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?
Gosh, then you better start a petition to change the Law and rules of evidence of the United States. Eyewitness accounts are a huge part of it.
I never claimed to have wisdom. And I honestly don't think I was exaluting in something I don't have. I'm excited by this theory, maybe that came through as "so called wisdom", I don't know. All I can say, again, is that I was continuing a discussion with a group of people who believe there are no inconsistancies in the Bible and that the Torah was penned by Moses alone. I thought the first two chapters of Genesis were a pretty good agrument for the idea of multiple authors. That's why I posted this.
I've probably studied biblical criticism at least as much as you have.
That's more than probable. I've only read a couple of books on the Documentary Hypothesis and taken a couple of college classes on this subject and I'm just begining serious study of the Bible. I never claimed to be a scholar.
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.
Well see, there you go. That's a theory I haven't heard of. Even if I had read about it, I doubt I'd buy into it because I believe the Holy Spirit inspired all of the writing in all of the books in the Bible (and many that aren't included in the Bible).
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.
Two big issues with this statement. First of all, this is only the second time I've participated in a religious thread of this sort. Both times have been this week. I've tried to follow the Neverending Chronicle threads, but they are too involved for me. Those folks are more than in the middle of a coversation and I'm just walking in the room. So I had NO idea it would be provocative. I'm astounded at the number of comments it's gotten. I thought it would be a small thread, a continuation of a conversation I was having with a small group of folks earlier this week. I was wrong, obviously.
Secondly, I honestly am not trying to "bash" Christian conservatism, I'm trying to understand why those who read the Bible literally and think the Torah is written by Moses alone disregard the notion of more than one writer. I'm not disguising anything, but I've tried over & over to prove this and I'm never going to so I guess I should stop trying. But just to let you know, you're wrong.
Has anything ever seemed very clear to you and you couldn't understand why others can't see it? That's what this was. And I think I have learned why other's can't agree with the DH. To sum up:
1: It's just not what they believe.
2: One can explain away the different voices and styles of writting by saying all writers go through different styles over the course of a lifetime.
3: One can believe Moses' words were edited and some words were added after his death.
4: Everything can be explained by saying God wrote the Bible so it's true.
5: If you don't believe Moses wrote the Torah, you are doubting God and you're not a real Christian.
Do those 5 things sound about right?
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."
See, you're being smug saying I'm blind and accusing me of starting something with malice. If I'm blind, why have I spent hours on this, wading through post after post, trying to get other points of view?
I can only assume that this "food fight" you've described has happened before on FR. Of this, I was not aware. Believe me, I'll never try to discuss religion again on FR. Which saddens me because I did learn a lot on this thread. But my skin is too thin and I'm just beginning my faith journey (last 3 years or so) and words and behavior from fellow Christians that are hurtful tend to put stumbling blocks in my path, and that's not what I need right now.
Of course I haven't added anything to the silly food fight. Why should I?
If you view it as a silly food fight, I can understand why you didn't join in. I'm sorry I gave you that impression. I hope in the future, when someone asks you questions on why you believe what you believe, you can answer them as if they are questioning with an open heart and mind. I thought I made it clear that that's what I was doing, but I obviously failed.
But thanks for letting me know why you are so angry and bitter. I understand better now.
I want this guy (?) on my jury.
Actually, that's the one thing in my faith I'm sure of. That God is absolutely beyond my comprehension. He is so awesome, I could never begin to wrap my tiny little brain around him. I can, however, try to understand who, where, when and why the Bible was written about this awesome, glorious and powerful God.
You also ask about the names "God" and "The Lord". God was given hundreds of names by his people.
Yes, I understand this. This is one of the reasons I believe there are separate writers. At one point of history they called him one name and during another point, he was called by another name. Can you imagine someone 2000 years in the future trying to understand why Clinton is called:
Klintoon
x42
Liar in Chief
Sink Emperor
ect ect....
And how hard that would be if we didn't have all the historical documents that explained it?
So rest easy, I'm not trying to understand God. I'm trying to know him better and deepen my relationship with him.
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.
So I'm not completely nuts? :)
However, you will miss and have completely discounted the possibility that scripture is ultimately one voice.
I haven't discounted it. I don't remember that theory coming up. I actually believe that. I think I've stated that, over & over. When I say to you that I believe the Bible was written over many years by many different authors but the text is divinely inspired, what does that say to you? I think it says that scripture is one voice. It's the voice of God. To sum up what I believe, I believe the Bible is the voice of God in the words of Man.
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.
