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 believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

But you consider the account of that creation a myth. I guess I wonder what your faith rests on..if not on the word of God

but it wouldn't it be nice if we could all stretch our minds and move from the literal translation of every single passage of every single book and understand that the important points are not exactly what happened, down to the smallest detail.

When I read this kind of statement it reminds me of something the liberals always call for when they want something done their way: 'Bi-partisanship'. What it really means is that you want us to open our minds to accomodate your belief but you will not do likewise.

I was required to take 6 hours of Religion in college. One of my classes was genesis, a verse by verse dissection of Genesis. We used the Anchor Bible series book on Genesis and another book about Genesis.

The easiest part of the test was picking out the author. (P) for Priestly used "Lord" (or El--- ?) , was stricter, a little anal, and always gave the long X begat Y genealogies. (J) for Yahwehist (SP?) always used "God" (or Yahweh), and gave a more artful account of events. Then there was the occaisional (R) Redactor. He was a little harder to pick out, as his job was to blend the two stories together.

I was fascinated, but many of the Christian Ed majors dropped out.

Sorry, meant to say the world could NOT survive on Justice alone.

It is a common mistake to think that the order listed is the order of Creation. This is not true, because "In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth" and "The spirit of God hovered over the waters" implies, obviously, that the waters were already being created.

The phrase "in the beginning" is used often in scripture... it does not mean "At first". It means in the beginning of creating -- not necessarily chronological. You need the context of the remaining text to figure out the order.

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.

I agree with this statement.... but I would add.... and that this same God created the universe, and me. That I didn't just climb up out of the pond on my own accord... because the Genesis message is among other things that I was created by design.

I did not miss your point...read my post again. I merely said your argument was strong until you attempted to prove the existence of sin through the confession of it by Catholics. Sin exists and Christ atoned for it. Did you miss that line in my post? I was trying to support your premise and the progression of your argument. It seemed that the last phrase did nothing to prove the existence of sin because many aren't Catholic and either confess to the LORD directly or do not confess their sin at all. IN short...I AGREED WITH YOU AND got flamed lol

Good to see you Tribefan! Took you long enough!

Isn't it a sign of a deeper, more closely-held faith, when we attempt to learn as much as possible about those who have gone before us? Isn't God's story of creation even more incredible when we realize that our mere words cannot describe it accurately?

Yes.

No flames from me, my friend (grin). But I would like to offer comments.

First, God needs no sun in order to have light. In fact, God Himself is light.

Second, one runs into problems in saying that Adam and Eve were mythical figures. Genesis (if I remember correctly) lists a genealogy from Adam to Abraham. Then, Matthew lists a genealogy from Abraham to Christ. So, if Adam really is a myth, where does the mythical person end and the real person begin. Also, a mythical Adam destroys Paul's arguments in Romans 5.

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

Your theology is seriously flawed friend. If original sin is not real, did God just make it up? Did God just one day say - I have decided that man has fallen and will be sinful from now on, and I will make up this fake story to support it? Did God just on a whim decide to make people with "innate sin natures" or as Paul the Apostle said, do we get them from Adam? (REad romans 5:12)

Why did Paul believe Adam was real and that original sin was real? I think you need to get on your knees and ask God to show you the Truth - then you should pick up your bible and allow the Holy Spirit to teach you.

But you consider the account of that creation a myth. I guess I wonder what your faith rests on..if not on the word of God

You know.... I accept the literal 6 day creation. But I know Christians who believe each day represents 1000 years because of what Peter said.... etc. To a person who tells me they think that creation is a parable or is symbolic, and that they accept the fact that God created the universe and each of us. I tell them that I think they pretty much understand what the Bible is teaching us in Genesis 1. To those that say it is a myth and doesn't represent what really happened.... I pray earnestly for them.

I fail to see how this supposed second creation story is interpreted as such. It is not another creation acount: it is the forming of the Garden of Eden. It does not speak of some different version of creation of the world, nor does it add on details to said creation, it is a creation story only in that it details the creation if you will of the Garden of Eden. Whether you wish to see Eden as some kind of wavy story detailing some good moral (and thus disavow the entire Bible and salvation) is fine with me, but lets not pretend its another creation story, shall we?

I think you and Kjam should look up the word "truth" in the dictionary. Truth is based on actual facts. The truth exists whether you believe it or not as it is independent of belief. What is being espoused on this thread is nothing more than relativistic heresy.

You keep missing the part where I state that I believe in a literal interpretation.... I assume you are just missing that part.

But to the person who says that they read Genesis and decide that Mankind is fallen because of mankind's own choices (same as I stated earlier). I say they are exactly correct.

To a person who tells me they think that creation is a parable or is symbolic, and that they accept the fact that God created the universe and each of us. I tell them that I think they pretty much understand what the Bible is teaching us in Genesis

I think your understanding is seriously lacking. Seek the truth and you shall find it. Do you want to know the truth or do you want to hang on to your flawed understanding?

No, I am holding you to your own words:

Whether literal or symbolic... the message is the same.

This is a damnable lie. It's not the same as I have pointed out ad nauseum.

Give me an example of a bonafide contradiction. If you don't know why it is important that the bible not have contradictions, then this may be a waste of time. Do you really want to know why, or is it important that you cling to your opinion regardless of the facts?

Exodus 2:18 - "When they returned to their father Reuel"
Exodus 3:1 - "Meanwhile Moses was tending the flock of his father-in-law Jethro"
How did Moses' father-in-law's name change in three paragraphs?

You can point out numerous "contradictions", if they must be called that. However, instead of looking at these as making the Bible "less than perfect", they are simply differences that come from separate writers who are recording traditions that have been passed down for hundreds of years.

I hope that people can understand that these contradictions do not at all diminish the the beauty, importance and life-giving value of God's Word. It in fact makes it deeper in that it can change and be adaptable to different people depending upon their circumstances and background.

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.