Posted on 12/06/2001 6:32:57 AM PST by Weatherman123
Good morning folks. I came up with a new example that I think gives excellent evidence that different writers wrote different parts of the Bible. Tell me what you think. Like I could stop you! :)
Let's talk about just the first two chapters of Genesis, the creation story/myth. Gn 1:1-2:4a versus Gn 2:4b-25. Can you see two distinctly different stories here? Please go read them both. Here's one example:
Gn 1:1-2 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.
Gn 2:4b-5 At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, while as yet there was no field shurb on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth...
Was there water in the beginning as the first account says, or no water as the second account says? Was there land as the second account says or just a formeless wasteland covered by water as the first says? Which is it?
If you go and read Gn 1:1-2:4a and then compare it to Gn 2:4b-25, I think you can see they are two totally different creation myths.
---In the first, the human creation is the final act of God. God creates man on the "6th day."
---In the second, the LORD, God, begins his work with man. The garden, trees, rivers and animals follow.
---In the first, God is called "God".
---In the second, God is called "the LORD".
---In the first, creation happens in an orderly fashion, over 7 days. Day 1: light. Day 2: sky. Day 3: earth and vegetation. Day 4: sun, moon and stars. Day 5: birds and fish. Day 6: animals and human. Day 7: God rests.
***Another minor discrepancy: Where did the light come from, created on the first day, if the sun, moon and stars were not created until the 4th day. If you read the Bible literally, how can this make sense?
---In the second, creation has no orderly fashion, but it's a vivid telling of creation, a good story. The LORD has already created the earth and the heavens, but there was no grass or fields, no rain, and his first act is to form man out of clay. Then he plants the garden of Eden, including the tree of knowledge. Then a river rises to water Eden and divides into 4 other rivers. Then the LORD decides it's not good for man to live alone and creates a succession of different creatures and parades them in front of man to name. But none of these animals were a suitable mate so the LORD put man into a deep sleep and built a woman out of one of his ribs.
The depiction of God is completely different in each section. In the first, God is orderly, transcendent, above the fray, able to bring order out of chaos. In the second, God is almost humanlike, forming man out of clay and breathing life into his nostrils, parading animals in front of man to name, reaching into the flesh of man and "building" a woman out of one of his ribs.
The literary style is completely different in each section. The first is an orderly, repetetive account. The second is a vivid story with great imagery.
Both creations myths are divinely inspired and neither can be ignored, nor is one more important than the other. But they were written by different writers.
The Priestly writer is responsible for the first creation myth. P was writing during the time of exile (550 BCE) and his main concern was keeping his people together during this difficult time of dispersion and making sense out their loss of power, land and their temple and ark in which they believed God dwelled. "And let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell in their midst" (Ex 25:8). The P writer is not a storyteller, he likes lists, order and repetition. Notice how many times you read "Then God said" and "evening came, morning followed" and "God saw how good it was". The Priestly God was one who stood above the people, who was able to bring order out of chaos. This is the God the people in exile needed, one who could bring order back to the chaos of their lives in exile. Additionally, the first mention of Sabbath is in the first creation myth. The Priestly writer was concerned with cultic and priestly matters, such as Sabbath. Sabbath is not mentioned at all in the second account.
The Yahwist writer is responsible for the second creation myth. The Yahwist writer wrote during the time of David and Solomon (950 BCE), the good times when the Israelites had a land, a King, a temple and were a powerful nation. The God that the J (Yahwist) writer knew was a more personal God. His God was called Yahweh and we read that as the LORD in our bibles. Notice how often we see the word LORD in the second account and the fact that the word LORD is not mentioned once in the first account. His idea of God, the LORD, was a very human God, one who got down and molded man out of clay and breathed life into him. God is often represented with human characteristics, such as being a potter (Gn 2:7 The LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground..)and a gardener (Gn 2:8 Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden..) The J writer is a vivid story teller and his writting is full of imagery.
Can anyone here see the two different literary styles? The two different theologies of God? The historical context in which the two different creation myths were written?
The second "account" does not say that there was no water and the first "account" does not say that there was no land.
Problem solved.
Maybe it's all just a nice story to explain why we are here--after all, Moses' people could not have comprehended the mechanisms of evolution and the Big Bang if God would have revealed that to him.
What is your point?
Are you familiar with the people of Saba and the Arim Flood? Evidently there are creation stories recorded in cuniform that predate the Sumerian Gilgamesh stories that predate the OT.
But how much time elapsed in between the two. For instance
In the beginning, when when Weatherman was born...
At the time when Weatherman began kindergarden...
So which is it? Did you start kindergarden when you were a new-born?
