Bible written by different writers at different times for different people

me ^ | 12/6/01 | me

[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?

[Nyralthotep]

Few if any Jews believe the OT is literally true. Why not follow their example? They wrote it; they would know.

On what do you base your statement? Do you have poll numbers or studies to back up your supposition? Please provide or link to them. If however it's just your personal opinion you need to say that as well. If the Old Testament is untrue then the New Testament is on equal footing becasue of the numerous Old Testament scripture quoted by Jesus and Paul who obviously belived (or knew in Jesus' case) the OT to be true.

[Tribefan]

Glad to join you Weatherman!

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.

It is a bit scary that sometimes those who choose to take the time to study and learn the background, the literary styles, the historical events of the times when these books were written are criticized as not being true to their faith. I can't imagine that the Lord would damn all those who showed such interest in The Word that they would not want to know as much as possible about them. I would never criticize the true faith of those who take every word of The Bible literally. That's why I worry when people who do study it critically are criticized by those who don't. Interesting....

[kjam22]

I do understand the Analogy. I completely understand the necesity of Jesus to be born of a virgin. He was not born of Adam. Before the fall man (Adam) was created in God's image. After the fall we are created in Adam's image. And our savior came as some say "as the second adam".

And I have already said that I believe in a literal 6 day creation as told in Genesis. Do I have to repeat this phrase in every post for people to read it?

Jesus also told us of the prodigal son. Was he parable or real? It was prophisied that Jesus would come teaching in parables. Was his reference to Adam a parable... or to Adam the symbolic teaching of Genesis... or to Adam the real person?

People that agree with me that mankind is fallen and in need of a savior. That each of us have sinned. That Jesus is this Savior. Well... I'm not convinced that we need to argue with them about whether Adam was a real man or a parable. Because they understand the message.

[Cleburne]

And unliteralists (?) and those who esentialy reject portions of the Scriptures they find uncomfortable do not wish to mold God into their ideas? Come now...

[JediGirl]

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??

No argument here.

[exmarine]

First of all, do you know the definition of a true "contradiction?" (ever had a course in logic?) Look that up, then look at your example again and judge for yourself if that is a true contradiction. If you still think it is, then we can discuss it in that context - after it has been established that it is a true contradiction.

[VRWC_minion]

Interesting but I don't see where you have scriptual basis. I would think that many prophets would have often used this pre-earth as a warning etc and to my recollection there is nothing to support this.

[Patria One]

The Gilgamesh myths of Sumer predate the OT.... and those are not the oldest. Does it change God or what you know to be right? Nope. Parsing the Bible in Clinton-like fashion to look for justifications to destroy one's fellow man is not what the whole thing is about.

[Tribefan]

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??

No argument here.

Well put.....it would certainly appear that these texts were written for people of a specific time and place to provide answers and instruction for those people. That said, the divine inspiration of those words does shine through those thousands of years to provide us with the spiritual nourishment that we need.

[Weatherman123]

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.

I don't believe Moses wrote all 5 books of the Pentatuch. I believe different authors, all divinely inspired by God, wrote it at different times and at yet another time, it was compiled into the 5 books.

I believe when Genesis was written, it was written by a people who were nomadic and they picked up different bits and pieces of other cultures. They took that which made sense to them from these cultures and added what made sense to them from their own oral tradition, and wrote the creation story.

Myth: A traditional fable or legend embodying the origins of a people's idea of their God and creation.

Myth: A false story

These are both definitions of the word myth. I use it in the first sense.

I believe the creation myth is the inspired word of God (written by two different authors). My faith is based on God and his continual presence in our world.

Why am I not a good Christian if I don't believe the Pentatuch is written entirely by Moses? Why am I not a good Christian if I look at the history of our ancestors and see where and why they may have written certain parts of the Bible? Why am I not a good Christian is I don't believe Noah actually lined up the animals two by two, but that is yet another myth, an inspired story told to God's chosen people to explain some of the mystery of their lives?

Again, I'm surprised and saddened at the level of distain for me, as I'm sharing with my fellow freepers some of my beliefs I hold to during this time of my faith journey. I'm sure Jesus would not want you all to be so exclusive and unaccepting. I'm not even your enemy, yet I'm not loved in some posts. But those who use sarcasm, and nasty comments are sure they have a direct line to heaven because of what THEY believe and I'm to hell because I disagree or am searching.

