[Weatherman123]

Flame suit on. But I'm hoping for honest discussion with prayerfully open hearts and minds.

[Weatherman123]

Discussion?

[IMRight]

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?

The second "account" does not say that there was no water and the first "account" does not say that there was no land.

Problem solved.

[ShadowAce]

I hate to burst your bubble, but it has long been known that the bible was written by many different authors to many different audiences over a very long time (hundreds of years).

What is your point?

[regularAmericanWhiteMale]

YOU came up with a NEW example? I remember this from a college course in Old Testament a long, long, long time ago.

[11th Earl of Mar]

Gn 1:1-2 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth...
Gn 2:4b-5 At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

But how much time elapsed in between the two. For instance

In the beginning, when when Weatherman was born...
At the time when Weatherman began kindergarden...

So which is it? Did you start kindergarden when you were a new-born?

[follow your bliss]

You may enjoy reading The Earth Chronicles Series of books written by Zecharia Sitchin.

For example, you may be astounded to know that Genesis very closely parallels the Enuma Elish which was written down by the ancient Sumerians long before, and in greater detail, than the biblical book of Genesis.

[Alouette]

Are you reading a translation or the original Hebrew? Have you studied the midrash, the mishnah or the Talmud? Are you familiar with the commentaries of Onkelus, Rashi, Nachmanides, Abarbanel? Explain why you disagree with the explanation given by these sages of the seeming contradictions you found in scripture.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The best explication I have read of this theory is by Richard Elliott Friedman, in his book Who Wrote the Bible?

[wideawake]

The documentary hypothesis is a century-old theoretical construct.

It contains many internal contradictions which hamper its ability to derogate convincingly from the integrity of the received text.

One of the principal reasons for the documentary hypothesis is that XIXth century Germans believed that it was inconsistent to mix dry genealogies, formulaic censuses and colorful narratives into one continuous account. In XIXth century Germany this was considered a patchwork.

However, as we learn more about the literary production of the ancient Near East we learn that these "inconsistencies" were not inconsistent in their true cultural context.

Egyptian accounts of history will go from narrative to genealogy to legal decrees and back again in one text.

Basically what the documentary hypothesis comes down to is this: that a member of the fin de siecle Prussian upper classes would never have written the book of Genesis the same way an Egyptian-educated nomadic Hebrew of 1200 BC would have.

In this we agree.

Would the Prussian's favorite method of exposition be superior to the nomadic Hebrew's? That's moot.

[delapaz]

Under close examination it appears that the first post in this thread was actually written by two different people. The first few paragraphs are very analytical using quotes from a document and closely analyzing those quotes.

Then there is a fundamental shift where the Writer is now asking questions and inserting a lot of his own commentary. Note that in the last few paragraphs there are no outsourced quotes.

This conclusively proves that the writer of the last few paragraphs could not be the same writer that wrote the first paragraphs.

[wideawake]

And by the way . . . you're not telling the truth if you're claiming that you came up with a new example.

This "example" is among the oldest ever raised, and you most certainly did not come up with it.

That's just dishonest.

[stevem]

I guess I don't understand the premise. First, if I recall correctly from my high school days, much of the Bible didn't even start out written. Rather, it had a fairly long "oral tradition" before any part of it was written for the first time.

Second, of course different parts of it were "authored" at different times for different people. Just the OT from Exodus to the end covers how many centuries? It seems to me the books aren't necessarily even in chronological order.

I always thought, again, starting in my high school days, that the Bible is a series of stories designed to get you thinking about human nature and human foibles and all the virtues and vices in as many circumstances as humans can imagine. It's supposed to let you reflect on how humans relate to one another, how we view ourselves and what the relationship is between humans and God.

It's been a while since I last read it, but that's the way I saw it every time I randomly picked a place to review, especially during some long and monotonous homily.

[hopespringseternal]

But I'm hoping for honest discussion with prayerfully open hearts and minds.

ROFL. Best one today.

You're hoping to impress like minded people with your sophistry.

In Genesis 1, my translations render "waters" as "the deep". Not a reference to an ocean, but to an expanse of nothingness.

But you already knew that.

[Nyralthotep]

Flame suit on. But I'm hoping for honest discussion with prayerfully open hearts and minds.

Hmmm, from the construction of your post it looks like your mind is already made up and not open. You start out saying it's a 'creation story/myth' and afterwards you simply refer to it as 'myth'. It seems to me as if you're trying to construct a straw man here so you can knock it down.

[Hank Kerchief]

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.

Not two different stories. The literary device employed is called recapitulation. Very common, but frequently misunderstood by the under- and over-educated.

Hank

[hopespringseternal]

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?

Because God is God and He can create light out of nothing. No fusion necessary. If God can create the universe out of nothing, what is so hard about creating light from nothing?

Here is your problem: If God did indeed create the universe as described, then He can not be modeled within that universe. You can't apply the physical constraints of time, space, even cause and effect to God.

This is so basic that anyone who fails to grasp it really can't understand science in the first place.

[kjam22]

Why am I thinking of another quote?.. not biblical... but a nice quote just the same. "You don't need a WEATHERMAN to know which way the wind blows".

[egarvue]

Please tell me you're not so amateur as to judge literary stylistic differences in the Bible as evidence of supposed inaccuracies based on your reading of an English Translation??? The mere process of translation introduces a whole host of potentially unknown stylistic differences - the translator himself makes human judgements as to the original's meaning. I would be more inclined to believe you if you provide an analysis of the original Hebrew.

[RnMomof7]

Bump

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Medicinal Marijuana?