Quote:
On 2002-06-27 15:39, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
There's only one account in the Bible of creation, Genesis 1. I realise that there are plenty of people who try to make hay over the supposed inconsistencies between the "two accounts" in Genesis 1 and 2, without realising (or perhaps, ignoring) that Genesis 2 isn't an account of creation but of God's dealings with the first human couple.
|
(Note: My own theological belief is that the standard scientific explanation for the Universe is correct, but that the Universe was created by a Divine Being to follow those "rules")
I'm going to have to respecifully dissagree with you Curt. The accounts of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 don't appear to mesh... at least not if taken literaly. For example, my copy of the Living Bible says
Quote:
Genesis 2:5 "There were no plants or grain sprouting up accross the Earth at first, for the Lord God hadn't sent ant rain; nor was there anyone to farm the soil.
6 (However, water welled up from the ground at certain plaes and flowed across the land)
7 The time came when the Lord God formed a man's body from the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life. And man became a living person
8 Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, to the east, and placed in the garden the man he had formed."
|
A literal interpretation of this passage indicates that no plant life existed until God made the Garden of Eden
after Adam, which would contradict Genesis 1:26 in which God makes man on the 6th day.
A common school of thought amoung the Methodist denomination (or which I am a part) is that the two stories belonged to diffrent groups amoung the jews. The first story, with it's exacting cataloge of what was made where was told by the priesthood. THe second story which glosses over the details in favor of ease of telling was told "around the campfire" as it were... the story of the common man. The fact that the two groups told slightly diffrent versions does not invalidate the core belief of either (the God created the Earth and Heavens) although it does cause difficulty for literalist interpretations.