I did not say there were 2 versions of creation, I said there were 2 versions of the creation of man and woman. Read Genesis, don’t have a Bible here so cannot give chapter and verse, but it is in there.
“I did not say there were 2 versions of creation, I said there were 2 versions of the creation of man and woman. Read Genesis, don’t have a Bible here so cannot give chapter and verse, but it is in there.”
I think that’s Genesis 1:27, on the sixth day: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Then, in Genesis 2:7, apparently sometime *after* the seventh day: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” A woman isn’t formed until verse 22.
There seem to be two separate accounts of man’s creation, not quite the same. I’ve seen arguments about this before, with literalists claiming the first creation in 1:27 is merely a poetic summary of the same event described in more detail in 2:7 and there’s no contradiction, while another school of thought (the Documentary Hypothesis) holds that Genesis as we know it is the result of two not quite identical accounts of Creation having been edited together at some point in the past.
Ok, fair enough...
Read Genesis, don’t have a Bible here so cannot give chapter and verse, but it is in there.
Well, I can't address your question without specifics. If you're so inclined, and you want to take the time to post the relevant passages and explain your reasoning, I'll be more than glad to discuss it with you.