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?
What about the books that are not included in the Bible. Are they divinely inspired and if not, why not?
What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Are they divinely inspired?
Were some books inspired by the Catholics but uninspired after the Reformation?
Is the King James version of the OT more or less inspired than the Torah?
If we were all liberals we would all be at the NOW rally :>(
Just don't get tied into one opinion on scripture girl..read!
Blessings
It's not silly. Your very soul depends on Genesis story being true. Let me offer a little logic in this regard: If Adam and Eve are mere allegory or myth, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need for a Savior; if there is no need for a Savior; then Jesus Christ becomes irrelevant and there is no sin now; if there is no sin, then why do catholics go to confession every Sunday?
I don't believe God created the universe as described. I believe the creation story is a myth that helped people understand the beginning of time, the world, and human kind. Of course you can't apply physical contraints to God. The one thing I DO KNOW about God is that he is beyond my comprehension and beyond the comprehension of any mortal.
Because someone else (perhaps Joshua) redacted the Torah does not mean the Torah was not compiled by Moses. Take a modern day example, for instance:
Paul Little wrote some good apologetics books, such as "Know why you believe". Mr. Little later died and his wife, Mary, "redacted" some of his books, telling of Mr. Little's death. Does that mean Paul Little did not write or compile his books? No. Of course not.
I can't. It's a plausible scenario. I just don't agree with it. :) I don't believe it's the same writer. I (and many others) can hear two distinct voices. Not just in Genesis, but through out the Pentatuch. But your scenario makes sense as well, if you don't believe in the theory of mutliple writers.
Flash! I have some new information for the world. 2+2=4
I think for many people, myself included, when it comes to the Bible it's either all or nothing. Either the Bible is divinely inspired or it's not. Either it's the Word of God, or it's not. Picking and choosing what we do and do not like out of the Bible is a dangerous path to take, because it's in man's nature to only accept the easy things, and to throw away those things that we most need to hear.
Your example is a classic. The easy path is just to divide up the Bible and say, well this is different so therefore even though the Bible says later on that these things were written by a particular person, it's easier to just divide it up among several different authors. Your example follows the famous (or infamous, IMO) JDEP (or whatever it's called, I forget the initials) framework for divying up various books of the Old Testament. What that particular theory does, ultimately, is deny the unity of the Bible, and the miraculous aspects of the writing and preservation of the text itself. It also denies the fullness and multi-faceted nature of God and implies that man's "perception" of God is what's important by elevating supposedly different writers' perceptions and understanding of God into a position of authority rather than accepting God as the ultimate authority over His own word...
-penny
This is arrogant. How do you know how God created the universe ? In addition, if you agree that the bible was inspired by God and if God is all powerfull, why would he let his story be told in error ?
Are you sure you understand Genesis 1 and 2 fully ? Are you sure you understand just how the world was created ? Even scientists are not sure but you know better ?
Humble yourself and you will do much better at your bible studies.
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.
So truth as a whole is not fixed, but dependent upon your view of it and how we as a people have 'evolved'. From that standpoint, you could justify X42's actions as 'well it was HIS view of the truth'
Point well made, but it made you LOL, so it was worth it. I'm just in that kind of mood today. :-)
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.