduced
for hundreds if not more years after the story was created? Adam was not
obeying satan, he was taking advice from his wife, and she was not obeying
satan but rather doing what a snake suggested. Adam was furthermore not
stating anything - he was simply eating some fruit. Could you provide some
evidence to support your claims that he "certainly understood the severity
of his actions?"
Reply

17.
AnonymousAugust 03, 2011 3:21 AM
The way the creation story is interpreted by C.S. Lewis in Pilgrim's Regress is that sin is
something that human beings have because they disobeyed- that sin poisoned them
because they "ate" what was only for God and the angels. From there sin infected all
humans descended from them- a sickness that was healed initially by service under strict
rules to God and later through the sacrifice (at least according to Christians like myself) of
Jesus Christ who was a sort of cure. At least, that's the way I've heard the book
interpreted and I agree with that analysis. (C.S. Lewis goes on to explain in the same book
that Hell is also not so much a punishment as a quarantine- it's simply a place where the
wicked are sent. There is no need to truly punish them since a place like Hell- a place with
only sin and nothing else- would be torturous enough)
Reply
Replies

1.
Anthony GarreffaJune 19, 2013 12:48 AM
Oh, Really? Thats interesting!

Reply

18.
ElderChildFebruary 16, 2012 5:41 PM
Could be that if the beginning were understood than that which follows just might be
revealed
by
The
Light!
Mankind's "imag"ination has always torn down, confused and abused that which is of Our
Father
;-(
So the need to "cast down vain "imag"inations"! Yet the educated seem to believe
otherwise
;-(
Where are those "ignorant and unlearned men" who truly realize how "poor and needy"
they
are?
http://asimpleandspirituallife.blogspot.com/2010/06/1st-day-of-creation.html
Father Help! and HE Does.......
Reply

19.
Chance63May 02, 2012 1:07 PM
I am a bit surprised that I didn't notice anyone had mentioned that Genesis is an
amalgam of two ancient Hebrew Traditions: The Yahwist and the Elohist. The fact that
there are two accounts has been well known for thousands of years, although the
interpretations by both Rabbis and later Christians have varied. Both St. Augustine and
St. Thomas Aquinas both state that the creation accounts should not be taken literally or
scientifically.
Further, noted theologian C.S. Lewis does a wonderful job of how we can interpret the
meaning of the texts without taking it too literally.
Reply

20.
ElderChildMay 02, 2012 4:49 PM
Yes, pagan catholicism and her harlot christian duaughters have always sought to
"confuse
the
issues"!
And c.s. lewis was most certainly a humorist, a joke indeed and truth )-;
Sadly, very few have taken heed unto The Messiah's Teachings and Life example, both of

which

were

given

Him

by

Our

Father

and

GOD!

It's no wonder that YHVH GOD repented of that 2nd creation, yet few have experienced
The Miracle that is receiving "the love of The TRUTH", and fewer still have forsaken all,
yes! and their own life as well for the sake of The TRUTH!
Father Help! and HE does.......
Reply

21.
usmcwarriorJune 03, 2012 7:34 AM
Rather than thinking of the "two" accounts as separate, think of them as a Macro account
then Micro. In the first chapter God discusses the overall, Universal creation and in the
second, the particulars. One does not negate the other, it explains it. In addition, Adam
and Eve had free will as we do. Their experience as adults is similar to our experience, as
children. We may not have experienced the consequences of sin until we commit the first
transgression but are never the less responsible because we have warned by an Authority
not to do something that we choose to do anyway. This element of our nature God
foreknew and planned for. Jesus Christ, his Son, the Second person in the Godhead,
literally God himself planned to offer himself to offer mankind a way out of the
predicament which is man's natural proclivity to push the edges of the moral envelope.
Reply

22.
ElderChildJune 03, 2012 2:35 PM
The
Two
Creation
Accounts
in
Genesis
1
&
2.......
One must truly realize that with Our Father and GOD "all things are possible"!
Father

Help!

and

HE

does.......

