Bible written by different writers at different times for different people

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, 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?

I don't believe God created the universe as described. I believe the creation story is a myth that helped people understand the beginning of time, the world, and human kind. Of course you can't apply physical contraints to God. The one thing I DO KNOW about God is that he is beyond my comprehension and beyond the comprehension of any mortal.

If you believe the bible is a collection of myths and fables, how do you know anything about God? If you believe the bible is a book of myths, then you either believe God had nothing to do with it, or you believe that God is a liar.

Which is it?

This is arrogant. How do you know how God created the universe ? In addition, if you agree that the Bible was inspired by God and if God is all powerfull, why would he let his story be told in error ?

The key is that we don't know how God created the universe. Wouldn't it be just as reasonable that since we can't fully comprhend Creation, that God would inspire the writers to give their people the stories in terms that they could understand?

Oops! Someone used the 'M' word...
To a layman a myth is something false, untrue, believed by people who don't
know any better because they don't have the scientific, rational explanation.

To one who studies culture, a myth is a culture's explanation of what IS, and
there is no inherent judgement of truth or untruth. The scholarly texts use
word 'myth' in the expectation that readers will understand that the word
is jargon in a particular field, but unfortunately it sometimes gets out to
rest of us who aren't familair with the jargon. The creation/genesis myth
of our own culture is the 'big bang theory'.

We look to science to answer
the questions of how we and our environment came to be as we are now, even
as science is unable to tell us the 'why' or whether life has any meaning.

So why dissect and analyse the text? In reading between the lines in the old
texts are we discovering minutia or important things?

Do we think that the purpose and teaching the bible has been misunderstood
and misrepresented for thousands of years, and can only be recovered or
exhumed by modern textual analysis?

When we try to reach across the chasm of time, the chasm
between civilisations, the chasm between differing literary traditions, and
the chasm of language to judge when and where the author wrote, with what
purposes, under what influences, and what vanished documents she used, is
our purpose merely to find some excuse to sweep the old stuff under the rug
and ignore it -- as we do the texts of the other ancient near eastern
civilisations?

Do we ask with Walter Percy why there are no Hittites on the streets of
Manhattan?

***I use the word myth in relation to the creation story ONLY. I'm NOT saying the entire Bible is myth. Why can't you folks see that. ***

All you've shared with us in your beginning comments was *myth*. So, how are we to know anything different than what you tell us?

So, only *parts* of the Bible are myth? Try again.

This is a moronic argument for many reasons.

First, you are reading the english which is a translation many times removed from the Hebrew. Even assuming it was translated directly from Hebrew, it is still wrong, for Gen 1.1 does not say "When God Created", it merely says "In the Beginning, God created" - there is no "when" in there.

Gen 1.2 says "..the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters". So there was water. In fact, the waters were already IN THE PROCESS of being created. Gen 1.6 "Let there be a firmament between the waters and the waters" -- this firmament refers to Heaven, not earth. Although, there were waters -- the waters of heaven and the waters of earth.

Just because there was no rain (on the land) it doesn't mean there was no water. The water was already there -- Gen 1.9 and 1.10 -- he created DRY LAND by gathering the waters to let the "dry land appear".

My mind is made up on the subject of Genesis being science. It's not.

Based on? We know scientific facts that were not understood when these stories were written.

Such as?

I find there is NO positive way to say that either evolution or creation is true. There is no one who can say so because no one was present when it happened. I do believe that science and the Bilbe do not need to be at odds. I also know many scientists are athiests and bring that baggage with them in their theories and hypothesises. I have looked at the scientific facts supporting creation and I have found them to be very persuasive. I have looked as well at the many evolutionary fabrications that at one time were presented as fact.

My mind is made up on the subject of Genesis being science. It's not.
See how open minded I am?

As a matter of fact, I do. I think that no matter what is posted here, you will maintain your original conclusions. IMO if parts of the bible are 'myth' and other parts are true than I think you are telling me that you are interpreting the Bible through science in your effort to portray the creation story as a myth. Many do this on the false premise that science is somehow 'unbiased' which it isn't. I have done a lot of studying on creationism and I do believe Genesis is true and so do quite a few PhD's in scientific fields, it was 600+, I think it's more now.

