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?
Excellent post! And you are exactly correct as we read in the Revelation to John
22:1And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
22:2In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.
22:3And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
22:4And they shall see his face; and his name [shall be] in their foreheads.
22:5And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
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.
As a matter of fact... the message is the same. If a person reads it and believe Adam is a parable teaching us that mankind has fallen. And this person reads and believes that we are all fallen because of the state of mankind as described after the fall. The message is the same.
Myself... I believe it literally. But those that accept the same outcome that I accept... well there are a lot of more things more important to argue about. Those that accept man's fallen state whether through parable or literal Adam still accept man's fallen state.
In sum, if you proffess to be a Christian, ie saved by Christ in the most literal sense of the meaning, it is my opinion, and I think Scripture and simple reasoning back me up here, that in order to accept salvation and Jesus, you must accept original sin coming ffrom the first humans. This game of lets play cut and paste with the Scriptures is absurb. How am I to discern what is truth and what is not? Is salvation truth? How can you prove it is and other portions are not? Do you merely discount supernatural accounts? Do you stick only to the parts you like?
One side includes those who see that the study allows people to make their faith greater, to see for instance the beauty and reality of the stories of the Israelites as they escaped from bondage in Egypt.
However, then there are the people who find it safer to retreat to the "safe" interpretations, who are scared (and I can certainly understand the fear) to "kick the tires" (as a best friend of mine likes to say) and see the whole story. I pray that all have the opportunity to "kick the tires" a bit - spoken from personal experience, it is so worthwhile!
I have to confess that I'm surprised that by bringing up this theory I'm being told that I'm not a real Christian. That anyone who studies the Bible in one way can't really believe in God. I thought other Christians would be more tolerant. It saddens me.
Actually... in order to accept Christ Jesus salvation you must admit your own sin. I don't blame my sins on Adam. Paul tells us we are born with a sinful nature. But we are all guilty of our own sins. For all have Sined and fallen short of the glory of God. Because the truth is that if Adam hadn't sinned I would have. And so would each of us.
I have a very similar view as you about the bible. It is amazing to me how the fundamentalists reduce God down to something of a fire breathing Zeus-like character that sits in a throne in heaven and is consumed by damning and praising people here on earth. My belief is that God is an infinite mind and of infinite existence that is, yes, well beyond our comprehension.
I don't believe God will rest until his creation is complete and its not complete until day 7 where he says "its very good". Genesis one is described as the generations of the heavens and the earth. In my literal mind it describes ALL of those generations from beginning to end and the seven days are from God's view point.
I'll way in, but just briefly. I was told by an old acquaintenance of this, and he told that it was speculated, AND IT'S ONLY SPECULATION, there two different creations are being refered to.
One for a pre-existance Earth where Satan met his downfall, and the one for the current Earth as we know it. It is speculated, and please see the word "speculation", that the fall of satan as told in the Old Testament took place on a pre-existant Earth. It was destroyed and awaited to be made anew by the Lord God. It's called the "Gap Theory."
If anyone else has heard of this let me know through this discussion or private reply. I'd like to find out if anyone else has heard of this.
I'll way in, but just briefly. I was told by an old acquaintenance of this, and he told that it was speculated, AND IT'S ONLY SPECULATION, there two different creations are being refered to.
One for a pre-existance Earth where Satan met his downfall, and the one for the current Earth as we know it. It is speculated, and please see the word "speculation", that the fall of satan as told in the Old Testament took place on a pre-existant Earth. It was destroyed and awaited to be made anew by the Lord God. It's called the "Gap Theory."
If anyone else has heard of this let me know through this discussion or private reply. I'd like to find out if anyone else has heard of this.
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.