Thursday, January 19, 2006

Two Creation Stories

Genesis 1:1-3:24

What I first noticed as I started reading the Bible is that there are two different creation stories. The first is Genesis 1:1-2:3, and the second is Genesis 2:4-25. Lots of people have noticed this -- the helpful textual notes in the edition of the Bible I am using point that out, and tell me that it is thought that the two versions come from two different sources.

It is the first that sets out the seven days of creation:

  • Day 1: heavens, earth, light, day and night.
  • Day 2: the "dome" (sky) that separates the waters below (on earth) from the waters above the sky.
  • Day 3: dry land and vegetation.
  • Day 4: stars, moon, sun.
  • Day 5: water creatures and birds.
  • Day 6: land animals; humankind (both male and female). The number of human beings created is not specified. Also, God here gives to people "every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food" (Gen 1:29) -- no prohibitions.
  • Day 7: God rested, and blessed this day.
In the second creation story, things are a little different. First of all, individual days are not specified. And the sequence is very different:
  • earth and heavens; no rain yet but a spring would well up and water the ground
  • from dust, man was created (not woman yet)
  • garden of Eden -- man is put here; garden includes the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil
  • God tells man to till and keep the garden of Eden, but not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (note that Woman has not entered the scene yet! Man is alone).
  • God notices that Man is alone and wants to find him a helper and partner, so He first creates animals and birds and Man names them. But still there was no helper as partner.
  • God makes Man fall asleep, pulls out a rib, and makes Woman.
  • The story of original sin then ensues.

In the first story, all of creation is good. In the second story, even the garden of Eden is not a place of relaxed enjoyment, but a place of work (Gen 2:15), and a place where something is off-limits (Gen 2:16-17). God tells Man that if he does eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will die that very day (Gen 2:17). But later, that's not what happens.

While it may seem unjust that Woman, who wasn't even there yet when this prohibition was originally stated, then gets punished for eating of that tree, it is clear that she knew of the prohibition (Gen 3:2-3). Once Woman and Man eat of the tree, God says, "'See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever'" (Gen 3:22) and this is why they get kicked out of the garden of Eden -- so they won't become immortal.

While I find many aspects of this second creation story troubling, I am fascinated by the relating the concept of "knowledge of good and evil" with "wisdom" and that being a divine characteristic. Also, it is true that perceiving the world through a moral lens makes existence more painful. But what troubles me is that, as the story is told, originally amoral beings are yet held morally accountable and are punished. Without knowledge of good and evil, they couldn't have known it was bad or wrong to disobey God.

So, maybe the story shouldn't be read morally. Maybe it is not, after all, a story of punishment for disobedience. Maybe God really was trying to say, "if you eat of this tree, everything will change, and you might not like it." Eventually, they do eat of that tree. Sure enough: everything changes. God says, "ok, now this kind of existence will be much harder, so you won't want to live forever anymore..." and closes off access to the tree of life as an act of compassion.

If so, does this mean that the concept of "original sin" (the most common interpretation of this second creation story) is not so much due to a moral disobedience somehow present in us in the start (because this contradicts the original amoral casting of human beings), but is better taken to express the essential pain inherent in moral awareness? It's not that we've done anything wrong -- its that awareness of right and wrong simply does make life difficult and painful.

Anyway, the word "sin" has not at all come up yet in this passage of the Bible. So even interpreting this story as a tale of original sin must have been a later interpretation of it.


  1. Hi CS,

    Have you ever read Daniel Quinn's musings about Genesis, in his novel 'Ishmael'? I think his take on it is really interesting.

    If I remember rightly, he proposes that the Eden/fruit/fall story is a myth of the origin of the agrarian peoples, as observed by the Semite herders. Agriculturalists decide what is good and what is evil - they decide to move some plants and plant others, they store up food against leaner times and so on. Hence, the myth says - they must have eaten from the tree of the Gods - and are now punished by labour - because much more labour is necessary to live an agrarian life than a nomadic herder or hunting/gathering lifestyle.

    Thanks for starting this blog, I am looking forward to reading more of your thoughts.

  2. Wow, thanks for sharing that reference! It reminds me too of William Ury's take on the origins of violence in human society (in Getting to Peace later re-titled The Third Way) -- he argues that humans didn't become violent toward each other until settling down to an agrarian lifestyle. It is only when cultivating land that the notion of land ownership begins to come into focus. After working so hard on the land, people get upset if others then come along and take the fruits of their hard labor. Also, settling down on the land means that some places start to get crowded, and when tensions do flare, it is harder to get away from each other to cool down.