For in spite of the lies told by so many religious ones, for so long, concerning The
Creation Accounts in Genesis, Our Father and GOD, HE is yet able to reveal all things!
And HE has made it quite clear that Genesis Chapters 1 & 2 bear witness of Two
Creations!
Thankfully

TRUTH

wins

The

Victory!

The 1st Creation states in Gen 1:26 "GOD said, Let us make man in Our image, after Our
likeness"....... So GOD created man in HIS Own image, in the image of GOD HE created
him,
male
and
female
created
HE
them."
The 2nd Creation states that YHVH God formed man from the dust of the earth.
(Genesis
2:7)
The 1st Creation does not give the details of what GOD used to create man, yet stated that

man

was

created

in

"the

image

and

likeness

of

GOD!"

Also the 2nd Creation explains that YHVH God first made Adam and then made woman
from a rib of Adam after it was established that an animal would not be a suitable partner
for
him.
And in the 2nd Creation animals were created after Adam was created, yet in the 1st
Creation animals had already been created before man was created!
In the 1st Creation, Gen 1:28 "GOD blessed them, and GOD said unto them, "Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the
earth."
This was not YHVH God's intention in the 2nd Creation for Adam was given the unction
"to dress and keep the garden"! And when Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden
of Eden the unction given Adam was "to till the ground from which he was taken"!
Quite evident that there was a 1st Creation, which was of GOD, and a 2nd Creation which
was
of
YHVH
God!
Once again, in the 1st Creation, GOD created man in HIS image, in the image of GOD,
HE
created
them,
(Genesis
1:27)
Yet in the 2nd Creation, only after Adam had partaken of the forbidden fruit and received
the knowledge of good and evil, did YHVH God say that man has now become like one of
us.
(Genesis
3:22)
Could be that a few might experience "the eye of their understanding" being opened as
they receive of The Light of Truth concerning the "son's of GOD" bore witness of in Job
and Genesis. And in such Light the darkness that is of this wicked, evil world and it's
systems
of
religion
is
clearly
revealed!
"Come

Out

of

her(babel/confusion/babylon\world\religion),

MY

people!"

And HOPE IS! there would be those who take heed unto The Call of The ONE and ONLY
TRUE LIVING GOD(SPIRIT), FATHER(CREATOR) of ALL and "Come Out!"
For TRUTH IS! The Testimonies bear witness unto Two Creations, and only those who
have experienced The Miracle that is receiving " a love of The Truth" can be saved!
Father

Help!

and

HE

does.......

www.facebook.com/pages/A-Simple-and-Spiritual-Life/208339295850609
Reply

23.
dougdougDecember 04, 2012 4:36 AM
Buddhists also pinpoint the duality paradigm (good/bad, me/other etc) as the main
reason
for
human
suffering.

Paradise on earth was no longer possible for Adam and Eve when they saw themselves as
seperate from the whole; and when they started to judge things as good or bad.
Reply
Replies

1.
elderchildDecember 04, 2012 12:11 PM
Hope is you would realize that discernment is not judgment, and that
discernment
is
needful!
So it is the natural man can not know that which is of Our Father and GOD
for
such
needs
be
spiritually
discerned.......
http://asimpleandspirituallife.blogspot.com/2011/02/you-cant-judgeme.html
Father Help! and HE does.......
Reply

24.
NvsmilesFebruary 17, 2013 10:10 AM
I'm doing a resreachpaper on the the creation story vs. the big bang theory for school. I
need to know which creation story is correct. Do you know?
Reply
Replies

1.
JAMOBJanuary 07, 2014 9:02 AM
Well, the first is more consistent with science, although the "days" cannot
be taken literally. Even then, there is enough distinction to write a paper.
Reply

25.
elderchildFebruary 17, 2013 12:08 PM

"big

bang

theory"?

