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?

[exmarine]

Jesus said it. Paul said it. Issue over . Did you hear them say it?

My post was directed at so-called "christian evolutionists." If you are not one of these, then it is silly for you to respond. I don't care what your opinion is if you do not fall into this category. I am only interested in setting the record straight with misquided believers.

[kjam22]

Myth has several definitions. But it has a widly accepted conotation. And that conotation involves falsehood. Story that isn't true. You should choose a word that doesn't throw up so many red flags.

I pray that you will know the truth of Genesis.

[Cleburne]

Well then, what do you believe about these "myths"? If they are inspired of God, what precisely is their purpose? To give a basic framing of the creation of the universe? Do you accept a belief that there was a six day act of creation, and that there was an Adam and Eve that sinned? Granted, I would agree that the creaion story is sparse on details, as is most of the first portion of Genesis (I do not believe myself that the genealogies are to be taken as complete-see, I'm not quite as rigid as I sound!), but this doesn't give me cause to discount the whole thing as merely symbolic. If nothing else, I owuld say that the parts Jesus alluded to must be taken as pure truth, and not symbolism-wouldn't you?

BTW, what is your idea for the age of the earth?

[exmarine]

I've seen these arguments before - many times. The fact is that these do not represent true contradictions, just different pieces and points of view of the same account. There is a huge difference between an "apparent" contradiction and a "true" contradiction. Think about that.

[Jeremiah Jr]

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?

... The Talmud says the following: HaShem made this light - a certain type of light. It was too penetrating. So He only let it last for thirty-six hours. And after thirty-six hours He took it away and hid it for sometime in the future that has not yet come. And He replaced it with a weaker merely physical aspect of that light. But that as long as that light was there, for those thirty-six hours, Adam by means of that light was able to see from one end of the world to the other, and from the beginning of time to the end of time. So that light was the light of total understanding. Isn't that what light signifies? The Talmud says anytime that the word "light" is used anyway in the Torah or Rabbinic text "light" always means knowledge and wisdom and understanding.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin

Now on to the New Covenant...

John 1


The Eternal Word


Testimony of John the Baptist
¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ²He was in the beginning with God. ³All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. ⁴In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. ⁵And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.


John's Witness: The True Light
⁶ There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. ⁷This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. ⁸He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. ⁹That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

1 John starts off much the same way. It must be very important to him.

1 John 1


What Was Heard, Seen, and Touched


Fellowship with the Father and the Son
¹ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life-- ²the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- ³that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. ⁴And these things we write to you that your joy may be full.


Fellowship with Him and One Another
⁵ This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.

In the beginning was Yeshua Ha'Maschiach
Jesus the Messiah

\\\\|////

[Cleburne]

One could also take into account translation faults and difficulties, but this opens up a whole new facet of argument. At any rate, as I heard it from another "Bible literalist", the original manuscript contained no error. Whether or not individual translations are 100 percent perfect is obvious: most have some error, some more than others. But, I should note, the truth found within is not marred by these usually minor translation problems-the Word remains very close to what it started out as. Incredibly so if you consider the difficult times it has run into. Very few books even remain in cirrculation three thousand years after being written!

[kjam22]

Then you do not understand the anology Jesus made: just as there was the first Adam, the sinful one, that plunged mankind into sin (by the act of one man, that is important) there must be a second Adam, a perfect one, that will brinf mankind out of the curse the first Adam placed upon us. Again, do yuo think Jesus lied when he spoke of Adam and a literal creation? If you choose to interpret his words as soemthing else, where do you stop?

Could you point me to the reference (book and chapter would be fine) that you got this from.

Thanks

[WRhine]

Fair enough. Whether or not we decide to agree on the merits of deeper theologic issues, I'm glad to knwo you at least accept a belief in an Intelligent Agent as Newton put it.

My thinking on this is that the burden of proof for Atheists to prove there is no God is far greater than the burden of proof for the believers. I mean, what is the meaning of existence at all if there is no afterlife? Or, what difference does it make if at the end of the universe, when all life is dead, that any life existed before? The idea of continuous life makes far more sense and adds meaning to our existence on earth.