    It is interesting to wonder whether the Biblical story is a reflection of this important transition in how human societies are organized.

    Thanks again!

  3. Re: two accounts of creation - the transition to agriculture & herding from hunter/gatherer and issues of their distinct teachings.

    **POINT 1
    It would seem clear that the second version of creation in Genesis (v2) is a later version relative to v1. Indications of this can be observed in the following:

    In v2 the original state is: "no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth" because "a man there is not to serve the ground". Hunter/gatherers do not "serve the ground" whereas farmers do.

    Furthermore, after creating man from the "dust from the ground", God "setteth there [in Eden] the man whom He hath formed" and then "causeth him to rest in the garden of Eden, to serve it, and to keep it".

    This is in contradistinction to v1 where (1) God simply grants the following blessing to Man: "every herb sowing seed... and every tree ... to you it is for food". Which is consistent with the hunter/gatherer who subsists on wild produce. And (2) there is no "Garden of Eden" in v1, and no cataloging of river/place names or geographical limits. Thus the Earth is seen in v1 as a completely open virgin landscape, whereas in v2 the Earth is defined by specific geographical features with (presumably) familiar names. (3) In v2 the diety is refered to as "Jehovah God" whereas in v1 He is simply "God". This indicates that the Indo-European origins of the traditions are being refined into a specifically Hebrew context, again pointing to its later development.

    Notice also that following v2 creation all mankind is destroyed excepting Noah and his clan. The flood is clearly a "second-creation" story [see Gen 9.1-3] that transfers the Creator's affections [eg Gen 9.9] from the pre-sedentary pantheistic hunter/gatherers [aka "sons of God" Gen 6.1 and 6.4; "the heroes/the men of name" Gen 6.4] to the sedentary personal-supernatural-God worshipers who before the flood are called: "fallen ones" [Gen 6.4]; "daughters of men", [Gen 6.2 and 6.4]; "man in the earth" [Gen 6.5, 6.6] but after the flood become the chosen people.

    And thence commences the remainder of Genesis, a catalogue of land disputes, inter-tribal warfare and semi-nomadic wanderings which culminate in the establishment of the Hebrews as a distinct nation with a "god-given" homeland.

    According to, Genesis - as a written document - was compiled by three different authors between 950 B.C. and 539 B.C. Hence we may assume that v1 is closer to 950BC and v2 closer to 539BC.

    The earliest written account of creation of the Indo-European peoples is documented in the Rig-Veda and perhaps gives us an insight into the origins of Genesis v1. I include the following quote in full to avoid you dismissing my connection of these traditions out-of-hand:

    "According to the generally accepted view the oldest of them [Rig-Veda poems] dates back to 1,500 B.C., when the Aryan conquerors spread over the Punjab in Northern India and occupied the land on both sides of the Indus. The texts themselves show that the collection is the result of the work of generations of poets, extending over many centuries.... [A]pproximately 500 hymns are addressed to two gods alone: Indra, the god of lightning and storms, and Agni, the god of fire.... The value of the great collection as presenting the earliest record of the mythology of an Indo-European people is apparent. Several of the gods go back to the time of Indo-Iranian unity, e.g. Yama (the Avestan Yima), Soma (haoma), Mitra (the later Persian Mithra)." [Source:]

    And here is the Rig-Veda creation poem:

    Nor Aught nor Naught existed; yon bright sky
    Was not, nor heaven's broad woof outstretched above.
    What covered all? what sheltered? what concealed?
    Was it the water's fathomless abyss?
    There was not death — yet there was naught immortal.
    There was no confine betwixt day and night;
    The Only One breathed breathless by itself,
    Other than it there nothing since had been.
    Darkness there was and all at first was veiled
    In gloom profound — an ocean without light —
    The Germ that still laid covered in the husk
    Burst forth, one nature, from the fervent heat.
    Then first came Love upon it, the new Spring
    Of mind — yea, poets in their hearts discerned,
    Pondering, this bond between created things
    And uncreated. Comes this spark from the earth
    Piercing and all pervading, or from heaven?
    Then seeds were sown and mighty powers arose —
    Nature below and power and Will above —
    Who knows the secret? Who proclaimed it here?
    Whence, whence this manifold creation sprang?
    The gods themselves came later into being —
    Who knows from whence this great creation sprang?
    He from whom all this great creation came,
    Whether his will created or was mute,
    The Most-High Seer that is in highest heaven
    He knows it — or perchance even he knows not."

