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?
And you know this because.....?
Your musings aren't worth the time it takes to read them more than once.
So sorry you feel this way, but obviously "my musings" generated discussion and isn't that the purpose of this forum? You don't have to participate if you don't want to. Your opinion has not added much to the discussion, other than becoming yet another attempt to make me feel bad about myself for thinking differently than you do. I'm happy to tell you that it won't work. If anything, I feel sorry for you that the most you can contribute is hit and run attacks on me personally.
BTW, do you have a reason for feeling this way? Something to back it up? Or are you just ranting?
To the rest of those on the thread:
I guess this is my ending statment on this whole thread. I'm not saying I won't respond to anything else posted, just that this is a wrap up of what I've been trying to accomplish with this thread and what I've gotten out of it in the last 24 hours.
It's not like I plucked the Documentary Hypothesis out of the air. I read Richard Friedman's book "Who Wrote the Bible" years ago in college (and am reading it again now) and I'm in my first year of a 4 year Catholic Biblical Study program. Yes, I'm a newbie at this, but I didn't make the theory up. I was interested in why others don't agree with it. Many folks have gave me some good links and books to read that will further my understanding of the Bible. Others on the thread gave me a lot of think about. (I like the idea that God is light, I think I'll keep that one close to my heart.) I read the Bible and study it with an open and prayerful heart. If I didn't have an open mind and heart, why would I have started this thread asking for other's opinions?
Some folks on this thread have convinced me that you can argue with a fundamentalist/literalist until you are blue in the face and it won't make a difference in either your opinion or theirs. Kind of like liberals that way. But that's ok, they can read the Bible any way they want to. If that's what they believe, more power to them. I won't attack them, disparage them, or condemn them.
I believe the Bible is the inspired work of God, written by men. Being a history junkie, I'm intrigued by the idea that the Torah was written at different times and different people. As mentioned above, I've got some kind people sending me off in directions that might disprove that theory. I'll be interested in reading why the DH is no longer a valid theory in the minds of some. It may shake my foundations a bit, but life is a learning process. "That he not busy being born is busy dying."
I'll be reading and studying the Bible the rest of my life. I don't think there is one wrong way or right way to read it. I'm saddened that many who don't agree with the way I'm studying it now feel they have to attack me, call me names, suggest I'm on drugs, say I'm totally ignorant, call me a false Christian and tell me I'm going to hell because I don't agree with them. Yes, Christ said the path to him is narrow, but I believe that means keeping the two most important commandments. Many on this thread have broken the second one.
But I prayed on this last night. I can understand that different people approach God and his word in different ways. I've decided to ignore those who attack me and focus on those who have given me good information to continue my studies. That was the purpose of this thread, to learn.
That being said, thanks for joining in!
If they do they missed the point entirely.
Already been done. You assume that man can know nothing of the "complexity of life".
What's the matter - you can dish it out but can't take it?
Come on - let's put your beliefs to the test, shall we? What do you have to lose other than the argument?
Or, if you like, you can tell me your position on the Resurrection - specifically, what you believe REALLY happened. I will also respond to that. The burden of proof is on you since you doubt the historical accounts.
There is plenty of evidence that the Bible contains truth, not facts. Look for the higher truth, it will liberate you. Don't start with your faithful conclusions and work backward to your assumptions, but start with your assumptions based on faith and establish your conclusions.
As to your implication regarding my education it includes graduate degrees and contains an extensive history background along with bible studies. I am a retired school principal and currently head up our churches Sunday school programs.
...
I've decided to ignore those who attack me and focus on those who have given me good information to continue my studies.
Typical: Anyone who disagrees with you is a narrowminded bigot.
On the other hand, those that agree with you are intelligent, open minded people who can help you understand life, the universe, and yourself.
Ok, sorry to bother you.
I've probably studied biblical criticism at least as much as you have. I would be willing to guess that I've studied much more, and from all sources--including and especially those whose studies lead them to believe the Bible is a collection of tribal superstitions cobbled together by subtle and scheming men seeking to advance a local political agenda. The most recent such book I read advanced the thesis that Genesis is an obvious blending of two separate traditions melded together in almost perfect this-that-this-that fashion. I once bought into that "wisdom." I don't any more.
But I wouldn't dream of putting a provocative thread out there like this one--a bash at Christian conservatism disguised as an honest search for truth. You have instigated a food fight so that those who despise traditional Christian belief can sit back in smug blindness and say, "What a crock."
Of course I haven't added anything to the silly food fight. Why should I?
But you may have missed the most important lesson so keep praying. First, let me say I have studied the same materials you are currently studying and believe that the most likely explanation is of different authors.
However, you will miss and have completely discounted the possibility that scripture is ultimately one voice. As an analogy would be an orchestra performing. In that case the fundamentalists are correct as well as the various authors theory.
You started out saying you wanted a discussion and you consistently rejected any thoughts contrary to yours and then you wonder why the fundies are upset with you. Your studies will be far more fruitfull if you truly stop and listen to what others who study the bible are actually saying.
...
A lot of us treat you like like that because some come into this forum, ask similar questions without sincerity, and all they want to do is push buttons. Now that you've gone into some detail on where you're coming from, a lot of us can see you're sincere. I know we at least hope you are!
May God bless you in your search. Let us know what you find out.
Way too strong. You have already made it very clear she is content taking pot shots at others who base their beliefs on the witnesses of the bible and not engaging a dialogue. She has also made it clear she has no desire to be pinned down and let someone else play her game on her.
Just rememebr 123..it is a theory and read the "books" with the same skepticism with which you approach scripture..
Promised ya 300 hits didn't I ?? I have been haning around these religious threads tooooooo long :>)
May God bless your search for truth!
Some scientists try to prove that life came out a chemical reaction, yet they can never reproduce it. Explain what we believe to be true (science) is often a mistake.
We all know the speed of light is constant right? Wrong!
Yet we have all been "taught" that this is absolute!
Huh? Archeology firmly supports the FACTS in the bible - place names, rulers' names, events, etc. History consists of facts. Fact: Something true and accurate (Webster's).
My faith is based on facts and evidence; it is not a blind faith and I don't check my brain at the door when I go to church. Christianity is the ONLY faith that is supported by the evidence. When one speaks of evidence, one can only discuss judeo-Christianity.
Does some minor similarities between the mystery religions and Christianity somehow invalidate Christianity? How does that logic work? Elaborate. There are more differences than similarities. I can name several major ones.
Mohammed is still dead. There are no credible historical accounts that Krishna was the Son of God. The NT blows them all away in its credibility and accuracy. Two points: (1) The NT was written very early (not enough time for legend to develop)- the gospel creed in 1st Cor. 15 was written in 51 AD, and accounting for Paul's travels, the gospel creed is easily traced back to the mid 30s AD; (2) The eyewitness accounts are quite credibly written in a chronological eyewitness manner, (3) The disciples banked their lives on the fact of the bodily Resurrection and died for it believing it was true - the best explanation for this sudden change from coward to lion of faith is best explained by an encounter with the risen Christ - name a better one! (4) Simon Greenleaf (co-founder of Harvard Law School studied the accounts and concluded that the evidence would stand up in a court of law.
Perhaps...my strategy with skeptics and atheists is ALWAYS to find out what they believe and then dismantle it bit by bit. It is the BEST strategy, IMHO. No one is born an atheist - they become one as a result of their own presuppositions and worldview. First comes the worldview, then comes atheism, materialism, etc.
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.