[Weatherman123]

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

[RnMomof7]

Hey gal we really disagree on this..Most scholars have attributed the first 5 books to one author.

I will be back to this later..but didnt want ya to think I was ignoring you!

Bet the kids are getting excited huh?

BTW I flagged this to some knowlegable folks.

[homeschool mama]

You use the word myth a couple times and then ask for open hearted discussion. I doubt *your* heart is open. I suspect you prefer to slap down any comment/truth contrary to your own.

Therefore, any further comments to you regarding Biblical truth would be *pearls before swine*.

[VRWC_minion]

I have studied genesis 1 and 2 on my own. I am comfortable with either a completely literal reading written by one person or with mutliple authors telling two different creation stories.

To follow a literal reading and a one author approach the different writers may just be different styles of writing when describing different sides of the same God. The text uses different names for God in the sections you highlighted and at the same time the first God is not personal, he is aloof and majestic and above everything while he creates. The "second story" God is personal anw "walks" with Adam. He is one-on-one with man. It is possible the writer switches styles and names for God as a literary device to drive home the different "faces" or natures of God.

As far as the "second creation" story being consistant with the first, the second begins with a phrase that from memory describes "In the day that (Gn 2:4b-5 ). For me this describes Day three of the first creation story. I solve the timing problem with the first story by assuming that the garden that he plants Adam in is not earth but rather heaven. I support this view by assuming that God would not be walking on earth but rather in heaven. I bring it back to the first creation story in assuming that Adam and Eve's banishment happened on day 7 of the first creation story. If you read the 2nd creration story literally, God clothed Adam and Eve with skin. It doesn't say animal skin. We assume animal skin. I believe that this reference is that God made Adam and Eve human flesh and blood where prior to that they were spiritual beings in a heavenly body.

[homeschool mama]

ping

[agrace]

My response to you in regard to this very thing on the other thread is as follows -

The two creation stories are simply an overview and one that is told in greater detail. The first lays out the events chronologically, with God resting on the seventh day at the beginning of chapter 2. Then, we read about the events that took place directly in the garden, which help define the origins of God's relationship with man. To suggest that because God is depicted more personally in the second that the two accounts are somehow not reconcilable to each other is to know nothing about the nature of God found throughout scripture. He is at once Creator, Father, Warrior, Judge and Friend.

But, to be more specific about it, let's look at it this way. In Chapter one we see God created the earth and all that is on it in a certain order; then He rested on the seventh day. This is a general overview of the creation story. As I also said in the previous thread, how many of us have NOT read an historical account that gave a broad overview and then delved into some detailed events?

With regard to chapter two, we find a detailed account of the creation of man and what happened IN the garden. Yes, all the animals and plants etc had already been created OUTSIDE the garden. Then God created man and put him in the garden. But man had not witnessed God's creation of the world and had no reason to honor Him as having done so; therefore God created some plants (only those that are pleasant to the sight and that are edible) and animals, IN THE SIGHT OF MAN, to show Him who He is, to demonstrate man's authority over the animals, and to show man that there was no suitable mate for him among the animals.

Find a problem with this scenario, please. This is taken from the plain text of the Bible, no violent extrapolations, just reading what is written.

[WalterSkinner]

Using the word myth with anything revealed in the Bible tells me where you are coming from.
Now please go back there.

[Moby Grape]

The fact that the Bible was written by different people of many years is NOT a grand discovery....small children learned this in Sunday school for hundreds of years.

[George W. Bush]

Let's talk about just the first two chapters of Genesis, the creation story/myth.

Since you seem to consider the Bible a fairy tale, I find your closing very humorous:

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

What you're hoping for is a pleasant opportunity to attack the truth of the Bible in a chatty way. Of course, someday you'll die and it won't be so funny or clever when you finally find out, much too late, that God is not Mother Goose after all.

[Ol' Sparky]

The universe was created....The universe could not have created itself. Matter can not create itself. Spontaneous generation has never been observed. The universe is going from order to disorder, winding down. Available energy is decreasing and, eventually, everything in the universe will use up all available energy and die. The universe could not have always been here or everything it would be dead.

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.

[kjam22]

These discussions are always silly. Was Genesis literal or symbolic? It doesn't matter. If I have to decide... I'll say literal. If I'm wrong and it is instead symbolic so what... the outcome (the message)is the same. And the message is this.... That God created everything, including mankind. And man walked in fellowship with God. But somewhere along the line man sinned. He disobeyed God. He used his free will to do something that he was specifically instructed not to do. And because of this his lot in life has changed. He works the fields, he doesn't have fellowship with God. He has problems, trials, and pains.

