GENESIS: 3 (part 2)

As promised I am revisiting Genesis 3. Borrowing Rob's power cable, and thinking I need to get myself to my cousin (in-laws) where she has one waiting for me, has given my laptop some wind for now.

I am wondering who penned these two versions of creation. Not only because as accounts of the same story they are so completely different in their focus, but because the tone of the two accounts are so very different. The second account is Genesis 2 and 3 and is all about the people. Adam and Eve don't even enter the picture in Genesis 1. Yes, people are created, but none of the filler is there. No snake, no tree of knowledge, no Adam blaming Eve for his own weakness and no Eve being sucked in by a snake. I have to say that in typing those last two points I am thinking, in broad strokes at least, not a lot has changed. Men blaming women for their own short comings and women being sucked in by snakes. It's been centuries, you'd think those stereotypes would have worked themselves out by now. Heck, I've listened to more than my fair share of snakes and I know plenty of men who lay all their faults at the feet of womankind. Speaking in generalizations and stereotyping of course.

I will admit that in terms of flow of writing and storytelling I found the first account much easier and comfortable to read. The second account felt all prickly to me. Like the first account was bubbles and the second, saw blades. Like the second authour wanted to get the reader riled up while the first author just wanted to get out the facts as he saw them (sorry for the masculine here, but lets be honest historically this stuff is written mostly by men, or at least we are lead to believe that).

So why is it that we get so focused on Adam and Eve when the first account doesn't even think it's important? I don't think you can argue that it's the same story parts one two and three because it just doesn't work, the authorship is just too different to be the same storyteller.

As for the argument that science and God are at odds, I have always had a hard time articulating how I disagree with that. I picked up Angels and Demons over a year ago. A book so untypical of me to read, and yet I found echos of how I felt and so I will leave that to someone who has said it better. I do not mean to say that I believe as Dan Brown believes. I am simply saying that in the novel he managed to hit it on the head for me in this instance.

"Science and religion are not at odds. Science is simply too young to understand."
— Dan Brown (Angels & Demons)

"Science tells me God must exist. My mind tells me I will never understand God. And my heart tells me I am not meant to."
— Dan Brown (Angels & Demons)

Night
Be