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?
Scripture wasn't put in written form until around 700 B. C. Before that stories were memorized. When the scribes started writing the stories down and they had different stories, they wrote both down because who were they to say one account was better than another.
The new testiment is easier. Men from several walks of life were choosen to follow Jesus and write scripture for several reasons.
Mat. a tax collector someone who would be on par today with a drug dealer or pimp.
Peter a fisherman, today would be like a construction worker.
Luke, a doctor a professional.
Each saw his relationship with Jesus in a different light and perception...and thus interpeted it differently...
The reason was to show the inclusion of Gods love, and the absence of respect for man and his personal positions.
Christians today have morphed into a sorry wimpy bunch...but not back then. By example we see that all of the 12 met with violent deaths except John (whom many believe according to his wishes still "tarries").
These men were not wimpy, cowardly or panzies...Peter carried an illegal weapon, and cut off the ear of a Roman guard when he put his hands on Jesus.
One was nicknamed "son of thunder" by Jesus due to his temper.
These were real people with all the human frailties and faults...and Jesus loved them, just like they were.
This is what you'll discover if you "seek the spirit" of the words and go beyond interpetations. The real message is found "between the words" in little hints and expressions. The gift of understanding is meant for believers... not for just readers.
In the NT Jesus is trying to reveal to us that ALL are acceptable to him. Perfection is not a requirement nor a badge. Peter, was unruley, a bit violent and short tempered, and tended to be a bit self absorbed..but he was the Rock. Paul, a former murderer and persecuter of Christians, who never met Jesus was the most prolific writer in the Bible. John, the baptist was regarded as the best of the best...but strongly lacked social graces, and tact.
The fact that Jesus was born into a middle class family of construction workers wasn't an accident...he was ment to be a man of the people...not an elite.
One notable incident in the old testiment was the sister of Moses, Meriam bitching about his brothers wife being black...God got so pissed off at her racism that he struck her with a disease for a while to get her attention.
Noah's son's wife was also black...The area where Jesus was born is inhabited by people with unusually dark skin...maybe Jesus is actually black.
The reason GOD was so indignant about racism in his people is that HE created all men, if he chose to make some darker than others, and we chastize them for their color....then we are disrespecting GOD and his creation.
There's alot in the Bible that is overlooked. The characters in the Bible tell us about ourselves. Many people use Christianity as cloak to cover their cowardice...to them I'd sugest they reread the scriptures....
The bible isn't a book of do's and don't but rather a proof of acceptance. A note telling us that we are loved and that we have value through him. He didn't make it complicated...man did.
It was fascinating. All of my required religion and philosophy classes were great. I dreaded taking them, but they were required. They ended up being the most memorable and meaningful classes I took.
My other religion and philosophy professor always made his class read an article called "The Courage of his Confusion". The premise was that any thinking human could not help but question and try to analyze his religion. It is better to admit you have some confusion and doubt and accept them and deal with them. The alternative is to have the Courage of your Convictions, which would mean you blindly accept what someone else has told you, no questions asked.
"christian skeptic" is an oxymoron. If one does not believe the bible is trustworthy, then how can one believe in Christ as the knowledge of Christ is bibilical? You are the one that is not making sense. Do you pick and choose which parts of the bible are to be believed - by your own arbitrary whim? Those denominations that deny the deity of Christ, virgin birth, atonement, are heretics as to the historic Christian faith - pure and simple. Who wants to believe in a Savior that did not Resurrect (like Spong, Jesus Seminar)? This destroys justification - the central sine qua non tenet of Christianity. To deny this is to deny Christianity. In this case, you can call it what you want, just don't call it Christianity. CAll it something else.
I am well aware of Shelby Spong and his teachings and opinions. Some make sense, others don't.
Spong is an apostate. He denies miracles adn the Resurrection. Might as well deny God in this case. He is a mere reprobate deist. He certainly is no Christian.
The problem is that they refuse to examine other faiths and beliefs, and lack the courage and/or intellectual horsepower to re-assess their own faith or beliefs when they run contrary to common sense or experience.