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.

[jimt]

Try Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason.

It bears on your subject.

[slhill]

You might be interested in "Surpassing Wonder" by Donald Harman Akenson on the subject of P, J and all the rest. FWIW, I don't find the textual evidence re "G-d" and "the Lord" any more convincing than the traditional Jewish explanation, that the two names are used to signify different aspects of the Holy One, blessed be He.

[RnMomof7]

" The intention of Moses in beginning his Book with the creation of the world, is, to render God, as it were, visible to us in his works. But here presumptuous men rise up, and scoffingly inquire, whence was this revealed to Moses? They therefore suppose him to be speaking fabulously of things unknown, because he was neither a spectator of the events he records, nor had learned the truth of them by reading.

Such is their reasoning; but their dishonesty is easily exposed. For if they can destroy the credit of this history, because it is traced back through a long series of past ages, let them also prove those prophecies to be false in which the same history predicts occurrences which did not take place till many centuries afterwards. Those things, I affirm, are clear and obvious, which Moses testifies concerning the vocation of the Gentiles, the accomplishment of which occurred nearly two thousand years after his death.

Was not he, who by the Spirit foresaw an event remotely future, and hidden at the time from the perception of mankind, capable of understanding whether the world was created by God, especially seeing that he was taught by a Divine Master? For he does not here put forward divinations of his own, but is the instrument of the Holy Spirit for the publication of those things which it was of importance for all men to know.

They greatly err in deeming it absurd that the order of the creation, which had been previously unknown, should at length have been described and explained by him. For he does not transmit to memory things before unheard of, but for the first time consigns to writing facts which the fathers had delivered as from hand to hand, through a long succession of years, to their children.

Can we conceive that man was so placed in the earth as to be ignorant of his own origin, and of the origin of those things which he enjoyed? No sane person doubts that Adam was well-instructed respecting them all. Was he indeed afterwards dumb?"

========================================================

I now return to the design of Moses, or rather of the Holy Spirit, who has spoken by his mouth. We know God, who is himself invisible, only through his works.

Therefore, the Apostle elegantly styles the worlds, ta< mhJ ek fainome>nwn blepo>mena, as if one should say, "the manifestation of things not apparent," 1 (Hebrews 11:3.) This is the reason why the Lord, that he may invite us to the knowledge of himself, places the fabric of heaven and earth before our eyes, rendering himself, in a certain manner, manifest in them. For his eternal power and Godhead (as Paul says) are there exhibited, (Romans 1:20.) And that declaration of David is most true, that the heavens, though without a tongue, are yet eloquent heralds of the glory of God, and that this most beautiful order of nature silently proclaims his admirable wisdom, (Psalm 19:1.)

This is the more diligently to be observed, because so few pursue the right method of knowing God, while the greater part adhere to the creatures without any consideration of the Creator himself. For men are commonly subject to these two extremes; namely, that some, forgetful of God, apply the whole force of their mind to the consideration of nature; and others, overlooking the works of God, aspire with a foolish and insane curiosity to inquire into his Essence. Both labor in vain. To be so occupied in the investigation of the secrets of nature, as never to turn the eyes to its Author, is a most perverted study; and to enjoy everything in nature without acknowledging the Author of the benefit, is the basest ingratitude.

Therefore, they who assume to be philosophers without Religion, and who, by speculating, so act as to remove God and all sense of piety far from them, will one day feel the force of the expression of Paul, related by Luke, that God has never left himself without witness, (Acts 14:17.) For they shall not be permitted to escape with impunity because they have been deaf and insensible to testimonies so illustrious.

And, in truth, it is the part of culpable ignorance, never to see God, who everywhere gives signs of his presence. But if mockers now escape by their cavils, hereafter their terrible destruction will bear witness that they were ignorant of God, only because they were willingly and maliciously blinded

Excerpts from John Calvin's introduction to his commentary of Genesis

Calvin's Commentary on Genesis

[Carol Roberts]

I've studied the Documentary Hypothesis is some detail. There's a lot of good scholarship behind it. Unfortunately for the DH, there's a lot of new information and had those who pushed for the DH in the early days had access to it, would most probably have dropped the theory a long time ago.

It's been awhile, but here is my $.02.

As for the different names for God, even Cassuto makes the point that the two names bring out different aspects of God. I won't go into detail, but to put it simply, Elohim is what God is and Yahweh is who he is. It's probably best to say the two names have semantic overlap.

