Bible written by different writers at different times for different people

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, 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?

Therein lies the problem. I am not trying to prove any one thing, one way or the other, but answer the contention that the miracles of the bible have sufficient evidence supporting belief in them. My answer is that the evidence does not satisfy the claims.

Name a better explanation for the behavior of the disciples - cowards to lions of faith overnight. They put their lives on the line based on what they believed they saw. Who would die for a lie knowing it was a lie? Name one instance in history where this has EVER happened. A person may die for a lie believing it was the truth but not for a lie.

While you are at it, explain how the Resurrection story could have survived in Jerusalem amongst the hostile romans and jews - why didn't they just produce the body and end it all? What happened to the body? hmmm?

Furthermore, there is no doubt that the gospel accounts are very early - e.g. 1st Cor. 15 (Gospel creed) was written in 51 AD (this dating is not in dispute btw) - and if you follow Paul's travels in Acts, one must arrive at an origin of the gospel of 35 AD at the latest! This is just a primer! Let's see how much you know.

Zen? Does that involve reincarnation until you finally get it right? You question the miracles in the NT, yet you believe in reincarnation? What's wrong with this picture? Yes, let's speak of "consistency."

Your ignorance of the rules of evidence is almost breathtaking. You being a self-professed recovering junky, I understand that you may have a history of prevarication, but your constant contention that the burden of proof lies on me is laughable, since the historical record contained in the bible is alone not sufficient evidence, unless you give equal creedence to the miracles of other faiths as well, and you evidently don't.

That you have yet to prove. The historical record speaks for itself - prove it wrong! Give me your counter-evidence right now, and state your historical source! I don't want your opinion either - I want evidence and logical reasoning.

I will ignore your silly insult and stick to the debate. I will just say that you are also a liar. Have you ever lied even once in your life - even a white lie. Then you are a liar - it takes one lie to make a liar. Now that that point is settled, I will ask you to stick to the debate which I have now engaged. I'm ready for your reply. Let's have your evidence.

You being a self-professed recovering junky, I understand that you may have a history of prevarication,...

I never said I was a junky. And everyone is a liar - even you - as I have pointed out. Jesus Christ said if you lust after another with your heart, you have committed adultery - have you ever done this? He also said if you hate with your heart, you have committed murder - ever done this? Sin starts in the heart. The chances are very high that you are guilty of all of these - that's 3 commandments broken right there. Then there's the 1st commandment - love the Lord your God - you deny His very existence - that's 4 commandments. It seems you may have a lot of reincarnating to do, eh? By the way, "I have never seen any evidence of reincarnation" - please provide some.

While assiduously avoiding any of the requests made to you to support your claims? This seems a rather poor strategy.

That remains to be seen, doesn't it? So far, you have only revealed that you favor "zen".... would you like to elaborate on that? e.g. what is the origin of morality? What is your epistemology? Please elaborate on this "zen" so that I know if you are orthodox or some hybrid tailor-it-to-your-lifestyle type of pagan. Inquring minds want to know... Lay it out there with confidence!

Again, I invite you to submit evidence for loaves and fishes, parting of seas, travelling to heaven in a chariot of fire, talking animals, walking on water, etc...

First, you answer my post on the Resurrection - that topic will keep you tied up for quite a while.

At the same time, please cite exactly why similar claims of miraculous phenomena from other traditions are less than believable. That would really shore up your case.

It has to do with "quality of evidence". Familiar with that concept?

and it's claims and its proponents utter inability to provide such

It manages to convince some. For you it hasn't. For others it has.

I have lately been fascinated with the doctrines of predestination and election. It amazes me that many people who otherwise seem rational believe in Christ and his resurrection so totally they are willing to die rather than deny his existance, while at the same time others apparently like yourself are totally convinced otherwise. Each has the same evidence, same life experience, similar knowlegde, and the same tools of logic and reason. Both not only conclude opposite of the other both are adamant the other is wrong.

Election is the idea that Christ came to save his own and that he has not lost one. If so then its not a true statement if he loses an unbeliever. It could be assumed that in the face of the same evidence those who are Christ's elect see it has truth and is as real for them as it is false for those who are not of the elect.

Let me try this again with links that work...

THE LINKED WORD to the Strong's Concordance
Genesis 1: 1. In the beginning God created * the heaven and the earth.!!!Period!!!

IN A FORMER STATE GOD PERFECTED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH.

2. And the earth was * without form,and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved * upon the face of the waters.

BUT THE EARTH HAD BECOME A RUIN AND A DESOLATION,
AND THE DARKNESS OF JUDGMENT WAS UPON THE FACE OF IT.

became... without form, and void;

Isa 45:18 For thus saith * the LORD that created * the heavens; God himself that formed * the earth and made * it; he hath established * it, he created * it not in vain, he formed * it to be inhabited * : I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Read Job 38
Read Between the Lines: An Analysis of Genesis 1:1,2
More
The Continuity of Tradition

Visit: Freeper Tips and Helps for posting photos, links and other HTML goodies.
You can also bookmark the thread at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/562247/posts

Please visit my Profile for a Christmas Greeting!