    **POINT 2
    I have pondered your thought about the issues impied in the various differences between v1 and v2. I am aware of the multiple and diverse moral issues that can be raised through these texts, and certainly the matter of the inherent "pain" of moral awareness is a valid one, I would like to add to the debate as follows:

    In the version I am using (Youngs Literal Translation) version one runs:

    "And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. And God prepareth the man in His image... a male and a female He prepared them."

    You rightly draw attention to the fact that in v1 the creation of "man" is in fact the creation of "mankind", not of a single individual, but both male and female. There is no Adam and Eve (as well as no Garden of Eden). This is beautiful because it teaches that woman is not the servant of man and does not exist "for" man, but exists for herself and is related directly to God and not firstly to man and only secondly to God. It is also beautiful because it teaches that man is also a complete being in himself. Finally, it is beautiful because it teaches that man and woman together are a unity.

    As spiritual beings man and woman are equal in version one. Version one teaches a purely spiritual message, with no social/culture accretions.

    Version two, on the other hand, teaches existential, moral, cultural and social lessons. As indeed you rightly point out.

    To discuss all these issues would lead me into a Masters length essay, so I'll finish by saying that: because v2 is a later version and clearly written with a culturally-specific mindset in place (Hebrew) we as intelligent people should seek to isolate the universal spiritual messages in the Old Testament rather than adopting an uncritical ahistorical approach.

    Books and websites of interest:

    <1> The Prehistory of the Mind: A Search for the Origins of Art, Religion and Science, by Stephen Mithen, Thames & Hudson, 1996 -- the final chapter, "Epilogue: The Origins of Agriculture" discusses the end of hunter/gatherer existance and the emergence of agricultural communities in the Middle-East

    <2> Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, Dee Brown, Vintage 1991 -- account of the collision of nomadic and settled societies

    <3> Indian Spirit, Eds. M & J Fitzgerald, World Wisdom, 2006 -- beautiful quotes from Native Americans of a spiritual character shows us that Judeo-Christianity has much to learn from nomadic spirituality

    <4> The following website has a searchable directory of dozens of different bibles, including the one I quote here, Young's Literal Translation.

    <5> Another (annotated) online bible and searchble edition of the fascinating "Catholic Encyclopaedia"

    I hope you find my comments interesting.


  4. I have been inspired to set up my own blog after reading yours. So please feel free to delete my rather over-long comment if you like (by anonymous). And also you're welcome to come and visit.

    - Visionary Journey -

  5. Thank you, anonymous/Visionary Journey! Your comment is very interesting. And the Rig-Veda creation poem is fascinating. I very much appreciate your sharing more history and multifaith perspectives.

    I have had a look at your blog: nice mixture of poems, reflections, and visual images!

  6. there isn't two creation stories. The second part of genesis refers to the first part. Everything was made in the order of the seven days. Then god made the garden of eden and adam. adam grew lonely and needed a companion(not the animals) but a woman-eve. adam and eve were considered dead that very day because the wage of sin is death. since they rebelled against god, they were dead in there sin nature and in need of a savior and thats why jesus christ died on the cross for our sin. So man and woman didn't need to stay a slave to sin, but rejoice in god's precious gift-SALVATION! Romans 10:9-11 you can accept jesus as your savior too. just read this!!

  7. Some Kid That Had To Write a ReportMay 06, 2009 5:11 PM

    Thanks for this! It gave me lots of great ideas!

  8. Great post, Thanks CS! I love the perspective. The responses and comments left by everyone were well thought out! I love this stuff.

    Thanks -T- for the great points you made! I just want ot address one thing about the woman being portrayed as a "servant" of a man.

    This point is misunderstood by too many Christians and non-Christians alike! A man and a woman were created to fullfill different roles. One is not superior to the other because the role is different. The difinition of those roles needs to be examined in context of society. For example, you will see in the New Testament references that are almost always referred to by those who proport what seems to be biblical support for suppressing women! These particular references are usually taken from the letters written to the early churches (Corinthians, Ephesians, etc.). The period in which these letters were written were near the end of an era of oppression of women by the cultures and society of that time and in that that area. It would take far too long to go into detail about the context of each passage in this comment! lol!

    One quick example would be of where it says in Corinthians that a woman should not be in a position in the church where they would have authority over a man. Although I would have to do more intense study of the Corinth, their culture, and so on to say for sure, but I'm pretty sure that there was a violent uprising of some sort of womens Lib movement.

