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?

Contradict -to imply the opposite or a denial of

OK, so different names are not contradictions? You can play word games all you want and look at individual lines of the Bible and find many contradictions. I repeat strongly, that in no way does that diminish in my mind, the messages that the different writers and God were giving to his people. It, in fact, makes them more meaningful in that they spoke directly to the people.

I repeat also my original question. If you were to find one true contradiction in the Bible would that destroy your faith?

The Moses story may have also been an allegory (or compliation of earlier myths) as after 100 years of real hard looking, there is zero evidence that there were any Israelites in Goshen and zero evidence that the Israelites were ever enslaved to build the pyramids.

I'm sure Jesus would not want you all to be so exclusive and unaccepting

Jesus proclaimed himself to be the only way. He was very narrow and exclusive. Granted, he reached out to people from every possible class and level of life, but he did not tell them to bring their beliefs and jump on the melting pot theology wagon! He stated plainly that the truth was quite narrow, and that he was the only way to God. He did not have "tolerance" for other religions-he did not try to stamp them out of course, but he did not say that those of other faiths were going to be saved!

Now, it is grand that you accept some kind of creator God, but will you accept that he has given any kind of revelation to humanity? Or do you believe he esentially reveals himself only though nature?

I believe that God intervenes in our affairs when mankind needs a nudge to avert events that may lead to our extinction. The life and message of Christ I believe is that kind of intervention. I also believe that God is revealed through scientific discoveries in nature.

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.

I don't believe the Bible is a collection of myths and fables. You misread me (again) I believe the creation story is a myth. Not an untrue story, but an attempt to make sense of the world around them. You do understand there is more than one definition of the word myth, right?

Which is it?

Once again, I believe the Bible is a collection of books, written by different people, at different times, all divinely inspired by God.

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

No need to try again, I meant what I said: Only parts of the Bible are myth. Go look up the word in your dictionary. I'm not using myth to mean false story. Do you agree parts of the Bible are poetry? Why can't parts be myth?

You are trying to create an issue where one doesn't exist.

No, really, I'm not trying to create an issue. I'm trying to give an example as to why I believe there were 4 different authors of the Pentatuch. That's it.

"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?"

If you believe that God created everything out of nothing, then why is it difficult to believe that God could create light without a source that is apparent to us?

Creation myth(s)? These might just be words that come back to haunt you. As for me, and my house, we believe that the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses, and that they contain the inspired and innerant Word of God.

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..

And I agree with this statement. When I was agnostic, I asked a priest to prove the God exists to me. He asked me if I ever saw the sunrise, or hear a baby laugh, or ever fall in love. Now I can't look at anything and NOT see the hand of God in it. All of this didn't just happen, God made it happen.

In regards to the 2 creation stories. It is a literary style. First is a brief account of the creation of the universe in general, followed by the earth's creation in detail.

If you look at the book of Daniel, you will see a similar style. Chapter one contains a general summary, while chapter two and following provides highly detailed accounts of what happened.

A couple of personal notes. When we talk about reading the Bible literally. We don't mean in a wooded fashion (i.e. taking figures of speech literally), but we mean we try to find the author's intent.

Also It's my understanding that the Multi Y,J,P E authorship theory is no longer widely held in scholarship circles. (sorry, I cann't provide you with sources, I'm in the process of relocating so all my books/sources are packed up.) You might want to do some studies to see what current views are?

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

Good point! I like that and it makes sense to me. Thanks.

Second, one runs into problems in saying that Adam and Eve were mythical figures

Just a bit of levity here, but did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

Contradict -to imply the opposite or a denial of

It's not a word game -it's simple logic. Here is a rough definition: Opposing propositions "A" and "B" cannot both be true in the same sense and in the same relationship. This is the Law of Non-Contradiction. It is this same Law that mandates that both the god of islam and Jesus Christ cannot BOTH be real (someone please tell George Bush).

To answer your question, no it would not destroy my faith. I claim that the Word of God is inerrant in its original autographs. There have been copying errors, but they are minor.

But if you claim there are contradictions, the burden of proof is on YOU to provide the irrefutable evidence.

The Bible is open to moralisation, but I like to think I am Jesus Christ moralising liberals ... just to see how open liberals are of eccentricity... well, it happens my Bible is much better at tolerance than they are in this area.

Can you show that what is written in the book of John and the book or Romans does not represent what was said by Jesus and Paul? If it isn't, why read the bible at all - this would mean none of it can be trusted. So why believe in Christ at all? Try to think through these issues logically.

A general rule of historicity: Give the benefit of the doubt to the historical writer. It is wrong for a historian (or uneducated critic) to arrogate to himself the historical truth without any evidence that the historical writer did not speak truthfully. This is what you are doing if you claim that the texts are not accurate in quoting Jesus and Paul.

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.

Myth has more than one definition. You named both of them. I believe the first, that the creation story is a myth/fable/legend that explains how God created the universe and humankind. But you may still pray for me! :)

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.