For example, you may be astounded to know that Genesis very closely parallels the Enuma Elish which was written down by the ancient Sumerians long before, and in greater detail, than the biblical book of Genesis.
It contains many internal contradictions which hamper its ability to derogate convincingly from the integrity of the received text.
One of the principal reasons for the documentary hypothesis is that XIXth century Germans believed that it was inconsistent to mix dry genealogies, formulaic censuses and colorful narratives into one continuous account. In XIXth century Germany this was considered a patchwork.
However, as we learn more about the literary production of the ancient Near East we learn that these "inconsistencies" were not inconsistent in their true cultural context.
Egyptian accounts of history will go from narrative to genealogy to legal decrees and back again in one text.
Basically what the documentary hypothesis comes down to is this: that a member of the fin de siecle Prussian upper classes would never have written the book of Genesis the same way an Egyptian-educated nomadic Hebrew of 1200 BC would have.
In this we agree.
Would the Prussian's favorite method of exposition be superior to the nomadic Hebrew's? That's moot.
Then there is a fundamental shift where the Writer is now asking questions and inserting a lot of his own commentary. Note that in the last few paragraphs there are no outsourced quotes.
This conclusively proves that the writer of the last few paragraphs could not be the same writer that wrote the first paragraphs.
Actually, I read a bit further and ignored the rest when it became clear that your examples of differences between the two seemed to revolve around nonsensical differences. (whether God is refered to as "God" or as "Lord" for instance.)
If the point of the thesis is that more than one human author may have contributed to Genesis there can be little doubt that you are correct. Indeed, the Genesis account was largely passed on over hundreds of years before being written down and may have several earlier sources. This is relevant because????
Instead, your post seems more like the arguments we have heard... "here is a contradiction in scripture... therefore scripture is not authoritative" and is probably not worth additional study.
I see however, that you have called in some of my friends from the "Neverending Thread" who no doubt can "assist" you better than I.
This "example" is among the oldest ever raised, and you most certainly did not come up with it.
That's just dishonest.
Well, I totally agree with you in that these creation myths were orally handed down, borrowed from other cultures and expanded on to include the people's idea of God and the beginning of the world and humankind and then were written by DIFFERENT writers, all in a spiritually inspired attempt to make sense of the world around them.
I can't understand how anyone can take Genesis as science.
When you think about it, what kind of truths do you expect to find in the Bible?
Historical facts? NO
Scientific truth? NO
What I do expect to find in the bible is MORAL TRUTH-but even some of those have been revised as we've evolved as a people. We no longer condone slavery or the taking of many wives, or treating woman as property. But for those who read the Bible literally, these things are OK because they are in the Bible??
Second, of course different parts of it were "authored" at different times for different people. Just the OT from Exodus to the end covers how many centuries? It seems to me the books aren't necessarily even in chronological order.
I always thought, again, starting in my high school days, that the Bible is a series of stories designed to get you thinking about human nature and human foibles and all the virtues and vices in as many circumstances as humans can imagine. It's supposed to let you reflect on how humans relate to one another, how we view ourselves and what the relationship is between humans and God.
It's been a while since I last read it, but that's the way I saw it every time I randomly picked a place to review, especially during some long and monotonous homily.
ROFL. Best one today.
You're hoping to impress like minded people with your sophistry.
In Genesis 1, my translations render "waters" as "the deep". Not a reference to an ocean, but to an expanse of nothingness.
But you already knew that.
Not two different stories. The literary device employed is called recapitulation. Very common, but frequently misunderstood by the under- and over-educated.
Hank
Well, duh! Who doesn't know that the Bible is a LIBRARY of books? Who doesn't know that the books of the Bible were written at different times, by different people and for different audiences? Who doesn't know that this collection of books has been highly edited at different times, by different people and for different audiences?
Folks who don't know this and don't believe this have their head buried in the sand.
IMHO, understanding this about the Bible makes the Bible all that more significant and relevant to my life. If you don't read the Bible by understanding the historical and literary contexts, you're missing out of so much.
And there was MUCH disagreement with my statement. So I'm expanding my argument for discussion purposes. I couldn't give it the time and attention the other day. So I wrote this up and now folks are going to tear it down. But I'm hoping that those who disagree with me (us) might read this and begin to see the truth.
That's my point.
Because God is God and He can create light out of nothing. No fusion necessary. If God can create the universe out of nothing, what is so hard about creating light from nothing?
Here is your problem: If God did indeed create the universe as described, then He can not be modeled within that universe. You can't apply the physical constraints of time, space, even cause and effect to God.
This is so basic that anyone who fails to grasp it really can't understand science in the first place.