    While in the context of today, perhaps it could be argued that there is no threat to the church and the divine roles that each gender was created to fullfill. But perhaps not.

    Paul also wrote to Timothy to drink more wine because the water was making his stomach ill. Should Christians start drinking more wine than that was specific to Tim's situation and when we take the letter in context its easy to see how people can blow the whole gender thing out of proportion.

    I'll leave you with this weak analogy. lol!

    Man and Woman were never meant to be partners. "partners" implies that one can be superior to the other. On the other hand, a in a Team (togetherness), no one is superior to any other. They all have roles to fulfill to accomplish the same or similiar goals.

    On a sports team, the captain is in a role position to make certain judgements and decisions on behalf of the team. Do the other team members not have a say? Not if everyone is fulfilling their roles properly. The captain takes into account, genuinely the concerns, views, and wishes of the team mates. But in the end he still makes the final call. Someone has to lead. The point is that God has simply made the man as a captain, and woman the assistant captain for the sake of having a consistant lead instead of a constant determining of who should make the final call. It is meant to avoid conflict caused by power struggles.

    In my opinion, I think that the roles defined in the scriptures, when taken in proper context, reveal another case where our Creator is looking to make things more peaceful for those who obey His Word.

    I wish I had more time to go more into detail and really pull out my points a little better.

    A man should love, honor, and respect the final say of her husband BUT it only works if the husband loves his wife like Jesus loves the church. He must love her above all else except God, He should be concerned for her joy and ultimate good, he must be willing to give himself fully to her. A Godly man loves his wife so, that to oppress her would be unthinkable.

    Anyway, Thanks again! Great great stuff!

  9. hey, think about this twist. the first week God created everything, including people. then he rested the 7th day then after they 7th day he created a special garden and made adam espically for that garden to perserve it, and made eve espically for adam. so adam and eve are living in the garden, and everyone else is living outside the garden. after adam disobayed God God punishes adam by sending them to the world to live with the rest of the humans. if u read further it talkes about cain and abel and after cain killed abel he went to a city, i think it was Nod and got married. if cain and abel are the only too people on earth besides adam and eve how did he he marry?

  10. I am a follower of Jesus and I believe in 2 accounts of creation. He made man and female which would make sense as to why there are Jews and Gentiles and I'm pretty sure God doesn't believe in incest. It also makes perfect sense with science and mankind being here longer. Maybe we all should read the Bible for ourselves and let God lead us and not man. Jesus never seemed to happy with the church leaders. No offense. Just a thought.

  11. At the end it is only theories, no body knows the real truth behind creation, an interesting point of the bible is that it speaks about beings long before and after the flood, beings more advance and maybe they are our real creators.

  12. Thank you for your insights CS, I think it's hilarious how quickly the story of Adam and Eve can erupt into debates on the meanings. I think the true essence of the Bible is that is lives on in obscurity sometimes. If it was factual, we could read it and put it down. Instead, reading the Bible plants a seed in your mind that sets fire to you. You cannot stop rethinking your interpretations because the Bible is a work meant to develope you as a person; a process that disagrees strongly with stagnant thought.

  13. Wow - in reading all the comments, what I find amazing is all the twisting contorted reasoning people go to in order to 'make sense' it all. Rather than jumping thru hoops of logic and reasoning, couldn't it simply be a fact that they are just stories - myths & legends - to provide some 'reason' for why things are the way they are? I don't know why we are so inclinded to reject the idea that Cronus spat forth Zeus, or that Apollo holds up the Earth, but go thru such painful bending of logic and reason to make these bible stories somehow 'fit' to be 'real'.

  14. There are interesting points in your interpretation. They've crertainly helped me see things clearer as a christian.

    I read the other comments, and there appears to be some contraversy on the mechanics of things and how a population was created from Adam and Eve and so on. And being my nosy self, I couldn't help butting in with my own theory. So here goes:

    The Bible is, among other things, a letter from God to us. A guide, an answer book, a manual. John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So the Bible is literally God's voice speaking to us. He could have written a step by step history textbook on how humans populated, who slept with who to make who, where they all went, and so on, but that is not significant. If God wants to speak to us, he won't tell us about things that don't concern or help us because it would be a waste of space.