My specialities are philosophy and history. I have examined my faith thoroughly and am not afraid to defend it. Logic and reason (esp. the TAG argument) easily destroy atheism - care to defend it? The argument from Morality also destroys atheism. Care to defend relativism? On the other hand, historiography validates Christianity. The Jesus Seminar, et al. base their beliefs on NOTHING BUT THEIR OWN WHIMS. They deny historical evidence and make up their own. They are a laughing stock amongst real scholars - - and so is Spong. I heard a debate between Crossan and W. L. Craig - Crossan was pitifully mauled.
Historical facts? NO Scientific truth? NO
You need to take another look at the Bible. The first part of Genesis is not history, but many other parts of the Bible are strictly historical. There are many archaelogical digs which have confirmed Bible people, places, and facts.
The Bible was thought for many years to be wrong because they could not find the Hittite people which are mentioned in the OT. Then they found the Hittite city and their civilization buried under another city during excavation. It turned out the Bible was correct.
Some parts are intended to be historical, some are not. It takes some discernment to figure it out but that's not unusual, everyone has to use discernment to get through a day at work, much less read the Bible. People often have expectations for the Bible that are not reasonable, i.e., they expect people back in the OT to be different than they are today when they write history.
Here's my two cents:
The story of the creation of man in Genesis is vital to the Christian understanding of sin, as others on this thread have pointed out. It makes little difference to our salvation exactly how the earth was created--i.e., the sequence of events, the exact amount of time it took, etc.--so there is room for disagreement on these points. It also doesn't matter if different writers put together Genesis, so long as the general idea of man's creation there is accurate. The important question here is how man was created--whether it be in the general manner described in Genesis, or if it is closer to the manner described in Darwin's Decent of Man.
The Genesis description of man's creation makes it clear that man came from a higher source, from which he later fell through sin against the Creator. This presented the need for a Savior to redeem mankind, to enable a repentant individual to be restored to a state acceptable to God.
The Darwin theory, on the other hand, describes man as descending from a lower source, from which he continues to rise above through a long process. Man is therefore always improving from his original state, and had no fall. He also owes the credit of his own creation to the animals, not to God directly.
It follows that only those beings directly created by God owe him their primary allegiance. If man evolved from a lower form (an animal), and not a higher form (God), it would seem his first duty is to serve that lower form. Sin, if there be such a thing in these circumstances, would be the dishonoring the animals instead of disobeying to God--that is, if there is such a thing as God.
While the Genesis account requires one to believe in and serve God, the evolutionary theory has no such requirement. Evolution, in theory, could stand on its own without divine participation. No God is necessary to it.
But even if one argues that evolution is fact and God exists, he is left with the difficult task of explaining how or even if sin entered the world.
That is why the description in Genesis is so important to Christianity.
Oh, I see, we only get to split the hairs you want to split?
Listen, just because something is literally true doesn't mean it contains every last piece of information pertaining to the subject. That doesn't make it a myth.
And looking down your nose at hundreds of years of Jewish history doesn't make you smart. The fact that these people didn't have televisions and automobiles doesn't make them stupid.
Besides all that, you are just manufacturing this stuff out of whole cloth. I could write a treatise on interstellar propulsion, it wouldn't mean anything, but I could write it.
You are spouting nonsense because it impresses you, and can't understand why so many people think you are an arrogant jerk. All you are doing is fantasizing. You have zero basis for believing anything you say beyond the fact that you want to believe it.
Are you contending you have something new to add? The O.T. doesn't exactly have "authors". It is a compilation of stories which were finally written down around 700 B. C. As these stories were sacred, the scribes wrote them as recited.
Actually, the words used in the Old Testament for Adam and Eve can refer in a generic sense to a man and woman specifically or to men and women generally, much as our language can be ambiguous in usage.
these desert people had nothing else to do! They looked at the moon, and the sun. They sat around and philosofised, about the meanings of things. They did some majic tricks, they took some helusinating drugs!!! At the end, there was these books that are essentially stolen ideas from the ancient Egyptians.
Just get a christmas tree, and an easter chocolet bunny, and be happy.
If that is true, where are the women libs, and the blacks, and the retards! they should be protesting 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.