RE: The puzzle of Adam

George wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are begging the question. 1st, the division between the 1st & 2d
accounts is generally put either at the middle or end of 2:5, so 2:1-3 is
all part of the 1st account. (Boy, I sure wish the people who made the
chapter & verse divisions had done a better job!) But then you seem to be
assuming that the 2d account is filling in details of the 6th day in the 1st
account, & that's precisely the point at issue. On the contrary, a number
of factors - e.g., the order of events, word usage, the whole atmospheres of
the two accounts, & the fact that there is nothing in the 2d account to
suggest any tie with the 6-day framework of the 1st, indicate that they are
2 separate creation stories.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Don:
Concerning peoples view of 2:5, I agree. But this is not what I am saying.
Also I am NOT saying that the 2nd account is part of the 6th day or some
sort of detailing of said event. I am stating that the 2nd account is not a
second account but rather a subsequent event which took place after
creation, just as Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc came after the creation. Each
of which were stages in a religious evolution. Adam, IMHO, is the first
stage in an ongoing religious development with YHWH. I see homo sapiens as
being the species created in the image of God, as in Genesis 1:26. But I
see Adam as being the one to first have been filled with the Holy Spirit
(breath of life). This allowed direct communion with God. Again, I see
this event as being subsequent to the initial creation of man in day six.

As for the structure of the writings, I would agree that they appear to be
from different sources. This however does not necessarily mean that the
construct was intended to appease two different view points of the time, as
would be suggested by having two different accounts of the same events. I
would be more inclined to believe that the first was from the view point of
God during the creative process. To speculate, this may have been given as
a vision to Moses on Mt Sinai. This account is straight foward. In
contrast, the second appears to be from man's view of, or take on, the
events passed down through the generations of Semites. Which would also
explain the usage of metaphors and concepts that were in use at the time,
which are absent in the first account. Their intent is not to outline or
detail any creative act, but rather the act of God in establishing his
relationship with man, and of course our subsequent downhill path.

Hope this clarifies my views.

Don P
Received on Sat Nov 27 15:51:40 2004