    If you have ever read the books of Narnia (esp. the Horse and his Boy) you will remember that the lion does not speak of anyone's business to those whom it does not concern. The mechanics of the human race at the beginning of the world does not concern us, so we should just accept this and move on without getting obstinately stuck behind the fact that the story has jumped from one moment in time to another and therefore missed out a piece of information that we don't really need.

    I'm usually a sucker for getting stuck behind facts, but I suddenly realised this and had to write it =)

  15. Anonymous above, I could say the same thing about the scientific theory of the big bang. Just because science has become central to our lives, people are more willing to believe that theory even though it bends logic and reason to make it 'fit' to be 'real' when the essence of the theory is that something came all of a sudden out of nothing - SCIENTIFICALLY impossible because all the atoms the athiests natter on about are bound by the laws of nature and cannot change suddenly to create a world. And the question 'where did these atoms come from?' remains.

    Many people are as equally quick to assume that anything 'scientifically proved' must be correct, even though there are several loops in the theories themselves.

    1. Do we have an example of nothing? I mean real nothing, where there is not anything, not just empty space. I admit that it seems unlikely that something could come from nothing but we can't know this definitively.

      I would like to point out that your understanding of the Big Bang Theory is flawed - it actually makes no claims about what happened before it, but simply says how things may have happened. Scientists and, yes, Atheists, generally say that we don't know what came before the Big Bang, but those who are religious say that God caused it. It was a christian, originally, who proposed the theory. There is a multitude of evidence to support the Big Bang Theory to the point that it has been accepted by pretty much all scientists and most people who have heard of it. Certainly everyone that understands it. It is not necessarily true, but it is the most likely answer that we have (just like the two stories simply being two stories is the most likely answer we have).

  16. Dear All,

    I am a muslim, and i would to confirm to you that both stories are true but after decoding some of their wordings.

    Please read the correct explanation on the following, hope you'll like it:

    The Story of Creation (3) – Earth Formation in 6 Days, Matching between Quranic, Biblical and Science Calendars…

    1. Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly say that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. But then there is also the following passage:

      2 Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in TWO Days
      And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.
      He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it,
      and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measured therein all things
      4 to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR Days
      in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).

      Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky,
      and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth:
      "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly."
      They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
      2 So He completed them as seven firmaments in TWO Days,
      and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command.
      And We adorned the lower heaven with lights,
      and (provided it) with guard.
      Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.
      -- Sura 41:9-12 (Yusuf Ali)

      = 8 altogether these are EIGHT Days.

  17. Hi.

    God told Adam not to disobey Him (and Adam clearly told Eve the same). Eating the fruit was a choice: a choice to live away from God. Adam certainly understood the severity of his action. We do not know everything that happened in the Garden of Eden, but as God is mentioned as walking in the garden with Adam, it seems clear that He would have explained these things to Adam. By eating the fruit, Adam was stating that he did not want to be under God's authority any more. By eating the fruit, Adam was obeying Satan, who had tempted Eve in the first place. In effect, Adam was taking the keys to the world and handing them to Satan. That seems pretty blatant to me. Adam may not have had an in-depth knowledge of sin, but he wasn't stupid, and he realised that he was taking his life into his own hands.

    1. A couple things. One, I feel like God explaining that to Adam would be a fairly important part of the story and would have been included. Two, he clearly had no knowledge of good or evil as he hadn't yet eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil... Why do you think he knew what he was doing? Did you know that seeing the snake as Satan wasn't introduced for hundreds if not more years after the story was created? Adam was not obeying satan, he was taking advice from his wife, and she was not obeying satan but rather doing what a snake suggested. Adam was furthermore not stating anything - he was simply eating some fruit. Could you provide some evidence to support your claims that he "certainly understood the severity of his actions?"

  18. The way the creation story is interpreted by C.S. Lewis in Pilgrim's Regress is that sin is something that human beings have because they disobeyed- that sin poisoned them because they "ate" what was only for God and the angels. From there sin infected all humans descended from them- a sickness that was healed initially by service under strict rules to God and later through the sacrifice (at least according to Christians like myself) of Jesus Christ who was a sort of cure. At least, that's the way I've heard the book interpreted and I agree with that analysis. (C.S. Lewis goes on to explain in the same book that Hell is also not so much a punishment as a quarantine- it's simply a place where the wicked are sent. There is no need to truly punish them since a place like Hell- a place with only sin and nothing else- would be torturous enough)

  19. Could be that if the beginning were understood than that which follows just might be revealed by The Light!

    Mankind's "imag"ination has always torn down, confused and abused that which is of Our Father ;-(

    So the need to "cast down vain "imag"inations"! Yet the educated seem to believe otherwise ;-(

    Where are those "ignorant and unlearned men" who truly realize how "poor and needy" they are?