Set off a bomb in an auto parts store and will an engine be the end result?
When one realizes that, that which sustains the life they have received can not be
seen(breath/air/spirit), only then will they 'see' The Light of Life as revealed in both The
Life
and
Teachings
of
The
Messiah!
And it is well to remember that The Messiah received both His Life and His Teachings
from
"Our
Father
and
GOD"!
Ones "eye of understanding" is only opened as one evermore experiences The Miracle
that
is
receiving
"a
love
of
The
TRUTH"!
Father

Help!

and

HE

does.......

http://asimpleandspirituallife.blogspot.com/2010/10/miracles-faith-and-receiving-loveof.html
Reply
26.

StreetscribeFebruary 17, 2013 10:03 PM

If your curious as to why there are two creation theroies i'd like you to consider this: The
chronology of the first creation story, as you've already stated, finds man at the back end
of physical manifestation...man is indeed the last (and oddly enough weakest) of all
creatures to manifest his physical form (in all reality this is a nod to natural selection).
SPIRITUALLY, however man is the first emanation of life with fully developed
individualized ego (it is also this "I" perspective alluded to in the eye on the pyramid atop
which humanity stands)and consequently the only emanation of life able to be "LIKE
GOD" insofar as we are possessors of free will. Moreover, looking at the separate stories
well find in the first God is the deity in mention...In the second creation story it is LORD
god that is in control...Given the feudal system that so dominated Europe for such a long
and the obviously contradictory nature of the narratives i'd say its not to far a leap to
suggest that the Lord god mentioned in the second creation narrative is indicative of a
seperate deity.
Reply
Replies

1.
elderchildFebruary 18, 2013 10:46 AM
Sadly your "I" is most certainly alive and you continue to feed your"I"
lies
)-;

However, you do 'see' there are two creation accounts and could be that one
day you'll experience The Miracle that is receiving "a love of The TRUTH"
for only then will you "see" that the "I(id,ego,self,pride)" must die!
http://asimpleandspirituallife.blogspot.com/2009/05/i-must-die.html
http://asimpleandspirituallife.blogspot.com/2012/10/taking-bait-and-liesare-swallowed-hook.html
Father Help! and HE does.......
Reply

27.
crash test corpseFebruary 18, 2013 4:49 PM
Hey Elder child, I notice you said "And when Adam and Eve were banished from the
Garden of Eden the unction given Adam was "to till the ground from which he was
taken"!"
Most translations of Genesis 3:23 state only Adam was banished. Check for yourself:
http://bible.cc/genesis/3-23.htm
Reply

28.
elderchildFebruary 18, 2013 5:26 PM
Your

'cuteness'

Worse

than

Only

"the

will

be

banished,

ground

was

your

eve
cursed

for

undoing!

was

cursed!

Adam's

SAKE"!

Most certainly worldlings(and americans lead the way) have proven that "ease of life" is a
killer of the soul as one's conscience is seared with a hot iron!
If the eye of your understanding is ever opened you will clearly 'see' The Light that is The
Messiah, which will lead you out of the darkness that is this wicked, evil world and
religion!
http://asimpleandspirituallife.blogspot.com/2008/10/pure-and-undefiled-religion.html
Till

then

However,
For

you

will

thankfully
TRUTH

Father Help! and HE does.......

abide

in

while
IS!

your

own

breath
Miracles

vain
is,

"imag"inations.......
HOPE

do

IS!

happen.......

Reply

29.
Pat PendingJuly 07, 2013 6:18 PM
The bible is a bunch of old stories, nothing more. Historically interesting because they are
old.
B.C.
comics,
if
you
will.
God, the soul ... They fall into the same scope as Zeus, fairies, Big foot, the spirit realm,
the efficacy of tarot cards, the dungeon master...
Reply

30.
Pat PendingJuly 07, 2013 6:20 PM
60

million

'Father

Help's

during

WWII

HE DID NOT.
Reply
Replies

1.
elderchildJuly 07, 2013 6:47 PM
Such a statement is wholly and totally of The LIE, which you prove you
abide
in
)-;
Yet hopefully many who were finally set free from this wicked, evil world
were
taken
Home,
Home
at
last!
Simply

sad

for

you

)-;

For it is quite obvious that religion, all of which is of this wicked, evil world,
has
had
it's
way
with
you!
http://asimpleandspirituallife.blogspot.com/2012/06/now-nothing-willbe-restrained-from.html
Father Help! and HE does.......
Reply