Touchy, touchy! :)
I meant a "new example" that I didn't include in the thread from a couple of days ago when I was arguing this point with the people I sent this current thread to. See original thread here.
I'm not taking credit for discovering this example. Sorry if it came off that way, you wouldn't understand my wording unless you were on the thread earlier this week. Mea culpa!
But how much time elapsed in between the two.
Seems to me, as under or overeducated as I'm being told I am, these say the same exact thing and are refering to the same time.
I will be back to this later..but didnt want ya to think I was ignoring you!
Bet the kids are getting excited huh?
BTW I flagged this to some knowlegable folks.
Therefore, any further comments to you regarding Biblical truth would be *pearls before swine*.
To follow a literal reading and a one author approach the different writers may just be different styles of writing when describing different sides of the same God. The text uses different names for God in the sections you highlighted and at the same time the first God is not personal, he is aloof and majestic and above everything while he creates. The "second story" God is personal anw "walks" with Adam. He is one-on-one with man. It is possible the writer switches styles and names for God as a literary device to drive home the different "faces" or natures of God.
As far as the "second creation" story being consistant with the first, the second begins with a phrase that from memory describes "In the day that (Gn 2:4b-5 ). For me this describes Day three of the first creation story. I solve the timing problem with the first story by assuming that the garden that he plants Adam in is not earth but rather heaven. I support this view by assuming that God would not be walking on earth but rather in heaven. I bring it back to the first creation story in assuming that Adam and Eve's banishment happened on day 7 of the first creation story. If you read the 2nd creration story literally, God clothed Adam and Eve with skin. It doesn't say animal skin. We assume animal skin. I believe that this reference is that God made Adam and Eve human flesh and blood where prior to that they were spiritual beings in a heavenly body.
The two creation stories are simply an overview and one that is told in greater detail. The first lays out the events chronologically, with God resting on the seventh day at the beginning of chapter 2. Then, we read about the events that took place directly in the garden, which help define the origins of God's relationship with man. To suggest that because God is depicted more personally in the second that the two accounts are somehow not reconcilable to each other is to know nothing about the nature of God found throughout scripture. He is at once Creator, Father, Warrior, Judge and Friend.
But, to be more specific about it, let's look at it this way. In Chapter one we see God created the earth and all that is on it in a certain order; then He rested on the seventh day. This is a general overview of the creation story. As I also said in the previous thread, how many of us have NOT read an historical account that gave a broad overview and then delved into some detailed events?
With regard to chapter two, we find a detailed account of the creation of man and what happened IN the garden. Yes, all the animals and plants etc had already been created OUTSIDE the garden. Then God created man and put him in the garden. But man had not witnessed God's creation of the world and had no reason to honor Him as having done so; therefore God created some plants (only those that are pleasant to the sight and that are edible) and animals, IN THE SIGHT OF MAN, to show Him who He is, to demonstrate man's authority over the animals, and to show man that there was no suitable mate for him among the animals.
Find a problem with this scenario, please. This is taken from the plain text of the Bible, no violent extrapolations, just reading what is written.
I'm reading The New American Bible.
Have you studied the midrash, the mishnah or the Talmud? Are you familiar with the commentaries of Onkelus, Rashi, Nachmanides, Abarbanel?
Nope, I haven't. Puts me in the undereducated class, right? Any links you might send my way? I'm in the lifelong process of studying God's word and trying to make sense of it. I welcome all schools of thought. I don't know how I could have studied the Talmud, midrash and mishnah unless I was at student at Yeshiva, but maybe you can sum some of the 3000 years of writings for me.
Explain why you disagree with the explanation given by these sages of the seeming contradictions you found in scripture.
Can't do that, haven't read them. But can you shed some light? I'd appreciate it. It seems people don't believe me, but I was looking for conversation and open minded discussion. I don't know everything, I'm basing my beliefs on what I've read and studied so far. So, enlighten me! :)
May the name of Yahweh be praised forever
I see you've got the literary style of sarcasm down. Don't you have anything relevant to say or add to the discussion? Do you see any validity to this theory? Or is this your way of saying you don't? I'm sorry, I'm not fluent in sarcasm.
But I'm finding this is not a popular view on FR. Oh well.
We're to believe that the author of Genesis 2 was unaware of Genesis 1 and vice-versa, or that the final editor was unaware that he was pairing the two narratives. No, it took thousands of years, and this nimrod, to point out what everyone else had missed.
Oh, and to see the dessecated corpse of the Documentary Hypothesis propped up yet again — it's almost enough to make one wax nostalgic.
But not quite.
Let me know if you have a particular question.
Agreed. As I stated in my original post, I believe all of the Bible is divinely inspired and no one writer is more important than the other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.