    Father Help! and HE Does.......

  20. I am a bit surprised that I didn't notice anyone had mentioned that Genesis is an amalgam of two ancient Hebrew Traditions: The Yahwist and the Elohist. The fact that there are two accounts has been well known for thousands of years, although the interpretations by both Rabbis and later Christians have varied. Both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both state that the creation accounts should not be taken literally or scientifically.

    Further, noted theologian C.S. Lewis does a wonderful job of how we can interpret the meaning of the texts without taking it too literally.

  21. Yes, pagan catholicism and her harlot christian duaughters have always sought to "confuse the issues"!

    And c.s. lewis was most certainly a humorist, a joke indeed and truth )-;

    Sadly, very few have taken heed unto The Messiah's Teachings and Life example, both of which were given Him by Our Father and GOD!

    It's no wonder that YHVH GOD repented of that 2nd creation, yet few have experienced The Miracle that is receiving "the love of The TRUTH", and fewer still have forsaken all, yes! and their own life as well for the sake of The TRUTH!

    Father Help! and HE does.......

  22. Rather than thinking of the "two" accounts as separate, think of them as a Macro account then Micro. In the first chapter God discusses the overall, Universal creation and in the second, the particulars. One does not negate the other, it explains it. In addition, Adam and Eve had free will as we do. Their experience as adults is similar to our experience, as children. We may not have experienced the consequences of sin until we commit the first transgression but are never the less responsible because we have warned by an Authority not to do something that we choose to do anyway. This element of our nature God foreknew and planned for. Jesus Christ, his Son, the Second person in the Godhead, literally God himself planned to offer himself to offer mankind a way out of the predicament which is man's natural proclivity to push the edges of the moral envelope.

  23. The Two Creation Accounts in Genesis 1 & 2.......
    One must truly realize that with Our Father and GOD "all things are possible"!

    Father Help! and HE does.......

    For in spite of the lies told by so many religious ones, for so long, concerning The Creation Accounts in Genesis, Our Father and GOD, HE is yet able to reveal all things!

    And HE has made it quite clear that Genesis Chapters 1 & 2 bear witness of Two Creations!

    Thankfully TRUTH wins The Victory!

    The 1st Creation states in Gen 1:26 "GOD said, Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness"....... So GOD created man in HIS Own image, in the image of GOD HE created him, male and female created HE them."

    The 2nd Creation states that YHVH God “formed man from the dust of the earth.” (Genesis 2:7)

    The 1st Creation does not give the details of what GOD used to create man, yet stated that man was created in "the image and likeness of GOD!"

    Also the 2nd Creation explains that YHVH God first made Adam and then made woman from a rib of Adam after it was established that an animal would not be a suitable partner for him.

    And in the 2nd Creation animals were created after Adam was created, yet in the 1st Creation animals had already been created before man was created!

    In the 1st Creation, Gen 1:28 "GOD blessed them, and GOD said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

    This was not YHVH God's intention in the 2nd Creation for Adam was given the unction "to dress and keep the garden"! And when Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden the unction given Adam was "to till the ground from which he was taken"!

    Quite evident that there was a 1st Creation, which was of GOD, and a 2nd Creation which was of YHVH God!

    Once again, in the 1st Creation, GOD created man “in HIS image, in the image of GOD, HE created them,” (Genesis 1:27)

    Yet in the 2nd Creation, only after Adam had partaken of the forbidden fruit and received the knowledge of good and evil, did YHVH God say that man has now “become like one of us.” (Genesis 3:22)

    Could be that a few might experience "the eye of their understanding" being opened as they receive of The Light of Truth concerning the "son's of GOD" bore witness of in Job and Genesis. And in such Light the darkness that is of this wicked, evil world and it's systems of religion is clearly revealed!

    "Come Out of her(babel/confusion/babylon\world\religion), MY people!"

    And HOPE IS! there would be those who take heed unto The Call of The ONE and ONLY TRUE LIVING GOD(SPIRIT), FATHER(CREATOR) of ALL and "Come Out!"

    For TRUTH IS! The Testimonies bear witness unto Two Creations, and only those who have experienced The Miracle that is receiving " a love of The Truth" can be saved!

    Father Help! and HE does.......