31.
Pat PendingJuly 07, 2013 8:52 PM
How long after Adam and Eve did some of their children leave in a group, (bringing no
memory of their past, no form of writing, not even their language or religion) and walk off
to become the American Indians?
Reply

32.
elderchildJuly 07, 2013 9:20 PM
Would have been after The Creator confused the language of the then one language
peoples because they were following their own vain "imag"ination's, and today )-;
The world is coming together again as one as they use and abuse the language of
money(greed, covetousness, lies and every evil work )-; pagan english!
"Con"venient

speakers

abound,

especially

in

religion!

i believe the indigenous peoples were the last manifestation of Creation(Creator)

Sufficiency!
And today self-sufficiency is destroying Creation(air, water, land, vegetation, creatures)
and perverting that which is SPIRIT(Truth, Light, Life, Peace, Love, Faith, Grace,
Wisdom,,,,,,,
ALL
that
is
Truly
GOOD)!
Father

Help!

and

HE

does.......

Not those who are of this wicked, evil world and religion, but those who have REALized
how
truly
"poor
and
needy"
they
are!
So

it

is

we

"cry

unto

HIM

day

and

night"......

Father Help! and HE does......

Reply

33.
ShayneJuly 27, 2013 11:56 PM
@Elderchild: These shallow, churchy answers are making you sound like Al Sharpton,
and believe me, that is NOT a compliment. You preach about Christ and yet you do not
show love. You simply attack their beliefs. By not showing them the love of Christ, you are
ironically doing the polar opposite of evangelism. Truly, I ask you reevaluate your walk
with
the
Lord
(or
potential
lack
of
it.)
@Pat Pending and for those who are not followers of Christ: I truly apollogize for

Elderchild's remarks and for the many "Christians" like him who simply try to use God's
word as a tool of hate. If you ever have questions about Christianity and need someone to
talk to, simply email me at shaynemross@outlook.com. I do not claim to have all the
answers, but I will definitely try to help out those who may need it. Please, however, don't
fill my inbox with hate mail as I will simply delete it.
Reply

34.
elderchildJuly 28, 2013 1:43 PM
How

can

Your

"jesus

one

whose

christ"

is

father
but

is
the

"the

father

"imag"ined

of

son

of

lies"

help?

the

devil!

And what you mean is, "please do not fill my inbox with The Truth for i want naught to do
with
such"!
Simply,

sad

for

you

)-;

http://asimpleandspirituallife.blogspot.com/2012/06/now-nothing-will-be-restrainedfrom.html
Reply

35.
UnknownNovember 25, 2013 10:07 AM
The first account was an outline and the second were more detailed
Reply

36.
elderchildNovember 25, 2013 1:42 PM
The

1st

Day

of

the

1st

Creation

http://asimpleandspirituallife.blogspot.com/2010/06/1st-day-of-creation.html
Father Help! and HE does.......
Reply

account!

37.

Ariav CasteldaJanuary 24, 2014 4:26 PM

Thank you so much for this great post! Very informative and interesting. :) Do you by
chance have anything on the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch?
Reply

38.
Steve MisoskyApril 16, 2014 2:45 PM
The second account in Genesis comes after the Babylonian period. It's from a much older
Sumerian story. This Sumerian story is the origin of the terms Adam, Eden, and many
others found in the Bible. What is in the Bible is a story, but the actual historical record
from which the story derived was left on clay tablets that still exist today. They have been
interpreted and tell a most intriguing story. If your interested in this you can follow this
link
to
begin
your
journey
of
discovery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THWrzaF3bMI
Reply

39.
Daniel LopezMay 06, 2014 10:33 PM
Hindsight
is
20-20
ain't
it?
Take into consideration linguistics and you can see that Elohim is creator God and
Yahweh
is
God
with
a
relationship
with
man.
There doesn't need to be any contortions to see it's a reiteration and repetition of the
power
and
love
of
God.
Also, look into Yeshua and Immanuel- both Jesus; different sides.
Reply