baffled by Genesis

[lionheart]

I have just started to read the Bible (and obviously haven't got very far ) but I wonder if anyone here can explain to me.

On the sixth day it says, 'So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them'. Okay, but then after that comes Adam, created out of dust and breath and then Eve out of Adam.

So can anyone explain to me why there is the man/woman creation thing and then the more expected Adam/Eve story? I am confused, now and I've only just started with it.

Any insights (including those that say I've missed something here) would be very much appreciated.

I think Genesis is open to a huge amount of interpretation - from what I have read about it there are certainly clever people out there who suggest dofferent bits of Genesis were written at different times. Almost certainly more than just one man and one woman were created - lots of stuff looking at how evolution fits in with the whole Genesis story.

Not a lot of help - sorry

Another 'suggestion' is that genesis 1 and 2 are two versions of the creation story - some say, God's viewpoint and man's viewpoint, others that it is two versions from two different oral traditions.

Fascinating, isn't it?

A lot of scholars have interpreted the genesis story, which appears to have it's origins in Babylonian myths (I think it was Babylon, but I am a bit rusty on this now). One interpretation is that Adam had a wife: Lilith, before Eve. As Lilith was created equal to Adam she refused to accept him as superior and was cast down. Eve was created from Adam and therefore accepted her subservient role.

It is creation myth and perhaps it is best read from that viewpoint, rather than a factual historical one.

Genesis was written in the time of exile when the Israelites were ex slaves and living in the desert for forty years. A whole generation would have grown up there without knowing who they were, why they were there and why they were relying on this God when neighbouring tribes would have all kinds of interesting gods and godlets to worship. Like sun worshippers which is why the Creation story really downplays the sun and moon. It calls them lights in the sky, not the glorious sun-God Ra or whatever. So if you think of it as a story to a bunch of people who were out of touch with their own religion and origins, it told them they worshipped the right God and told them how mankind came about in the first place.

It's a story to a desert people thousands of years ago - it's not a scientific textbook and doesn't claim to be. (A lot of Creationists and their opponents make this mistake).

I think the story is a kind of summary and then the Adam and Eve bit is just going into more details. Hope this helps.

The academic position is that they were two different stories written hundreds of years apart and later joined together. If I recall correctly, there are believed to be four main writers to the Old Testament, two of which make up the creation accounts. I believe they join at Gen 2v4a, but don't quote me on that because my Bible is at work, and so I'm working from memory now . But you can see the change in the style of writing - look where the phrase LORD God begins or ends - one writer (Yahweistic source??) always uses that phraseology, the other does not.

I hope this is correct, I can look it up tomorrow, if you want, but I am currently trying to remember this from the first year of my degree fifteen years ago now!

Thank you everyone.

Codandchops, that is helpful. I am looking at ways to think about evolution and divinity/creation. I thought it was about time I really tried to figure out what I believe instead of saying, 'Hmm, yes, erm, I'm not sure' when it comes to matters of faith.

MrsMcCave, yes, it is fascinating, especially to think of it from those two perspectives. The 'God' perspective looks more radical because it is less fixed in terms of gender. The second version brings with it all the questions about Adam coming first and Eve as an afterthought.

DioneTheDiabolist, the Lilith story is really intriguing. I told it to my son, who got into a whole debate with his teachers at school about it. They had never heard of Lilith and were rather
. I'm not reading Genesis as 'factual', though, but as representing a symbolic truth of sorts.

greencolorpack, yes it does help. I should probably find a version of the Bible that provides a cultural and historical commentary so that I can understand these different contexts.

MrsLetchlady, thank you. I will look it over again to see if I can recognise those shifts. Four writers!

This Bible study is going to be more complex than I thought and I'm no where near finished with Genesis yet.

But thank you everyone, this is really very interesting and provoking (in a good way).

Yes, the academic answer is that Gen. 1 was probably written about 400 years after Gen 2. This is the majority academic viewpoint which has been widely agreed since 1885. No Phil/ spirituality thread is complete without a Wiki link, so here we go: Documentary Hypothesis It's a bit of a long-winded link though...!

Wait till you get to the son of the son of the son of!

Thank you both. I am now reading Don't Know Much About the Bible and it includes all kinds of stuff that I, erm, don't know about...

I always used to get stuck on the begetting part when I read it as a child.

There's a lovely rhythm to the begetting. As it were. Anyway, yes, there are long bits that really pay being read out loud.

As to the rest of it - Lilith has a long and interesting story of her own, starting some time before the Hebrew tradition. It's fascinating, especially looking at it from a feminist viewpoint. Demonisation of female sexuality and independence, that sort of thing.

Yes, yes. Lilith is fascinating. I like the first version of the creation of people rather than the rib business.