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?
First of all, you should direct your question to someone who believes the bible is accurate. The bible says that Cain married one of the "women of Nod". Obviously, Adam and Eve lived to be 900 years old and had numerous children, who in turn, had numerous children. Thus, Cain married a relative - probably a distant cousin. Next question.
Earlier I stated that we fundamentalists shouldn't argue with or flame those who contend that maybe Adam was a parable.... if they still understand through the "parable" that the message from God is this-- God created us, mankind has fallen by choice, mankind needs a savior, man suffers dies and is in pain because of his fallen state, and that Jesus is this savior. Boy was I flamed (although not the first time).
I will give you that it is remotely possible, but highly improbable. I am granting a slight margin of possibility because nowhere does the Bible state unequivocally that Moses is the author of Genesis. HOWEVER, there are multiple references, OT and NT, which state that he in fact did author the exodus story and the rest of the law.
Now to why I consider it highly improbable. You know this but bear with me. The Jews separate their Tanakh into 3 groupings - the Law, the Prophets and the Writings (the Psalms). The Law, or Torah, encompasses the first five books, including of course Genesis. Jesus refers to Moses and the Law interchangably, and He Himself refers to the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms as 3 separate groupings. Good example of attributing the authorship of Moses to the Law -
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
The most obvious response to that is that Jesus somehow meant only the law specifically as found in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy etc. The problem with that is that there is no other author ever mentioned by anyone with regard to the other parts of the Torah. And the authorship of the rest of the OT is reasonably self-evident. I believe that if there were another author, his name would have been noted in some regard, if for no other reason than the sheer importance of the book of Genesis - there is so much packed into it - the creation, the fall, God's relationship with man, the flood, His covenant with Abraham, the sacrificial model of Isaac, the families of Jacob, the life of Joseph which led the Israelites into Egypt. But rather, we have only Moses as the first author.
In your last post to me you wrote
I don't believe it's the same writer. I (and many others) can hear two distinct voices. Not just in Genesis, but through out the Pentatuch. But your scenario makes sense as well, if you don't believe in the theory of mutliple writers.
If Jesus Himself attributed the Pentateuch to Moses, how can you get around his authorship?
Mark 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Some other examples -
Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
Deuteronomy 31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished.
Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
Joshua 8:34 And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law.
35 There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them.
Malachi 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
In your original post in the other thread you wrote
Well, duh! Who doesn't know that the Bible is a LIBRARY of books? Who doesn't know that the books of the Bible were written at different times, by different people and for different audiences? Who doesn't know that this collection of books has been highly edited at different times, by different people and for different audiences?
I still disagree with you, feeling that you haven't shown any credible evidence so far. It seems to me that the biblical text itself testifies to the opposite. Do a study on scripture quoted by Jesus - note to whom He attributes His quotes. For example, there has been a theory out there for some years that there were actually two authors of Isaiah - one for the first 39 chapters and one for the last 27 chapters - because the style and messages are radically different. But in the gospels, Jesus attributes parts of the first half as well as parts of the second half to Isaiah, so is Jesus wrong about the authorship?
Another interesting note is that the text of Isaiah seems to parallel the entire 66 books of the Bible, with the first 39 chapters speaking of condemnation and the last 27 of redemption. I find it peculiar that there are 39 books in the OT and 27 in the NT, but that is an entirely different thread. :)
Anyway, the claim of "highly edited" is a pretty drastic one. My opinion is that if one believes the salvation message of Jesus, enough to call Him Saviour, one is obligated to take the rest of His words as documented in the gospels as valid as well. And from what I can gather, Jesus Himself in no way supports the idea that the Pentateuch had multiple authors or that the Tanakh was highly edited in any way. How could He expect people to believe what He claimed the OT said about Him if there was any chance that the very prophecies were suspect as a result of editing over the years? The disciples would have been a bit more sceptical, don't you think, if they couldn't be completely sure that the words they held in their hands were the same as those originally given to the prophets. If the OT has been changed, then the entire message and ministry of Jesus is questionable, for the prophecies He fulfilled were detailed and specific.
Those who believe in error should be corrected. Your belief is in error. If you base your belief on a false understanding of scripture, could it not follow that your belief would also be false?
Your guide should be:
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 1Ti 3:16-17
So then, you will ignore 2Ti 3:16? What happened to "reproof"? Do you follow the bible or not?
I can store it on my website if a bunch of us want to get together and work on the project. First we should try to find out if someone saved the previous work.
I never said the Genesis account wasn't real. In fact I said that I believe it is real. I said it isn't worth arguing with people who hold the same theology that we have, even if they developed it believing that the Genesis account is a parable.
Original sin. You said to accept genesis as parable is to ultimately deny Christ. That's garbage plain and simple. It is very possible for a person to read it as a parable in which God is telling them that they are lost. That mankind is lost. And still understand the New Testament and the prophecy of Christ's comming. And Paul tells us that sin and death entered through Adam. Through one man. But he also tells us that we have all sinned. We do not receive punishment because of Adam. We would receive it because of our own sins. Because the truth is that if Adam hadn't sinned.... you and I would have. Christ came for your sins and mine. Quit blaming it on Adam.
But even beyond that ... if you really want to tie all this to original sin... I don't believe children are born condemned. Paul tells us they are born with a sinful nature, but sin occures when a person is old enough to know right from wrong. Else Jesus wouldn't have told the Pharisees that we should all come to him as little children (blameless, innocent) I don't believe in baptizing babies.. and if original sin means what you say it does in relation to Adam and Eve.... then every child that dies of crib death or whatever is in hell right now. And I refuse to believe that because the biblical text doesn't support it. If that were true... the prodigal son would have been born in the far away land. Not born living with his father.
You and I choose to sin when we reach an age of knowing right from wrong. We all do according to Paul. And we are born with Adam's nature to do it. Christ was not born with that nature (hence the virgin birth). But he still had all of the choices that Adam had, and that we have. He just didn't fail like you and I have. Praise God He didn't fail.
Same person. Sorry.
The "NIV Harmony of the Gospels" by Thomas & Gundry have what I consider an excellent explanation for the differing geneaologies. They offer 4 scenarios, the 4th of which I find the most believable.
From what I remember:
First, Matthew's genealogy begins with Abraham and descends to Jesus and Luke's list beings with Jesus and ascends to Adam. Second, Matthew lists Joseph's genealogy and Luke lists Mary's genealogy. The essay is quite detailed. I typed it up and put the article on the internet 10 years ago. Since then, everyone thinks I wrote it despite my initial references to the original authors. I'm sure the essay is out there somewhere. I'm not going to type it up again!
That's rich, seeing as other than the biblical accounts, there is no evidence whatsoever for teh miracles ascribed to people in the bible.
I'm surprised at you Mr. scholar. You simply "presuppose" that mircales cannot happen. This is is not based on any evidence at all - but your FAITH! You say you are bible scholar - can you give me any sound refutation for the resurrection? I can destroy any argument you give: dogs eating the corpse, disciples stealing the body, swoon theory - pick your poison pal. I'm ready to debate the Resurrection with you based on the available historical evidence (not your imagination). Let's roll!
The bible does not say who the first offspring was or if that first offspring took a wife which obviously he/she couldn't. But it does say that Adam and Eve had many offstpring and obviously there was some inter-marriage among relatives. However, the gene pool was not nearly as diluted as it is now so there would be no harm in it at all.
Not sure I understand this. Wouldn't the opposite be true in this situation? Can you explain further?
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.