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?
Can't you see the distinctions between Jesus Christ and myth? Jesus was a real person, remember? Osiris was not. Osiris is a fertility repeating resurrection. Remember?
So miracles do exist then? But only the ones that have nothing to do with God? Would you like to defend abiogensis?
By the way, far more advanced civilizations around the world, record no day that the sun stood still in the sky, despite better astronomical knowledge and charting methods. Nor is there a report of the Star of Bethlehem.
Are you just throwing out anything that comes to mind? If you study the astronomical charts, you will find a convergence of 3 planets in the same area of the sky. Would this form a bright light? There are other explanations as well. Just because you don't know the explanation does not discount the miracle.
Also the Magi, were sorcerers, following the patterns of the stars to read destiny, a forbidden practice in the OT. But let's ignore that little tidbit.
Were they? Even if that is true (and the bible does not say they were sorcerers), does God love all sinners, including sorcerers? I was an adulterer, liar, sorcerer (drug user)and god-hating reprobate before I met the Lord.
I am throwing out stuff off the top of my head. I responded rapidly to the things I first saw. I had more recent knowledge a year and a half ago, but I do recall enough to get by in these conversations.
Being a Catholic I'm not permitted to read the Bible (just ask my protestant friends, they'll tell you) ;0)
Have to save this for later reading.
Mr. Calvin had this thread pegged centuries ago. Calvin has such a well-balanced and genteel approach. And just beneath his smooth smooth prose lurk the jaws of an unrelenting logic. I really will have to start examining Calvin's Commentaries for his readings of the Old Testament as well.
I still get a little dizzy when I see Wesleyans quote Calvin. But it's a nice surprise. Maybe O.P. (Opie?) would like to comment on this thread as well...
Actually I thought "Cal" had been lurking on FR for some time before penning this..a timeless truth.
A bible study at MY church used a Calvin Commentary for Jude..with the comment that spiritual conditions at the time of Calvin were in some ways similar to ours..so his observations are applicable
I think Opie is busy settling his cat into his new surroundings :>)
Of course, Jesus Christ was real. So was Krishna. And Mohammed. Confusing these historical people with the myths they claimed credence for, or the myths later ascribed to them, is still wrong-headed.Therein lies your problem. You assume that the stories of an ancient primitive race are to be believed as literal truth. Funny, how Horus resurrected his father Osiris, but that's pagan myth. Or Krishna raising someone from the dead, that TOO is paga myth. The reality is that you believe these things to be true, and no evidence, short of aliens landing and showing you videotape will convince you otherwise.Can't you see the distinctions between Jesus Christ and myth? Jesus was a real person, remember? Osiris was not. Osiris is a fertility repeating resurrection. Remember?
I rest my case.
There's every reason to believe that much of Buddhist thought had made its way to the Middle East's philosophical and religious 'schools.' Catholic priests called Buddhism the "Satanic counterfeit" because in many ways the religions mirror one another(in their purer non-Pauline forms, at least)
Keep reading the good book...it never stops teaching, you will never stop learning.
God's words are consistent...only our views and interpretations change over time.
Thankfully, God is loyal and patient, unlike us.
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.