[exmarine]

yawn. No, they are not genuine contradictions. Period. I don't have time in this forum to demonstrate to you that each one you listed is NOT a genuine contradiction. You will simply have to investigate honestly and openly for yourself...if you think you are capable of doing so. If you want to hang on to your false ideas and false assertions, that is your business. I would bet that you, like 99% of all skeptics, have never even read the bible.

[Marysecretary]

It was ALL written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Period. Doesn't matter who put the words down.

[Cleburne]

The Atheist must face two massive hurtles: he must explain how matter came from nothing, on its own, using force that arrived from nothing, propelled by laws that came from nothing, and driven by nothing! He must then explain how life, complex life (there is no such thing as "simple cells") came from non-living matter. Even if he could prove organic building blocks could have originated (so far the theories on this are laughable), he can not prove nor demonstrate how life arose from these non-living molecules. So far, his efforts to explain how something came from nothing have amounted to little more than nothing! (hey that rymes!) I do not see how it will stand the face of time-it is bound to die without any greater evidence.

[Marysecretary]

Very good analysis, agrace. That's the way I learned it, too.

[Redcloak]

You're being hampered a bit by the fact that your reading an English translation of a Hebrew text. Some of the idioms don't translate well. For instance in your 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?

The word translated as "waters" in Gen 1:2 can also be rendered as "vapors". (Which strikes me as how one might describe the nebula out of which the solar system was formed, by the way.) There is no contradiction here nor any need to suppose a second writer.

Also from your examples...

---In the first, God is called "God".

---In the second, God is called "the LORD".

The word translated as "God" is "Elohim"; literally "Gods". (The Jews have always understood this use of the plural to describe God to be "qualitative" rather than "quantitative". To Christians, this use of the plural and the traditional Jewish understanding of its use are suggestive of the nature of the Trinity.) The phrase "The Lord" is used whenever the name of God appears in the original text. Again, no contradiction nor evidence of a second writer.

Your basic premise, however, is correct. Different writers at different times wrote the various books. But the writers' works aren't intermingled as you suggest.

[exmarine]

Excellent post (your #214).

[exmarine]

Many atheists and skeptics and heretics also claim to be well-schooled in the bible. The problem is they learned everything they know in apostate seminaries, from other heretics, or simply attuned the bible to their own unfounded biases and presuppositions. Atheists, skeptics, etc. exercise their own brand of "faith". I offer the Jesus Seminar as one prime example, and Bishp Shelby Spong - the apostate heretic from one of the mainline apostate heretic churches.

Since you are well schooled in the bible, you must know that truth in scripture is discerned spiritually:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. 1Cor 2:14

God has blinded the eyes of the rest. Which are you?

[slimer]

This Needs a Knowledgeable Response

[Redcloak]

Thanks. The Weatherman123's question is an interesting one. As I've been involved in prior discussions on Biblical interpretations here on FR, I thought that I ought to weigh in. These "contradictions" need to be explained whenever someone brings them up. Left unanswered, they confuse believers and allow non-believers to imagine a reason to ignore the Gospel. A Christian thus has a duty to understand what the text is saying and to explain it when asked to do so. Just saying "The Bible says so" isn't enough; especially if a non-believer is asking the questions.

[Uri’el-2012]

As far as I know , there are three strata of source material for genesis; J, E, and P. J consistently refers to the creator's personal name Yahweh. It is translated in english as Lord, but that is incorrect. The name Yahweh does not carry the meaning lord. This is a later addition. The J source is the oldest. The Elohist source I believe is next, and has its origins in the northern kingdom. Elohim is used in place of Yahweh, and there are various theories as to why this is. P, I believe is the most recent of the three sources. It is believed that all three derive from a common sourceof which we have no specimens. That would make J the closest to the inspired scriptures as pertains to Genesis.
May the name of Yahweh be praised forever
43 posted on 12/6/01 9:18 AM Mountain by Emmanual_Goldstein16

My L-rd, Y'shua HaMashiach must never have heard of the documentary hypothesis
as He stated that Moses wrote the Torah.

Tehillim (Psalm) 119:105 Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.

XeniaSt