  24. Buddhists also pinpoint the duality paradigm (good/bad, me/other etc) as the main reason for human suffering.
    Paradise on earth was no longer possible for Adam and Eve when they saw themselves as seperate from the whole; and when they started to judge things as good or bad.

    1. Hope is you would realize that discernment is not judgment, and that discernment is needful!

      So it is the natural man can not know that which is of Our Father and GOD for such needs be spiritually discerned.......

      Father Help! and HE does.......

  25. I'm doing a resreachpaper on the the creation story vs. the big bang theory for school. I need to know which creation story is correct. Do you know?

    1. Well, the first is more consistent with science, although the "days" cannot be taken literally. Even then, there is enough distinction to write a paper.

  26. "big bang theory"?

    Set off a bomb in an auto parts store and will an engine be the end result?

    When one realizes that, that which sustains the life they have received can not be seen(breath/air/spirit), only then will they 'see' The Light of Life as revealed in both The Life and Teachings of The Messiah!

    And it is well to remember that The Messiah received both His Life and His Teachings from "Our Father and GOD"!

    Ones "eye of understanding" is only opened as one evermore experiences The Miracle that is receiving "a love of The TRUTH"!

    Father Help! and HE does.......

  27. If your curious as to why there are two creation theroies i'd like you to consider this: The chronology of the first creation story, as you've already stated, finds man at the back end of physical is indeed the last (and oddly enough weakest) of all creatures to manifest his physical form (in all reality this is a nod to natural selection). SPIRITUALLY, however man is the first emanation of life with fully developed individualized ego (it is also this "I" perspective alluded to in the eye on the pyramid atop which humanity stands)and consequently the only emanation of life able to be "LIKE GOD" insofar as we are possessors of free will. Moreover, looking at the separate stories well find in the first God is the deity in mention...In the second creation story it is LORD god that is in control...Given the feudal system that so dominated Europe for such a long and the obviously contradictory nature of the narratives i'd say its not to far a leap to suggest that the Lord god mentioned in the second creation narrative is indicative of a seperate deity.

    1. Sadly your "I" is most certainly alive and you continue to feed your"I" lies )-;

      However, you do 'see' there are two creation accounts and could be that one day you'll experience The Miracle that is receiving "a love of The TRUTH" for only then will you "see" that the "I(id,ego,self,pride)" must die!

      Father Help! and HE does.......

  28. Hey Elder child, I notice you said "And when Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden the unction given Adam was "to till the ground from which he was taken"!"

    Most translations of Genesis 3:23 state only Adam was banished. Check for yourself:

  29. Your 'cuteness' will be your undoing!

    Worse than banished, eve was cursed!

    Only "the ground was cursed for Adam's SAKE"!

    Most certainly worldlings(and americans lead the way) have proven that "ease of life" is a killer of the soul as one's conscience is seared with a hot iron!

    If the eye of your understanding is ever opened you will clearly 'see' The Light that is The Messiah, which will lead you out of the darkness that is this wicked, evil world and religion!

    Till then you will abide in your own vain "imag"inations.......

    However, thankfully while breath is, HOPE IS!

    For TRUTH IS! Miracles do happen.......

    Father Help! and HE does.......

  30. The bible is a bunch of old stories, nothing more. Historically interesting because they are old. B.C. comics, if you will.

    God, the soul ... They fall into the same scope as Zeus, fairies, Big foot, the spirit realm, the efficacy of tarot cards, the dungeon master...

  31. 60 million 'Father Help's during WWII


    1. Such a statement is wholly and totally of The LIE, which you prove you abide in )-;

      Yet hopefully many who were finally set free from this wicked, evil world were taken Home, Home at last!

      Simply sad for you )-;

      For it is quite obvious that religion, all of which is of this wicked, evil world, has had it's way with you!

      Father Help! and HE does.......

  32. How long after Adam and Eve did some of their children leave in a group, (bringing no memory of their past, no form of writing, not even their language or religion) and walk off to become the American Indians?

  33. Would have been after The Creator confused the language of the then one language peoples because they were following their own vain "imag"ination's, and today )-;

    The world is coming together again as one as they use and abuse the language of money(greed, covetousness, lies and every evil work )-; pagan english!

    "Con"venient speakers abound, especially in religion!

    i believe the indigenous peoples were the last manifestation of Creation(Creator) Sufficiency!

    And today self-sufficiency is destroying Creation(air, water, land, vegetation, creatures) and perverting that which is SPIRIT(Truth, Light, Life, Peace, Love, Faith, Grace, Wisdom,,,,,,, ALL that is Truly GOOD)!

