How many creation stories are there in the bible

Unlike the Genesis version of human origins, however, the Y chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve that our genetic trees trace back to did not have the planet to themselves—there probably, in fact, were thousands of other humans living at the time. Moreover, other humans had lived and died long before they did. All we know is that these two humans, alone among the population of their time, can claim an unbroken line of sons and daughters that persists to this day.

During the high renaissance of Greek culture, in the mid-third century B. Never before in history had so massive an exercise in translation from one language to another been attempted. Impetus for the translation project came from the large Jewish colony in Alexandria , many of whom held important commercial positions in the city. Jews in Alexandria , understandably, wanted the Law read in the synagogues to be in the tongue of the people.

They probably recognized another important benefit of a Greek translation: for the first time, the Greek-speaking, non-Jewish world could be introduced to their history and faith. What happened after the seventy-two scholars reached Alexandria is a subject of debate, but what follows is the somewhat suspect traditional account.

The elders arrived bearing a copy of The Law written in letters of gold on rolls of skins. At one of the feasts, the king asked the elders difficult questions to test their proficiency. When the week of banquets finally ended, the elders were transported, along with necessary supplies, to the Island of Pharos , where they undertook their work.

Seventy-two days later, the elders completed their translation, called the Septuagint, and it was then read to the Jewish community. Alexandria Jews received the new translation with such enthusiasm that this is where the traditional account becomes most controversial a solemn curse was placed on anyone who would dare to add to, or subtract from, the translation.

Finally, t he king expressed his pleasure with the work and ordered that it be preserved with the greatest care. Preserved with care it was. The translation made in Alexandria As the oldest record, it is generally considered the most authoritative, and the one most closely examined by Biblical scholars. After the death of Jesus, when as the Christian community spread around the Mediterranean , the Septuagint took another name within that growing group of believers: The Old Testament.

The text survived, and predates by over a thousand years the earliest extant Hebrew version A. Some two centuries after scholars produced the Septuagint, during a period of Roman indifference to religion in the first century B. Philo, whose family had recently moved from Palestine to what had become the cultural center of the Roman Empire, developed a deep knowledge of the sacred text and emerged as the leading spokesman for the several hundred thousand persons who comprised the Jewish community in Alexandria.

Philo saw, as none before him had, that the Septuagint held more meaning than appeared on the surface. Drawing both from his knowledge of rationalistic Plato and his understanding of the teachings of Moses described in Greek translation of the primary history, Philo invented theology.

Philo, in On Allegory , rejected simple and literalistic interpretations of the Bible, including the creation story as told in Genesis 1. The reasons for adopting a six-day creation story rather than, say, a five-day or nine-day creation, might seem more compelling to a mathematician than the average Christian today.

He also attached sexual significance to the choice of six, arguing that it is the product of an even female, he believed number and an odd male number. Most Biblical scholars today believe that the author of Genesis chose a six-day creation because it fit best with the sabbatarian beliefs that had developed in the Jewish community by the time of the Books writing in the sixth-century B. In the early third-century, the rapidly spreading religion of Christianity still lacked a system of theology that could provide a basis for orthodoxy.

Persons claiming to be Christians remained scattered into dozens of sects, each believing it to be the true torchbearer of the faith. Believers debated intensely which writings should be considered canonically scriptural within the Church. In the midst of this relative chaos, two hundred years after the time of Philo, in the same city of Alexandria , a new theologian, Origen — A. Entering the debate over the meaning of Genesis, Origen—like Philo before him—challenged the prevailing belief among early Christian fathers that the days of Genesis were literal days.

Each of the days of Genesis, Origen asserted, might in fact have been a period of time. Taking a decidedly non-literal reading of Biblical text, he questioned how anyone could read either the six-day creation story or the Adam and Eve story as an actual description of a real event in the physical universe:. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first day, and second and third day, and the evening and the morning existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?

And if God is said to walk in paradise in the evening, and Adam is to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally. With eternity on their hands, they passed time endlessly contemplating divine mysteries. Finally, however, these beings or souls tired of their contemplation and started drifting away from God. Time began. Souls began to have an existence separate and apart from God.

Origen was by any measure a gifted and original thinker. His allegorizing led him to challenge, in addition to literal notions of Creation, a variety of Christian concepts ranging form Hell to salvation.

Though unknown to most Christians today, Origen ranks among the greatest of all Christian theologians—and to some Fundamentalists, the first of a long line of troublesome Christian heretics. For all his originality, however, Origen could not imagine a world much older than man.