In my view, the Bible is a divinely-inspired collection of stories, some with more historical fact than others. Why are we so afraid to dig deeper than the written text and find out the historical perspective, the audiences that the books were written for? I've found that it makes for a much more beautiful faith when you strip the necessity to make everything fit into nice, pretty boxes and accept the hard fact that the Bible brings so many rich, rewarding yet sometimes different and contradictory points together! What a beautiful text - we shouldn't be afraid of learning what's behind it!

Since you seem to consider the Bible a fairy tale, I find your closing very humorous:

I'm trying so hard not to get pissed off at the level of deliberate misunderstanding by those who disagree with my opinion, but it's getting harder and harder.

Tell me where I said the Bible is a fairy tale. I believe the creation story is a MYTH. The creation story is just one of many parts of the Bible. But you deliberately misunderstand me. If that makes you feel better, go ahead.

What you're hoping for is a pleasant opportunity to attack the truth of the Bible in a chatty way.

You're dead wrong. But you'll never see that or even come close to admitting it. I'm not looking to attack anything. There is only one truth of the Bible, is that it? If you believe this, I'm just flabbergasted at your unwillingness to delve into the Word of the Lord, his Spirit made Word, otherwise known as the Bible. Do you believe that only people who think like you are going to heaven? Is Jesus that exclusive? I doubt the tax collector, the prostitute or the widow thought so.

Of course, someday you'll die and it won't be so funny or clever when you finally find out, much too late, that God is not Mother Goose after all.

Never said God was. Again, the level of sarcasm and nasty behavior on behalf of you so called Christians just astounds me.

I also remember reading about "D" (the Deuteronomist) adding in a bit, and that "R" (the Redactist...or editor) was the poor guy who had to take the various texts and make them more "PC" when north rejoined with south. (On one side Moses was the hero....the other prefered Aaron, and R had to make 'em jive. I think he also worked on the 2 beasts vs. 7 beasts and other problems of the Flood tale) .

Its been awhile since I read this, so, of course, I could be completely wrong. :-)

As for "God" and "The Lord" this is plain as day. Gen 1.1 uses the word GOD, while gen 2 starts the usage of the word "The Lord". "God" implies Judgement, while "The Lord" implies Mercy. There are many names for God, each with different implications. What this means is that 'God' created the heavens and the earth using Judgement (He saw that it was Good). Later, when he created man, he balanced this judgement with Mercy. He perceived that the world could survive on Justice alone (Rashi).

The phrase "not yet" appears several times in the bible. Gen 2.5 "And every shrub of the field was not yet in the earth and every shrub...had not yet sprung up" shows that they had been created, but were not yet above the surface of the ground... like germinating seeds.

You are trying to create an issue where one doesn't exist. The "two" accounts of creation in Genesis are of the same events. The first, obviously, is a chronological account. The second focuses on man as the pinnacle of God's creation. These are the same events, just told from a different perspective. You find the same thing in the New Testament. The gospels basically tell the same story but focus on different details. As far as your assumption that different theologies of God are presented, I have no idea how you are arriving at that conclusion. The entire Bible is full of different descriptions of God. Some focus on the human qualities, others on the kingly qualities, others on the servant qualities, and so on. All, however, point to one God.

Whether literal or symbolic... the message is the same. Whether his name was Adam or George makes no difference. What matters is that God has used Genesis to tell us of our state, our relationship with him. Did he use actual events to tell us.... or did he use a parable about Adam and Eve makes no difference. The reality is He has told us of our state and prepared a way of reconciliation.

Personally, I believe in a literal reading of Genesis. But the outcome is the same either way.

. Wouldn't it be just as reasonable that since we can't fully comprhend Creation, that God would inspire the writers to give their people the stories in terms that they could understand?

I spent some time thinking about that question and it leads to some interesting assumptions and conclusions.

1. The story will be read by generations of people who have various theories about how the world was created. ie. It needs to be relevant to todays scientists as well those hundreds and thousands of years ago.

2. If he was too specific he runs the risk of giving us too much dangerous information and he runs the risk having the story be dismissed by every arrogant generation that knows better.

3. If he is too general he loses the awe inspiring effect that its had on so many generations.

It needs to stay relevant throughout the ages, it needs to be correct, it needs to be specific yet general, and it needs to set the foundation for all of the theology that follows for both Judaism and Christianity.

And oh yes, in 500 words or less.

And the message is this...

I agree with you. The important thing is not whether it happened or not but what it means. And what it means to me, all of it, is that there is a God, who is beyond my comprehension, who loves me and the rest of the world, who sent his only son to die for my sins and walks with me always.

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.