Re: The puzzle of Adam

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Perrett" <donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: "ASA Discussions" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 3:48 PM
Subject: 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.

Unless I'm misreading you, you still seem to be arguing that the 2d account
presupposes the 1st. I don't see any reason to think that's the case. For
that matter, I don't know that the 2d account presupposes _any_ account of -
or even reflection on - cosmic origins. Our modern view of humanity's place
in the world kind of demands that human origins be placed in a larger
context, but the writer of Gen.2:4b-25 may just not have been concerned
about such matters.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Mon Nov 29 10:44:32 2004