[Weatherman123]

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

[douglas2]

Oops! Someone used the 'M' word...
To a layman a myth is something false, untrue, believed by people who don't
know any better because they don't have the scientific, rational explanation.

To one who studies culture, a myth is a culture's explanation of what IS, and
there is no inherent judgement of truth or untruth. The scholarly texts use
word 'myth' in the expectation that readers will understand that the word
is jargon in a particular field, but unfortunately it sometimes gets out to
rest of us who aren't familair with the jargon. The creation/genesis myth
of our own culture is the 'big bang theory'.

We look to science to answer
the questions of how we and our environment came to be as we are now, even
as science is unable to tell us the 'why' or whether life has any meaning.

So why dissect and analyse the text? In reading between the lines in the old
texts are we discovering minutia or important things?

Do we think that the purpose and teaching the bible has been misunderstood
and misrepresented for thousands of years, and can only be recovered or
exhumed by modern textual analysis?

When we try to reach across the chasm of time, the chasm
between civilisations, the chasm between differing literary traditions, and
the chasm of language to judge when and where the author wrote, with what
purposes, under what influences, and what vanished documents she used, is
our purpose merely to find some excuse to sweep the old stuff under the rug
and ignore it -- as we do the texts of the other ancient near eastern
civilisations?

Do we ask with Walter Percy why there are no Hittites on the streets of
Manhattan?

[monkeyshine]

This is a moronic argument for many reasons.

First, you are reading the english which is a translation many times removed from the Hebrew. Even assuming it was translated directly from Hebrew, it is still wrong, for Gen 1.1 does not say "When God Created", it merely says "In the Beginning, God created" - there is no "when" in there.

Gen 1.2 says "..the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters". So there was water. In fact, the waters were already IN THE PROCESS of being created. Gen 1.6 "Let there be a firmament between the waters and the waters" -- this firmament refers to Heaven, not earth. Although, there were waters -- the waters of heaven and the waters of earth.

Just because there was no rain (on the land) it doesn't mean there was no water. The water was already there -- Gen 1.9 and 1.10 -- he created DRY LAND by gathering the waters to let the "dry land appear".

[k2blader]

...different writers wrote different parts of the Bible.

Well, this was already quite established in my mind. :)

Thanks for the interesting post.

[monkeyshine]

As for "God" and "The Lord" this is plain as day. Gen 1.1 uses the word GOD, while gen 2 starts the usage of the word "The Lord". "God" implies Judgement, while "The Lord" implies Mercy. There are many names for God, each with different implications. What this means is that 'God' created the heavens and the earth using Judgement (He saw that it was Good). Later, when he created man, he balanced this judgement with Mercy. He perceived that the world could survive on Justice alone (Rashi).

The phrase "not yet" appears several times in the bible. Gen 2.5 "And every shrub of the field was not yet in the earth and every shrub...had not yet sprung up" shows that they had been created, but were not yet above the surface of the ground... like germinating seeds.

[sheltonmac]

You are trying to create an issue where one doesn't exist. The "two" accounts of creation in Genesis are of the same events. The first, obviously, is a chronological account. The second focuses on man as the pinnacle of God's creation. These are the same events, just told from a different perspective. You find the same thing in the New Testament. The gospels basically tell the same story but focus on different details. As far as your assumption that different theologies of God are presented, I have no idea how you are arriving at that conclusion. The entire Bible is full of different descriptions of God. Some focus on the human qualities, others on the kingly qualities, others on the servant qualities, and so on. All, however, point to one God.

[nightdriver]

There is valid answers to refute your theses, but there in't really enough time and space to adequately address them on this forum. If you aren't a believer, I can't make you one.

[OrioleFan]

The Koran was written by a Highwayman.

[TX Bluebonnet]

I was required to take 6 hours of Religion in college. One of my classes was genesis, a verse by verse dissection of Genesis. We used the Anchor Bible series book on Genesis and another book about Genesis.

The easiest part of the test was picking out the author. (P) for Priestly used "Lord" (or El--- ?) , was stricter, a little anal, and always gave the long X begat Y genealogies. (J) for Yahwehist (SP?) always used "God" (or Yahweh), and gave a more artful account of events. Then there was the occaisional (R) Redactor. He was a little harder to pick out, as his job was to blend the two stories together.

I was fascinated, but many of the Christian Ed majors dropped out.

[calvin sun]

No flames from me, my friend (grin). But I would like to offer comments.

First, God needs no sun in order to have light. In fact, God Himself is light.

Second, one runs into problems in saying that Adam and Eve were mythical figures. Genesis (if I remember correctly) lists a genealogy from Adam to Abraham. Then, Matthew lists a genealogy from Abraham to Christ. So, if Adam really is a myth, where does the mythical person end and the real person begin. Also, a mythical Adam destroys Paul's arguments in Romans 5.

[mrb1960]

Ok,

I'll way in, but just briefly. I was told by an old acquaintenance of this, and he told that it was speculated, AND IT'S ONLY SPECULATION, there two different creations are being refered to.

