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?
I'm reading The New American Bible.
Have you studied the midrash, the mishnah or the Talmud? Are you familiar with the commentaries of Onkelus, Rashi, Nachmanides, Abarbanel?
Nope, I haven't. Puts me in the undereducated class, right? Any links you might send my way? I'm in the lifelong process of studying God's word and trying to make sense of it. I welcome all schools of thought. I don't know how I could have studied the Talmud, midrash and mishnah unless I was at student at Yeshiva, but maybe you can sum some of the 3000 years of writings for me.
Explain why you disagree with the explanation given by these sages of the seeming contradictions you found in scripture.
Can't do that, haven't read them. But can you shed some light? I'd appreciate it. It seems people don't believe me, but I was looking for conversation and open minded discussion. I don't know everything, I'm basing my beliefs on what I've read and studied so far. So, enlighten me! :)
May the name of Yahweh be praised forever
I see you've got the literary style of sarcasm down. Don't you have anything relevant to say or add to the discussion? Do you see any validity to this theory? Or is this your way of saying you don't? I'm sorry, I'm not fluent in sarcasm.
But I'm finding this is not a popular view on FR. Oh well.
We're to believe that the author of Genesis 2 was unaware of Genesis 1 and vice-versa, or that the final editor was unaware that he was pairing the two narratives. No, it took thousands of years, and this nimrod, to point out what everyone else had missed.
Oh, and to see the dessecated corpse of the Documentary Hypothesis propped up yet again — it's almost enough to make one wax nostalgic.
But not quite.
Let me know if you have a particular question.
Agreed. As I stated in my original post, I believe all of the Bible is divinely inspired and no one writer is more important than the other.
Myth-peddling evolutionists and atheists have to invent unestablished laws and theories to try and contradict the existing laws of thermodynamics.
So, there is a Creator. Like it or not.
This is the message of Genesis whether read literal or symbolic. Those that compare part b of one verse with part a of another verse in another chapter are the same as those that can't see the forest for the trees.
The bible tells us this in a nutshell. That God created everything including us. That we chose to disobey and break that fellowship. That God made a way to reconcile this fellowship through a savior. It gives the history of the lineage of this Savior. A record of his teachings, and a record of the life and teachings of his disciples.
Read it with that in mind and you'll understand a lot more.
Too bad, I wish you had read the rest, then you wouldn't be misunderstanding me.
If the point of the thesis is that more than one human author may have contributed to Genesis there can be little doubt that you are correct. This is relevant because????
Again, it's relevant because I'm continuing a conversation I had earlier this week with people who disagree with me that the Bible was written by different authors.
Instead, your post seems more like the arguments we have heard... "here is a contradiction in scripture... therefore scripture is not authoritative" and is probably not worth additional study.
Nothing could be further from the truth. But you didn't read my entire post so how could you know that? I in NO WAY said scripture is not authoritative or not worth additional study. I believe exactly the opposite.
I see however, that you have called in some of my friends from the "Neverending Thread" who no doubt can "assist" you better than I.
I've seen this thread but don't think I've ever read it or posted on it. I sent this post to people I was having this discussion with earlier this week. In hindsite, I probably shouldn't have started a new thread. I did so in hopes of getting more people involved in discussion. Careful what you wish for.
It bears on your subject.
Fortunately for you, these famous commentaries, formerly found only in the original Hebrew and Aramaic, are now available in English for student like you.
Any links you might send my way?
STONE TANACH: All 24 books of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings are now at your fingertips in one magnificent 2,200 page volume, as interpreted by the classic sages of Talmudic and Rabbinic literature.
SAPERSTEIN RASHI: Chumash text, translated according to Rashi
The full and accurate text of Rashi and Onkelos
The literal translation of Rashi, highlighted and interwoven with explanatory words and phrases to ease and clarify the flow of Rashi's text
Notes on Rashi, including questions, answers, sources, and elucidations
Written by an expert on Rashi, in collaboration with a group of outstanding scholars
I would answer "yes" to both of those questions.
It's almost universally accepted among us believers in the Bible that the first 5 books of the Bible were writings COMPILED and written by Moses. So what's the big revelation here? Why don't you be honest and tell us you don't put much stock in the written word of God instead of coming in thru the backdoor? Sheesh you people.
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.