    Father Help! and HE does.......

    Not those who are of this wicked, evil world and religion, but those who have REALized how truly "poor and needy" they are!

    So it is we "cry unto HIM day and night"......

    Father Help! and HE does......

  34. @Elderchild: These shallow, churchy answers are making you sound like Al Sharpton, and believe me, that is NOT a compliment. You preach about Christ and yet you do not show love. You simply attack their beliefs. By not showing them the love of Christ, you are ironically doing the polar opposite of evangelism. Truly, I ask you reevaluate your walk with the Lord (or potential lack of it.)
    @Pat Pending and for those who are not followers of Christ: I truly apollogize for Elderchild's remarks and for the many "Christians" like him who simply try to use God's word as a tool of hate. If you ever have questions about Christianity and need someone to talk to, simply email me at I do not claim to have all the answers, but I will definitely try to help out those who may need it. Please, however, don't fill my inbox with hate mail as I will simply delete it.

  35. How can one whose father is "the father of lies" help?

    Your "jesus christ" is but the "imag"ined son of the devil!

    And what you mean is, "please do not fill my inbox with The Truth for i want naught to do with such"!

    Simply, sad for you )-;

  36. The first account was an outline and the second were more detailed

  37. The 1st Day of the 1st Creation account!

    Father Help! and HE does.......

  38. Thank you so much for this great post! Very informative and interesting. :) Do you by chance have anything on the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch?

  39. The second account in Genesis comes after the Babylonian period. It's from a much older Sumerian story. This Sumerian story is the origin of the terms Adam, Eden, and many others found in the Bible. What is in the Bible is a story, but the actual historical record from which the story derived was left on clay tablets that still exist today. They have been interpreted and tell a most intriguing story. If your interested in this you can follow this link to begin your journey of discovery:

  40. Hindsight is 20-20 ain't it?
    Take into consideration linguistics and you can see that Elohim is creator God and Yahweh is God with a relationship with man.
    There doesn't need to be any contortions to see it's a reiteration and repetition of the power and love of God.
    Also, look into Yeshua and Immanuel- both Jesus; different sides.

  41. The Two Creation Accounts of Genesis 1 & 2 defined:

  42. The Truth!
    there are 2 different accounts because there are 2 different times.
    The first acct is when God initially made the earth.
    The 2nd acct is when God re-furbished the earth after He destroyed the ist earth age.
    Check out shepherd's Chapel on you tube and see the 1st 3 tapes on Genesis.
    There is so much that our church does not teach.

  43. I loved your interpretation of sin - but I loved the idea of there being a 'second' creation specifically for a man and woman to till the Garden of Eden (would possibly explain the Jews and Gentiles!).

    Here's another theory to consider, in the seven ages that the Bible mentions, there could have been a pre-Adamic age inhibited solely by angels and the like.

    1. The Pre-Adamic Age
    2. The Adamic Age
    3. The Age of Israel under the Old Mosaic Covenant of the Law
    4. The Age of the Church under the New Covenant of Grace
    5. The Millennial Age of the Kingdom of God
    6. The Lake of Fire Judgement Age
    7. The Eternal Age of the Kingdom of God

    In this pre-Adamic age where there were already angels, sin first entered the world. Man and woman did not 'create' sin since Satan was already there to tempt them! You could bring in your debate about them not being able to sin in their amorality there, and that they were simply convinced by Satan to take the hard route - after all, God did let him in there. He must have had some purpose in doing that.

    Anyways, there's like so much more on this site:

    It makes more sense than a lot of things I've read all over the internet, so maybe check it out and then throw out more theories! :P

  44. Is it possible for life to be an unintended consequence of our Universe?

    I'm working on a theory for some time in trying to combine science with religion, looking for an answer to the question "What is the purpose of life in Creation?" Finally thanks to science and space exploration in the universe, we got all to agree on the fact that we are not the only planet that is hosting life. Einstein studied very much the universe, we know it all and came to the conclusion that it is too big and too complex, not be governed by something like a higher energy "From nothing you can not do something he was saying" Big Bang could not be created from nothing so simply out of nowhere and give rise to a complex mechanism so full of laws that creates (suns, planets, solar systems etc etc)In my opinion something above our understanding govern, lead, use, observe the universe,So helped by logic I suppose that we have solved one of the mysteries of mankind.

    Of course, as in any mechanism at some point unpredictable errors may occur. From here starts a series of questions more or less strange .