Can anyone offer an explanation as to why Genesis 1 and 2 offer two different versions...?

1) Creation overview, then 2) Creation details.

Different people wrote it, and neither knew of which they wrote.
Can you offer any explanation why I must pretend as you do?  And why I am less because I don't pretend?  Do explain that jon, many would like to hear it.

They're both the same. If I say, "I went to the store, bought bread, and went home." Then in the next chapter, "When I went to get the bread it was because I only had white and I wanted rye for the grilled Rubens I was making for dinner. I got the rye bread and came home."

"God created man in his image; male and female he created them" or "God said it is not good that man should be alone. So he caused a deep sleep and took a rib from Adam and made woman."

I don't see any significant difference. And BTW, Breakthrough, would you please be so kind as to unblock me. It's a hassle answering this way.

GOD GAVE AN OVERVIEW IN FIRST CHAPTER...2ND CHAP IS THE STORY OF ADAM AND EVE...

Jon, I don't think it's Breakthrough.

Breakthrough's questions appear to come from a very self centered and self righteous hypocrite, with other obvious issues.

This question is too smart for Breakthrough.

Also, I've never seen Breakthrough post scripture, ever.

They were originally two different myths from two different syncretic sources. One is polytheisic and the other henotheistic. They have been "homologized" to some degree over the centuries, particularly before the Bible was assembled from a variety of sources around the 4th century, but differences remain.

Two different
non-contradictory
versions.

The first is a sort of overview of creation and presents the creation of various general categories of things in explicitly chronological order.

The second specifically addresses only a few matters (most especially: the creation of humans). It is not an overview of all creation as is the first, and is indisputably not presented in chronological order.

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/why-are-the-creation-stories-in-genesis-1-and-2-different-what-really-happened.html

"Versions" is the key word here. They offer two different "versions" that both present exactly the same truth - that God brought into existence all that exists. If you get that message, you have understood the text, regardless of which "version" you read.

The goat herders were too lazy to cross check and too dumb to realise they had lousy memories.

Yes. I attended a seminar hosted by a Biblical scholar and read many articles from such scholars.

The Old Testament was originally an oral tradition, long before it was written. It was added to over time.

It was easier to add on new stuff to the beginning.

That means that Genesis 1 is the younger of the two stories. In it, humanity is created last. All other creatures before that.

In Genesis 2, the older of the two, Adam is created first. Then vegetation. Then animals, Then Eve.

There is no reconciling those two accounts if you interpret them literally, as factual accounts.

But they were never intended to be literal. They are two different stories intended to teach a few basic religious truths: God created everything. Everything God created was good.

Before that, people believed in many gods. Some good & some bad. Good ones created good things & bad ones bad things.

A single God of everything was a brand new idea, and that's what Gen 1 & 2 are trying to teach (whether you're a believer or not).

That's what the majority of Christians worldwide believe Sadly, there is a preponderance of fundamentalists in the USA. Fundamentalist Christianity is only by supportable by explaining away the inconsistencies that are inescapable from a literal interpretation.

Well, you're entitled to your spat with Breakthrough. But, I feel compelled to try and salvage some utility out of it. So, since you're talking about when male and female came to be, lets look at the non-biblical explanation science has.

There are millions of years worth of evidence of things like bacteria, yeasts, fungi, etc. with no gender whatsoever predating any evidence of male and female.

The first sexual beings to reproduce somewhat like us were around 2.5 billion years ago. They were what biologists call isogamous, where the things are somewhere between male and female. Many organisms, including some fungi, algae and single-celled pond-swimmers, still practice isogamy. In doing so, they offer clues to the mystery of why and how the sexes ever evolved. Instead of mixing sperm and eggs they mingle sex cells of roughly the same size — generically known as gametes Plus gametes only combine with minus.

The 'why' is the interesting part: mitochondria. It's become clear in recent years that mitochondria are no mere built-in features but a sort of friendly parasitic bacteria living with us in a symbiotic relationship. They propagate as your cells divide and, in animals, pass from mothers to offspring through eggs.


While they seem to be working for us, they have no binding contract to continue to do so. Because they carry their own DNA, they can mutate, the scientists say, so you could in theory get a new strain of mitochondria that's very good at replicating, but not very good for you.


One way to prevent such a spread of bad mutations is to avoid mixing mitochondria when you reproduce. But if you're isogamous, you're exchanging same-sized gametes instead of sperm and eggs. To keep mitochondria in check many organisms kill the ones from their mates. This could have been a slow process as more and more populations evolved to fight mitochondria from mates. You'd slowly move to two separate groups. Killers only mate with non-killers and you end up with two mating types.


So, there you have it. An origin of male and female, tied to why mitochondrial DNA is passed only on the mother's side, with a survival advantage by avoiding potentially harmful mitochondrial mutations.

"The Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology, but adapted them to their belief in one God, establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of ancient Israel's neighbors." (Wikipedia). In other words, the Jews stole the Mesopotamian lies and adapted it to their own lies.