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

GENESIS: 3 (part 1)

Well I'm just doing a brief now be because I'm typing on my phone. Suckage!

This is the conclusion of the creation story, the second version.

Loads of questionable stuff about women and men, but I also need to talk about how we reconcile the creation story in the Bible and science. I love the idea of the creation story I want God's divine hand to be the potter of all life. I just feel that the people who wrote about God in Old Testament times ( you know I'm not even sure when that is) didn't have all the information. The advancement of science and technology has completely changed how we can look at things. My comfort zone is actually somewhere in the mixing of the two sides. Now I know that there are a great deal of people out there who are very uncomfortable with the idea of science and god mixing. I think that the theory behind the Da Vinci Code is not that far from the mark. I believe that the separation of science and religion is impossible. I have seen too many amazing things to not believe and I do think that science is just finding amazing and awesome ways of explaining Gods creation. Just because I don't think Gods pointed his finger a la Hogwarts and it was done doesn't me I don't think gods finger was there. Its all just too much randomness for me. I find the idea that it all happened all on it's own very hard to believe.

I know there will come a time where I have to delve into the whole how can I believe on God when there is such awfulness in the world, but today (and typing on the phone) is not that day.

I'll flush this out more later once I have a functioning laptop again.

Night
Be

GENESIS: 1 & 2

This is the creation story. God made the world in 6 days.

Day and Night
Dividing the waters, creating Sky
Land, Seas and Plants
Stars, Moon and Sun
Sea creatures and Birds
Land Animals and Pleebs

Hey I remembered, everything except the people. I had to add them in after. Not sure what that says about me that I was scanning the part I'd read and thought, 'wait a minute, when did the people show up? Shit I forgot the people. Ah Day 6, there they are being given dominion over it all. What my vegan eye did notice was that on the sixth day when God talked to man, He said

"See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree which seed in it's fruit; you shall have them for food."

it goes onto say that He has also given all the other animals plants to eat as well. He does not suggest that the animals are food. Just something someone with my veggie eye noticed.

The second account of the story is written very differently. It focuses more on the creation of Man, Eden and the Tree of Knowledge, and then Woman. Nothing of the sort of familiar feel that the story usually has is retold. Again here though the animals are created as companions, not as food.

I promise that this blog doesn't have a vegan agenda, but I can not promise that I will avoid my vegan perspective. It is part of who I am, and who I am is writing the blog so . . .

There is a great deal of debate around this story. Right off the top - I'd like to be rational about it but I am bagged and have t get up early so for tonight that is it.

Be