In The Beginning…There Were Two Beginnings

I’ve read the bible in bit and pieces…but never straight through. I’ve never had that desire. After all, haven’t years and years of Sunday school classes given me all I need to know? Besides, there are plenty of books to read about the Bible, who actually needs to read the Bible?

Over the past year I’ve periodically taken a closer look at some of the bible stories I thought I knew. They generally aren’t exactly as I remember them. Many times I’ve found them more interesting. More unbelievable. More miraculous.

I’m not planning on reading it all in 2008. Just the Old Testament. I might save the New for 2009. I chose the Old Testament because it is the beginning of the Christian faith. I know that sounds strange because it is all about the Hebrews/Jews. I don’t know of many protestant churches that have Bibles with just the New Testament but I’m surprised how little attention is given to the Old. Especially the difficult/non-Kumbaya parts…which is about 90% of it.

So…some of the things I’ll be writing about over the year will be my study of the Old Testament. Others will be unrelated.

FIRST

Nearly everyone knows, “In the beginning God created…” and the rest of the seven days of creation. It is really poetic. I think it should be viewed and understood in that way…through a poetic interpretation. I mean, are there folks who still proclaim that it was seven actual 24 hour days? And if you took it literally, seed bearing plants and trees(3rd day) where created the ‘day’ before the sun and moon(4th day). I know there was the ‘light’ on the first day…whatever that was…some type of primordial light..but it wasn’t that sun.

I didn’t realize that after all of that was another creation account from probably a different author. The two have been synthesized, but they say different things. They have different viewpoints.

SECOND

The second one goes into detail about Adam and Eve. Some would probably say it is just expanding on the first story…going into more detail. I’m not so sure. The first account has man made in the image of God. This one he is simply created from dust…which apparently was plentiful because the earth didn’t have any plants or shrubs because God had not sent rain upon the earth. Trees were then created after Adam in this account.
I also haven’t noticed before that God told Adam the tree in the center of the Garden was off limits before Eve came on the scene.

Backing up just before that…there were two trees in the center of the Garden, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil that was not to be eaten. The bible is silent, as far as I know, on whether Adam ate of the tree of life before he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The bible says after the fall he would not be allowed to “reach out his hand and take also from the tree…” but nothing before.

So…if there were two beginnings, or better said, two versions…why?

I have no idea. My guess is the poetic version was not enough for people. I mean, read a poem and how many folks will say, “Great. What does it mean?” Explain it to me. How was man created in God’s image? Is God a man or a woman? Can he/she be both?

Possibly…I don’t know anything for sure…someone said man came from dust. We know we become dust so we must have come from it. And women…got their start from a ribosectomy. That’s what it means to be created in God’s image.

I don’t know. That’s just my poetic license.

~ by bart on January 2, 2008.