One for a pre-existance Earth where Satan met his downfall, and the one for the current Earth as we know it. It is speculated, and please see the word "speculation", that the fall of satan as told in the Old Testament took place on a pre-existant Earth. It was destroyed and awaited to be made anew by the Lord God. It's called the "Gap Theory."

If anyone else has heard of this let me know through this discussion or private reply. I'd like to find out if anyone else has heard of this.

[JoeSchem]

What kind of discussion is possible here? You are adamant in your belief that the Creation Story was written by two different people. As soon as you can prove this with copyright notices dated 4004 BC, I will believe you.

[Destructor]

Hmmm...whom do I believe? God, or an unknown mortal? Decisions...decisions...

[mrb1960]

Ok,

I'll way in, but just briefly. I was told by an old acquaintenance of this, and he told that it was speculated, AND IT'S ONLY SPECULATION, there two different creations are being refered to.

One for a pre-existance Earth where Satan met his downfall, and the one for the current Earth as we know it. It is speculated, and please see the word "speculation", that the fall of satan as told in the Old Testament took place on a pre-existant Earth. It was destroyed and awaited to be made anew by the Lord God. It's called the "Gap Theory."

If anyone else has heard of this let me know through this discussion or private reply. I'd like to find out if anyone else has heard of this.

[Sci Fi Guy]

***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?

1. You are assuming that light can only come from one source. Think about it for a moment. What is light? My simplistic answer: A form of energy. The Bible is saying that God created a form of energy, and then later created stars which emit the same type of energy.

2. Several years ago, I read a funny response to this question. It seems that under the BIG BANG theory. The same energy (light) is/was released, billions of years before the stars evolved.

3. I'll look for the source later, in case anyone is interested.

[Jerry_M]

"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?"

If you believe that God created everything out of nothing, then why is it difficult to believe that God could create light without a source that is apparent to us?

Creation myth(s)? These might just be words that come back to haunt you. As for me, and my house, we believe that the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses, and that they contain the inspired and innerant Word of God.

[Sci Fi Guy]

In regards to the 2 creation stories. It is a literary style. First is a brief account of the creation of the universe in general, followed by the earth's creation in detail.

If you look at the book of Daniel, you will see a similar style. Chapter one contains a general summary, while chapter two and following provides highly detailed accounts of what happened.

A couple of personal notes. When we talk about reading the Bible literally. We don't mean in a wooded fashion (i.e. taking figures of speech literally), but we mean we try to find the author's intent.

Also It's my understanding that the Multi Y,J,P E authorship theory is no longer widely held in scholarship circles. (sorry, I cann't provide you with sources, I'm in the process of relocating so all my books/sources are packed up.) You might want to do some studies to see what current views are?

[lavaroise]

The Bible is open to moralisation, but I like to think I am Jesus Christ moralising liberals ... just to see how open liberals are of eccentricity... well, it happens my Bible is much better at tolerance than they are in this area.

[Jeremiah Jr]

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?

... The Talmud says the following: HaShem made this light - a certain type of light. It was too penetrating. So He only let it last for thirty-six hours. And after thirty-six hours He took it away and hid it for sometime in the future that has not yet come. And He replaced it with a weaker merely physical aspect of that light. But that as long as that light was there, for those thirty-six hours, Adam by means of that light was able to see from one end of the world to the other, and from the beginning of time to the end of time. So that light was the light of total understanding. Isn't that what light signifies? The Talmud says anytime that the word "light" is used anyway in the Torah or Rabbinic text "light" always means knowledge and wisdom and understanding.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin

Now on to the New Covenant...

John 1


The Eternal Word


Testimony of John the Baptist
¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ²He was in the beginning with God. ³All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. ⁴In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. ⁵And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.


John's Witness: The True Light
⁶ There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. ⁷This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. ⁸He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. ⁹That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

1 John starts off much the same way. It must be very important to him.

1 John 1


What Was Heard, Seen, and Touched


Fellowship with the Father and the Son
¹ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life-- ²the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- ³that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. ⁴And these things we write to you that your joy may be full.


Fellowship with Him and One Another
⁵ This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.

In the beginning was Yeshua Ha'Maschiach
Jesus the Messiah

\\\\|////

[Redcloak]

You're being hampered a bit by the fact that your reading an English translation of a Hebrew text. Some of the idioms don't translate well. For instance in your 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?

The word translated as "waters" in Gen 1:2 can also be rendered as "vapors". (Which strikes me as how one might describe the nebula out of which the solar system was formed, by the way.) There is no contradiction here nor any need to suppose a second writer.

Also from your examples...

---In the first, God is called "God".

---In the second, God is called "the LORD".

The word translated as "God" is "Elohim"; literally "Gods". (The Jews have always understood this use of the plural to describe God to be "qualitative" rather than "quantitative". To Christians, this use of the plural and the traditional Jewish understanding of its use are suggestive of the nature of the Trinity.) The phrase "The Lord" is used whenever the name of God appears in the original text. Again, no contradiction nor evidence of a second writer.

Your basic premise, however, is correct. Different writers at different times wrote the various books. But the writers' works aren't intermingled as you suggest.

[slimer]

This Needs a Knowledgeable Response