(March 21, 2013 at 1:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Perhaps. The reverse order makes sense symbolically. The first creation account refers the regeneration process. The second refers to our turning away.
But they also describe a very different deity. The creator of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is El, an amorphous and divine presence. He creates by decree; 'let there be light, and it is so, and it is good.' There are no details to speak of. He snaps his fingers, and things happen. He wraps up his work by creating man and woman in his own image, before the next creative day closes.
The creator of the account in 2:4-3:24 is Yahweh, and he is a much more human god. He does not decree; he gets his hands dirty and takes an active, involved role in each step. He creates man in his image, then after some time passes he decides to provide him with a mate. It is this creator who places them in the garden and is absent when they make a holy mess of things.
The first account seeks to make god a grandiose yet distant character; this is the god that we think of when we marvel at his mysterious and incomprehensible greatness. Yahweh is a pretty standard god of the ancient world, more human than god, a clear example of projection. The first account elevates humanity along with god-- when the great master creator is done creating this marvelous environment, he finally places his greatest creation within-- man and woman, made in his image.
In the second account, man is created from the Earth, a more humble expression of his value, and woman doesn't come on the scene until man realizes that he is alone. It is this lesser pair that falters and tarnishes god's work, plunging humanity into a downward spiral that even god finds difficult to fix without a long and involved plan.
The two creation accounts serve two similar purposes, but two different masters. The Yahwist was more interested in showing how the tribe needed to obey their god, while the Priests were more interested in linking themselves to the divine and becoming a conduit for god. Both are methods of control, and it's fascinating that their disparate accounts got smushed together into a new, discombobulated tale. I think that if either one had been told that this would happen, there might've been a few new words invented at the time.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould