RE: The puzzle of Adam

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
George wrote:
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/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Don P:
I don't know if I'm miscommunication, but what I have stated is:
"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."

What I meant is what you have stated above with:
"but the writer of Gen.2:4b-25 may just not have been concerned about such
matters."

More or Less. I don't see the writer of Gen2 as having made an attempt to
connect the dots. The writer may not have even known about the writings of
Gen1. That is what I meant by suggesting that Gen2 was an oral tradition
handed down through the "generations" as suggested by Gen2, versus Gen1
which I believe was a revelation given to Moses. Regardless however of
their sources, I take them as being in a "sort of" chronological order. I
realize this makes sense in our "modern view" and may not have been the
concern at that time. But if they were not concerned about chronology then
it is not evident.

Thanks for your comments.

Don P
Received on Mon Nov 29 13:29:02 2004