Why does the bible have two creation stories?

[Zay]

I don't get it. On the 6th day, got created men and women at the same time. So where does the garden of eden story fit in?

BOTH of the stories say god created things differently. In the 6 day story it says that god created animals before people, but in the garden story it says that animals, and then a women, were created to keep adam company.

[napoleon_complex]

Because what's important isn't HOW God created the world and man, it's THAT God created the world and man. They're just allegories meant to express a complex idea(God creating the world and us), to what was back then, an illiterate population.

Look at it this way. If you're trying to explain the idea of creation to a very small child, is it easier to just tell him the facts, or is it easier to tell him a story?

[Rust]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:



Look at it this way. If you're trying to explain the idea of creation to a very small child, is it easier to just tell him the facts, or is it easier to tell him a story?

It's easier to tell him one story, and not two which contradict each other. Hence the initial question.

[Lou Reed]

I dont like Genisis either

[Zay]

quote:Originally posted by Lou Reed:

I dont like Genisis either

I didn't say I don't like it, I'm just curious. I started to read the bible and it's not as boring as I thought it would be.

[napoleon_complex]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It's easier to tell him one story, and not two which contradict each other. Hence the initial question.

It's easier to explain something if you tell it twice, not just once....

[Rust]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

It's easier to explain something if you tell it twice, not just once....

So you're actually arguing that they couldn't have repeated the same story twice? Is that really your argument? If that's not your argument, then please stop grasping at straws. You have absolutely no point: If they could have repeated the same story twice, then my point, and the initial question by Zay, still stands.

[napoleon_complex]

You're the one grasping at straws, not me.

What is your point? That it's easier to tell someone one story to explain them a complex idea? Well, my point is that it's just as easy(if not easier) to tell him two stories.

I don't quite know what you're getting your panties in a bunch over, considering I simply answered his question. He asked why there are two bible stories, and I explained why. I also said it shouldn't be confisuing because what's important isn't HOW God did it, it's just THAT god did it. What is so fucking confusing about that? NOTHING!

[Rust]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You're the one grasping at straws, not me.

What is your point? That it's easier to tell someone one story to explain them a complex idea? Well, my point is that it's just as easy(if not easier) to tell him two stories.

No. That's not my point at all.

You said that the bible contains two stories because it was easier to explain the creation myth. That isn't an answer. One story which does not contradict itself is much easier to both explain and understand than two stories which do. Moreover, even if your argument revolves on the quantity of stories being told, that still fails to explain anything because they could have repeated the initial story with more ease, making your argument also void in this regard.

Hence why I said "So you're actually arguing that they couldn't have repeated the same story twice? Is that really your argument? If that's not your argument, then please stop grasping at straws. "

If you were not arguing that the same story could have not been said twice, then your point was meaningless. I could then say that it is easier to explain the creation myth with the same story twice, than it is to explain the creation myth with two different stories that contradict each other.

quote:

I don't quite know what you're getting your panties in a bunch over, considering I simply answered his question. He asked why there are two bible stories, and I explained why. I also said it shouldn't be confisuing because what's important isn't HOW God did it, it's just THAT god did it. What is so fucking confusing about that? NOTHING!

No. You did not answer his question. You did not, in any way, answer why there are two different and contradictory stories. Your answer that "it is easier to explain it with two stories" isn't an argument at all; they could have repeated the one story - something which proves to be even easier. Thus, you have answered nothing.

The point being, his question still stands. Your "explanation" fails to explain why they chose two contradictory stories as oppose to one story repeated twice, or even two different, yet non-contradictory, stories said once each.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-26-2006).]

[ohhi]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You're the one grasping at straws, not me.

What is your point? That it's easier to tell someone one story to explain them a complex idea? Well, my point is that it's just as easy(if not easier) to tell him two stories.

I don't quite know what you're getting your panties in a bunch over, considering I simply answered his question. He asked why there are two bible stories, and I explained why. I also said it shouldn't be confisuing because what's important isn't HOW God did it, it's just THAT god did it. What is so fucking confusing about that? NOTHING!

haha That's how the whole religion is based. Everyone is told what to do and like sheep they follow without even questioning...