The use of divine names as a source criterion is contrary to all Near Eastern analogies. K.A. Kitchen has documented many examples from Epyptian and Mesopotamian sources of a single god being called by several names in a single text. Kitchen also states that no Egyptologist would ever use divine names for source criterion.

As for parallel accounts, in an ancient text, the is no stronger indication that only a single document is present than parallel accounts. Doublets that closely parallel one another are the every stuff of ancient narrative. Simple repetition is common in ancient Near Eastern literature.

It's my opinion that had the DH proponents had access to current information, the DH theory would have waned many years ago.

That's all I have time for this morning.

[Texas Yellow Rose]

THE LINKED WORD to the Strong's Concordance

Genesis 1

---

1.  In the beginning God created * the heaven 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.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith [0559] (8804) the LORD [03068] that created [01254] (8802) the heavens [08064]; God [0430] himself that formed [03335] (8802) the earth [0776] and made [06213] (8802) it; he hath established [03559] (8790) it, he created [01254] (8804) it not in vain [08414], he formed [03335] (8804) it to be inhabited [03427] (8800):I [am] the LORD [03068]; and [there is] none else.

[Penny1]

Okay, bear in mind I'm no expert on this stuff, but here's what I've sort of learned or heard explained over the years...

It is not an uncommon Hebrew literary device to tell the same story in different ways, from different points of view. These are not two creation stories, but rather two different ways of telling portions of the same story with different emphases. The first is a global recounting of the creation of the world--an overview, if you will. The second telling of the story gives the more specific relating of the story from the perspective of God's relationship to mankind through his creation of Adam and Eve. In Genesis 1, for example, we have the story being told as God creating human beings, "male and female he created them." In Genesis 2, the focus in brought down to the personal level as we are told exactly how God created them through the creation of Adam and Eve.

As far as the water, vs. no rain and formless, vs. land that you mention, it's clear, to me at least, that Genesis is pinpointing a specific moment within the creation story. Basically, Genesis 1 recounts the story leading up to the creation of man. Then Genesis 2 takes that creation of man and explores it in detail. Saying that there was no rain doesn't mean there was no water, only that there had been no rain.

That's just a rough outline of how I view those two chapters. There are not multiple writers, but rather varying literary devices being employed by the same writer. Saying that because the 2 chapters are not identical that means there were two different writers is kind of like saying that someone who writes prose couldn't possibly also write poetry. Or that someone who writes a biography about someone named "Mrs. Smith" couldn't also refer to her as "Joe's Mom" or "Elizabeth" depending on the context of the narrative. That's a bit silly, don't you think?

From a personal point of view, I think one of the things that the contrast between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 illustrates is that God is the almighty, all-powerful, creative God of Genesis 1, yet also the intensely personal God we see in Genesis 2 who personally created man for a relationship with Him. The two different names being used for God in these two different passages I believe are also meant to illustrate different aspects of God's character.

As for the question about where the "light" from Genesis 1 came from when the sun and moon had not yet been created, I have no clue, lol.... It is a great question that I've heard several different possible answers to, but I think the reality is no one knows for sure how that part is supposed to work.

-penny

[exmarine]

Where did you learn this - some liberal apostate so-called "seminary"??

Jesus clearly believed that Moses wrote the whole thing. I quote:

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. [Jn 5:46]

Was Jesus wrong and you are right?

What about the theory of the three Isaiahs? Care to argue for that one too? Jesus quotes from every section of Isaiah clearly believing Isaiah wrote it.

It seems the best argument against your thesis is from Jesus himself.

[Junior]

Bump.

[Protagoras]

When you finally have a moment of clarity about something that has been accepted by almost every other person who knows anything about a subject, you would be better off not to label it as "new". You are one of the few to whom this subject matter is "new".

Flash! I have some new information for the world. 2+2=4

[xzins]

YOU SAID:
---In the second, the LORD, God, begins his work with man. The garden, trees, rivers and animals follow

The following is a larger portion of text from chapter 2. Please note the areas in bold.

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested[1] from all his work.

3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--

5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth[2] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth[3] and there was no man to work the ground,

6 but streams[4] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground--

7 the LORD God formed the man[5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters.

Obviously, to place a man in the garden, it had to be there first. The "had planted" followed the verse about "forming" the man. Sequentially, then, the garden came first....as did the streams.

Thus, point 2 of your theory topples. And with it the entire theory.