I'm sure you can show me where I rejected their thoughts. I don't think I did that, but I'm looking at it from my perspective. This thread got much longer and involved than I thought it would. I have 7 year old twins, a 3 year old and it's Advent, and my in laws are coming in tonight. Perhaps this wasn't the best time to try to have a thread like this. I will bookmark this, however, and go back through it as I find the time and try to listen to those who weren't shouting at me. Can you understand why I might have missed a response or two? Or how after reading 3 or 4 initial sarcastic replies (and if you go back, you'll see that was the first response) I might not have read closely enough to those who responded to me in that manner? And as I stated in my "final" (ha ha) post, I have learned a lot from many of those who posted. This has been a learning experience in many ways.
The last estimate I heard was no less than 49 authors of the Bible.
George Washington chopping down the cherry tree?
I think, in retrospect, I made three big mistakes. The first was not realizing what a hot button subject this is. I assumed people would take me at my word when my first comment was Flame suit on. But I'm hoping for honest discussion with prayerfully open hearts and minds. But they didn't and I now understand why. Others have come here & tried to start, in the words of Kevin Curry, a "food fight". That wasn't my intention.
My second mistake was using the word "myth". I use that in it's most common meaning. To borrow from homeschoolmama's Merriam-Webster dictionary: "1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY." Unfortunately, most folks here assumed I meant the other meaning :" 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence".
My third mistake taking this on at this time of year. I didn't realize how large this thread would get. How can anyone read and respond to 200+ comments made directly to them? And take care of kids and decorate the house and keep up with the laundry and kiss my hubby? It can't be done! :)
May God bless you in your search. Let us know what you find out.
Thanks for the blessing. My search will never end but I'll keep you posted on any new conclusions I'm sure I'll come to in time. Thanks!
Genesis 3:1 is as follows: 1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?"
Here you have an example of one verse using both terms for God. According to the theory, the author of this verse should have used one or the other not both.
Taking the posistion that the different names for God convey different aspects of his person then the change in name makes a lot of sense and conveys a stronger message. The serpent didn't use the more personal one-on-one name for God, he uses the God is "distant and impersonal" version of his name.
It would mean that the author is very carefull in his selection of what name to use for God and that would indicate one author using literary devices.
Again, trying to work with a prayfully open heart and mind Mom. I'm not skeptical of scripture, I just don't believe Moses wrote all of the Torah. I find God speaks to me each time I open my Bible. That wouldn't be happening if the Holy Spirit, or God, or divine inspiration (whatever one choses to call it) hadn't guided those words into that book and then into my home.
Promised ya 300 hits didn't I ?? I have been haning around these religious threads tooooooo long :>)
You nailed it! I wish I had talked to you before I decided to take this on! :)
May God bless your search for truth!
Thanks Mom, I appreciate your blessing, you know that. Now bundle up for that snow!
s'ok, no problem, lot of that going around. :)
The last estimate I heard was no less than 49 authors of the Bible.
Ssshhh...you might want to keep that quiet on this thread. (Said with much good humor, don't all jump on me!)
Very interesting. Of course, if I was a firm believer in the DH and would not listen to any other possiblity, I could argue that that verse was written by two different authors, right? :)
Taking the posistion that the different names for God convey different aspects of his person then the change in name makes a lot of sense and conveys a stronger message. The serpent didn't use the more personal one-on-one name for God, he uses the God is "distant and impersonal" version of his name.
Now that makes a lot of sense to me. Of course, I'm not sure I believe there was an actual snake talking to God in the Garden. I believe this author was using imagery and symbolism to explain man's fall from grace. But that's just me.
It would mean that the author is very carefull in his selection of what name to use for God and that would indicate one author using literary devices.
Or it could indicate that this author of this passage was very careful in his selection of what name to use for God and perhaps the other authors were not as careful or some were more careful or some were just as careful.
See how this could just go on & on?? :) But I like the discussion, thanks!
Show me any factual archeological records of the enslavement of the Jews in Egypt external to the bible please. Any facts at all that it even happened.
Genesis 3:1 is as follows: 1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?"
I completely forgot about that example. Thanks. I used this example in a USENET debate years ago but never received a response.
The main selling point of the many author thing is the use of different names for God. They assume that each section was written by an author who had no contact with the other author(s). They base this on style but use the differing names of God as their centerpiece argument. The contrary theory is that its the same author who is just using differing styles.
The existance of this verse where both names are used requires the many authors theory to invoke the intervention of a third person that edited the original text to change the name of God. You then get into some very problematic issues. Who was the editor ? Why were some things edited and others not ?
So would you prefer a hot steak or a cold chop?
How you and I feel is irrelevant. That is the problem I have with you. You "feel" your way through this, and that is utterly worthless.
Now, I am not trying to be insulting, but I remember the time when I thought the way you do, and I remember being taught that was a juvenile way to approach the world. I have nothing but contempt for my former way of thinking, even though that sort of thinking still feels good.
There are many things in the bible that are like a big drink of vinegar. But truth does not require my liking it.
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.