The very idea of Earth sitting around waiting for man, the species for whom the world, sun, and stars were so obviously created, likely never occurred to Origen or most of his Christian contemporaries.

Redirecting to: www. Close this pop-up window to remain on this page. How could anyone not see the contradictions? Most obviously, the order of creation is different in the two stories. You need to find the relevant verses in most cases! One of my favorites is Isaiah Like Like.

Very interesting collection of the texts about creation. Anyway, it is important to add that strictly the only one cosmogony in the Bible is Genesis 1,,4a.

Like Liked by 3 people. Thank you Tom! Your clarification is usefull for me. Perhaps I had an idea of a cosmogony like a closed narration. But there are many metaphors and little narrations with a background of a determinated cosmogony.

I work about theology of creation -now I am finishing a book of theology of life in a evolutionary and ecological context-. Thank foy your nice article. Like Liked by 1 person. I think you may have made a mistake with the Isaiah 20 reference. Did you mean a different passage? The Hosea 2 reference is a bit of a stretch. The passage is using the imagery of creation to highlight a new covenant with Israel, it seems to me. I should mention that I love the thought of your article. I am actually referring to your list in a sermon tomorrow.

More importantly, insisting on rigid labels can lead to problems. For example, some think that since Genesis 1 is poetry, it can be relieved of the burden of historicity—while Genesis 2, because it is narrative , is intended as a literal description of historical events. Whatever one might think about the historical foundation of either creation story, the literary style has absolutely nothing to do with it. A narrative style does not imply greater historical value. Even in the Bible a narrative can be non-historical.

For example, Job is the narrative introduction to the poetic book of Job, but few scholars conclude that it provides a historical description of a heavenly court scene.

Outside of the Bible, the history of humanity is filled with narratives that tell fictional stories, not history. Likewise, if we accept that Genesis 1 is poetry, that alone does not mean that it is less historical.

Historical events are routinely recounted through poetry. Still, Genesis 1 and 2 are widely recognized as clearly being different types of literature.

This, along with other factors, supports the view that they are two distinct stories. In Genesis 1, God is transcendent: he is hovering over the waters; he is above it all, declaring things to be so.

He is sovereign over creation, like a high king giving orders. He creates, but from a distance. In Genesis 2 we get a different picture. God is not aloof or distant. He is an active character in the unfolding drama. He participates in the affairs of man. As above, how God is presented does not in and of itself allow us to draw a thick line between Genesis 1 and 2. God is spoken of in human terms anthropomorphism in both stories.

But most scholars see a definite difference in degree between the two stories about how God is presented. This is clearer if we read Genesis 2 with what follows. There we see a God who has conversations with Adam, Eve, and a serpent; who takes a stroll in the Garden; who interrogates Adam and Eve to gain information about what happened; who reacts to what the first humans have done by punishing them. These are some of the issues we will be getting to in the coming weeks.

Laying out the differences between Genesis 1 and 2 is the first step these larger—and more interesting—questions. Elohim is the generic word for God in the Old Testament. It can also refer to a non-Hebrew god or gods, angels, or even human judges. Outside of the Bible some form of that word is found throughout the ancient Near Eastern world. It is usually translated LORD small caps because scholars are not sure how the name would have been pronounced. This suggests their disconnection from Yahweh.

Last week we saw that Genesis 1 is more universal in its scope and appeal, whereas Genesis 2 is more earthy. The names of God used in these chapters further supports this distinction. In Genesis 1, God creates as a sovereign monarch giving orders from on high. He separates and divides, places the lights in the heavens, names, and blesses his activity.

He then rests, observing from above a job well done. In Genesis 2 he creates in a more down-to-earth hands-on fashion. Yahweh does not speak life into existence from on high. Rather he forms the man from the earth like a potter he also forms the animals. To animate this former lump of earth, God breathes life into him. He plants a garden. In Genesis humans Hebrew adam are created on the sixth day. These humans are both male zakhar and female neqeyvah and they are created en masse and simultaneously.

In Genesis 2 one male adam is formed from the ground adamah. Then later, in a separate creative act, one woman ishah is formed from the man ish.

Genesis 1 speaks of the mass creation of humans male and female at one time. Genesis 2 begins with one man, then one woman from the man in a separate act. The difference in vocabulary reflects the difference in perspective. One thing that these two stories have in common, though, is their high view of humanity. This distinguishes the biblical creation stories from other stories of the ancient world.

We will look at this more in following posts. Here, we will note how the two biblical creation stories depict differently this high view of humanity.