Which account of Genesis is true and which is false?

Both allegories are told for different purposes. They were never meant to be read as factual histories and certainly NOT as scientifically accurate accounts.

Only the fringe cults and fundamentalists have to defend such nonsense, (your apparent contradictions) which they will be unable to do. Their responses generally come down to denial and name calling.

ALL the major denominations of Christianity and even Orthodox Jews know Genesis 1 - 11 are ancient allegories (teaching stories) like Christ taught using parables.

Genesis 1 is a song of praise to the miracle of creation.

Genesis 2 is a story about evil becoming part of our world.

Even when reading a text 'literally', one is still obliged to research the symbolism, metaphorical expressions, idioms, and at the very least, the correct translation of the terms, and of course, to understand the cultural context. The YEC fundees/fringe (and ironically atheists) are too lazy to do so.

However, respected theologians in all of the mainstream denominations (oldest and largest) from Christianity and Judaism, have and therefore we have no problems understanding Genesis, realizing there are no contradictions as they serve differing purposes, and we can easily and readily accept science.

One obvious symbol in Genesis 2 is " the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." The eating of its fruit represents the beginning of the mixture of good and evil together in humanity. It was believed that before our consciousness, our awareness, of good and evil, the two were separate, and the potential for evil only existed outside of us. The "talking snake" represents a manifestation of evil that existed outside of us. When the forbidden fruit was consumed and internalized, this changed and gave rise to the "yeitzer hara," or our inclination to commit evil ourselves.

The reason there appears to be a different order (and different details) is that the opening chapter is the genealogy of the Heavens and the Earth. The second is the genealogy of mankind. So the details are different because the previous chapter is considered a prerequisite for the second. While the creation of animals appears out of "sequence" it is assumed that the reader understands already what day/s these creatures where made. It does not say "then God formed" but instead "God formed ..".

This format is used in a lot of the Old Testament, a new character is introduced before the discussion is complete on the previous character. So often there is a over lap and apparent conflict, however a looking at the fine details of wording shows no actual conflict.

You need a more thorough literay education

and/or a better translation.

The first text is introductiory, the second expands on the first.

Both are parts of one story that complement each other.

==

> How do you know

(1) basic rules of literary analysis (apply equaly to Mark Twain, The Secret History of the Mongols, and the Torah)

(2) I learned ancient semetic literature at NYU (including how to read the Bible in paralel with such other ancient literature)

(3) I learn the stories in the tradition passed down through thousands of years in the community for which the document was originaly created (ie: traditional Jewish sources)

They are both true.

God created other humans besides Adam and Eve. He created the animals and humans and told them all to go forth and multiply.

Then he created Adam....then he created Eve.

Adam and Eve were the only humans in the Garden.

When Cain murdered Abel, he fled to the land of Nod, where he found a wife to marry - where did these people come from if God had not created other people besides Adam and Eve?

.

It is obvious to me that you do not understand the principle used in the reporting of creation -

Genesis one is the correct order of events, chapter two fills in a few more details,

and the remainder of the Bible explains the remainder of what we need to know.

. . .

there is only one account of creation

chapter one is a general outline in the order god created

chapter two adds information on creation its not listedin the order god created

your misinterpretations

god holy spirit tells us chapter one is in chronological order and so does the words when you read them

it says on day one and day two and day 3

the words how their spoken show chapter two was not in order

its very plain by just reading the english words

You are correct in that *your versions* can't both be true.

Fortunately for Genesis, the text doesn't actually say what you claim, you have to force your interpretation into it to get your conclusion.

"Well it does say what I claim, I didn't make it up. Go read it yourself."

- I have read it. Multiple times. It does NOT say what you claim. For example, Genesis 1 NEVER says man and woman were created "simultaneously". All it says is that God made both man and woman - which is in complete agreement with chapter 2. You had to add "simultaneous" into the text of chapter 1 to get your conclusion.

The word "formed" in chapter 2:19 can be translated "had formed" in English.

Both are true. The first was in the order things were done. The second recapped what had happened. It did not need to be in chronological order.

What's wrong with telling the story and then expounding on the story or adding more to the story, There is nothing wrong with Genesis, just the reader of Genesis. Genesis is Truth.