Doesn't it occur to you that most martyrs of any faith believe in what they're dying for? They all knew that they had found the truth, and were willing to die for it accordingly.

Hello? ARe you awake. I said an example of someone dying for a lie KNOWING IT WAS A LIE. The example you gave does not fit this criteria. Try again.

If your knowledge of christianity is anything close to that of zen, I question your teachers. No, zen is not involved in reincarnation.

Fine, then you won't mine telling me your "zen" beliefs as they relate to morality, epistemology and origins. I'm waiting. Never claimed to be an expert on zen so I will ask you to give me the specifics....then I can respond.

You keep repeating yourself. My knowledge of evidence is fine -you have not responded to my points on teh Resurrection. I'm waiting for a half-way decent counter - all I get is rhetoric. Well?

The accounts in the bible are the historical record for the miracles in the bible, but they are not, unfortunately for you, evidence thereof.

And your evidence for this statement is....? This merely exposes your presupposition that miracles cannot occur -why? because YOU SAY they can't and you have never personally seen one. Is this the extent of your evidence? I want evidence not your lousy opinion.

Your posts are bereft of logical reasoning and evidence, and you claim to desire it from another party.

Really, then why haven't you responded to my specific statements on the Resurrection? There is plenty of logical reasoning in them as they are standard faire for all debates on the Resurrection. Duh. When are you going to answer them? You say the NT is false - what is your authority for this position? Are you saying you do not have to support your assertions with evidence? Who is bereft of logical reasonsing? It is surely not I.

Go ahead - run away little child. It's getting hot in the kitchen isn't it?

I have given evidential facts supporting the Resurrection -and you have refuted not one of them. I'm still waiting.... If you can't get past these first basic steps, how can we get to the next step?

You simply make assertions, i.e. "the evidence does not support it" - is this based on some evidence or reasoning from the available evidnece, from another historical record or reasonable extraction thereof by another historian, or is this your pitiful opinoin? The latter, obviously. Come on, Mr. Evidence, give some.

There is no way to know, and that's my point. You have faith, True Believer, not evidence.

I want to know why the gospel accounts and the epistles should not be believed. What is your reasoning for denying the credibility other than your presupposition that miracles cannot occur?

What does this have to do with the subject matter at hand? You are becoming increasingly transparent.

I'm sorry - I assumed you were hip to the arguments and I didn't give any background. To answer your question, the dating of the gospels and epistles are very important because if the dating is late, say 2nd to 3rd century, then legend could develop (i.e. myth). However, there is not one historical example of a legend developing within 30 years or less, and this is the timeframe that the gospels and epistles were written. This means that the mere sustenance of the Resurrection story is credible -- those involved were all still alive (friend and foe)-- and if the story was not true, The Resurrection story could have been easily discredited, the body could have been produced, and the whole movement would have died. But we know it thrived and grew like wildfire didn't it? Why wasn't the body produced by the Jews - it would have killed the movement. Why didn't the Christ-haters produce it?

Typical: Anyone who disagrees with you is a narrowminded bigot.

I never called anyone a narrowminded bigot. I said that many of the people on this thread who read the Bible literally responded with sarcasm, nastiness, and disparagement. A few others actually engaged in discourse, civil conversation. I can't have a civil conversation where I might learn something from you if you're too busy insulting me. Maybe if you took the time to explain why you feel the way you do, I might have learned something from you. That's what I was looking to do.

On the other hand, those that agree with you are intelligent, open minded people who can help you understand life, the universe, and yourself.

You don't seem to read my posts. I mentioned how much I learned from those who disagree with me. Did you catch that part? Or were you too busy prejudging me because I disagree with you?

The point being that that makes the christian martyrs, disciples included, the same as all the others from other traditions: people who acted on faith, not evidence.

I'm still waiting for an example.... all I get is obfuscation. I don't care what your point is - respond to my question and give me an example of a person dying for a lie KNOWING IT WAS A LIE.

Again, you attribute things to me that I do not believe. Can miracles occur? I suppose so, and I do not discount the possibility. My statement, vis a vis the bible, is that self-referential material is insufficient to sway me in favor of belief in an occurrence where there is no other proof. I have an Anti-Tiger Attack rock in my possession, specifically designed to prevent tiger attacks on the POTUS. How do I know it works? Has there ever been a POTUS attacked by a tiger?

If you want to say the evidence is not enough "for you to believe it" - that's fine. Just don't make objective assertions without backing them up, or I will pounce.

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.