This has been an eyeopener.

[WRhine]

I think that literalists and fundamentalists try to domesticate God and make him fit their understanding of reality or behave in predictable ways based on their perceptions (or aspirations) of politics or culture or tribal loyalties or whatever.

Well Put! I agree. And they (fundamentalist) do a lot of picking and choosing out of bible instead of considering the book as a whole. One thing that stands out is that they ignore much of Christ's message of forgiveness and meekness and focus on the more "fear of God" messages in the Old Testament.

[Cleburne]

Jesus made it clear when he spoke in parables and when he did not. When he spoke of the truth of Moses and the Prophets he did so in a way that made it clear that he showed them to be plain facts ,so to speak, and not in a symbolic meaning.

I', sorry if I sound a bit harsj. It just irks me a bit when folks take it uponthemselves to proffess their faith but attack Scripture as such in implicating it's fuzzy wuzzy stuff that our superior minds must somehow divide into truth and non-truth. I agree that the Bible is not meant to be approached with a simplistic state of mind, but I do not believe we are to attempt to explain away core doctrine we do not like.

[Sci Fi Guy]

***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?

1. You are assuming that light can only come from one source. Think about it for a moment. What is light? My simplistic answer: A form of energy. The Bible is saying that God created a form of energy, and then later created stars which emit the same type of energy.

2. Several years ago, I read a funny response to this question. It seems that under the BIG BANG theory. The same energy (light) is/was released, billions of years before the stars evolved.

3. I'll look for the source later, in case anyone is interested.

[exmarine]

Well said friend. In order for sin to be real, Genesis must be a true story. Period. Here is a verse for the Christian evolutionists to ponder. Jesus said:

In the beginning, God made them male and female. Mk 10:6

This blows evolution right out of the water. When was "the beginning"? Was it the beginning? hehe.

Then we have Paul's own words:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Ro. 5:12)

Jesus said it. Paul said it. Issue over.

[Weatherman123]

What kind of discussion is possible here?

There has been some good discussion on this thread. I've got links to check out, essays to read and have heard other people's point's of view. I'm not trying to "prove" anything to you or anyone. I was looking for friendly discussion.

[mad_as_he$$]

I have felt for along time that there were many contributors or transaltors for various parts of the Bible.

imo what is really needed is a completely new translations form the original text using computer technology to give the various answers to areas of gray. For example there is a guy running around saying that if you translate some New Testament slightly different (based upon dialect) Jesus may well have had a different life with Mary M. in Spain!

Now I know that many of you are upset at this suggestion but ALLLLLL of your convictions are based upon who knows how many transaltions of the Good Book by men who had an agenda.

BTW If I listen to OBL (a transaltor) I find him incredibly boring. My Arab friends tell me that his Arabic is very flowery and compelling! So point is that original understanding can be different from translated intent.

[Patria One]

Bump

[exmarine]

The Gilgamesh epic is a very poor argument. First of all, Jesus was a real man, Osiris was a myth. second, this "fertility" myth repeats the death/rising cycle over and over again every year. These are just two of the MAJOR differences with Jesus Christ. There are many more. Is this the best you can do?

[Nyralthotep]

I think that literalists and fundamentalists try to domesticate God and make him fit their understanding of reality or behave in predictable ways based on their perceptions (or aspirations) of politics or culture or tribal loyalties or whatever.

While you appear to take the Gnostic route. I am a literalist (which you seem to demean as 'unenlightened') but I in no way believe I can understand all that God is apart from what scripture reveals to us.

[kjam22]

If a person (not me) reads the first few chapters of Genesis and beleives Adam to be a parable teaching them that mankind is fallen and in need of a savior. That God created everything including us. And that mankinds problems and pights are a result of God's disobedience.... then I'm not sure it is correct to say that this person is calling the Bible an untruth.

I would say that this person understands what God wants them to understand from Genesis.

Contrast it with the person who reads it that Adam is a parable or a myth. And that the whole thing is just a good story. Just another religious interpretation of something that didn't happen.

This person didn't get the message. This person is declaring the bible an untruth.

And just for the record... let me again state that I believe in a 6 day creation as described in Genesis. But we have better things to argue about than whethere Adam was parable or not... when the outcome we believe is the same.