Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Weatherman123
I know I am sounding contradictory but even the the many authors idea is not totally satisfactory. Let me give you a verse that got me to thinking that the fundies might be more correct than wrong

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.

369 posted on 12/07/2001 10:55:11 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies ]


To: VRWC_minion
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'?"

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.

370 posted on 12/07/2001 11:01:03 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies ]

To: VRWC_minion
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.

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!

373 posted on 12/07/2001 11:16:17 AM PST by Weatherman123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies ]

To: VRWC_minion
I know I am sounding contradictory but even the the many authors idea is not totally satisfactory. Let me give you a verse that got me to thinking that the fundies might be more correct than wrong

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.

375 posted on 12/07/2001 12:09:41 PM PST by Carol Roberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson