1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Are there Two Creation Events in Genesis?

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by jhwatts, Sep 10, 2017.

  1. Windwalker

    Windwalker Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    11,273
    Ratings:
    +7,286
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    Oh I see your reasoning. Humans live as hunter gathers to this day however, and they are far better off in many regards dietarily, as well as physically, to their human counterparts living in industrialized societies. You have no argument from anthropology that we lived as a whole as hunter gatherers until the Agricultural Revolution around 10,000 BCE. The AR can be understood as actually a trap for humans, forcing them to work longer hours and restricting their diets. Some view the AR as a curse in this way.

    But back to what the Bible says, it doesn't say that humans ate animals until after the flood (Gen. 9:3,4). Is your saying that since they couldn't produce wheat crops through agriculture that they therefore must have hunted animals, as an assumption? Or do you have a verse that indicates they ate animals before the flood? After is there, that I referenced above. I'm not aware of any before.
     
  2. Kemosloby

    Kemosloby Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    5,122
    Ratings:
    +1,233
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yeah your right, no mention of eating animals until after the flood. They did have agriculture but the curse on Adam meant they had to work hard for it. And the curse on Cain was nothing would grow for him.
     
  3. jhwatts

    jhwatts Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    118
    Ratings:
    +14
    Then validate or invalidate with specifics as it related to what scripture I have shown. The scriptural debate is concerning two possible creation accounts in the Bible. Show me specifically the invalidation of this by literal interpretation.
     
  4. Windwalker

    Windwalker Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    11,273
    Ratings:
    +7,286
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    There are two creation accounts. But the approach to this is not a "literal interpretation" as you are placing as a demand. This is not a "fundamentalists only" club debate. Where I see you running into problems is at the outset with a literalist presupposition that the stories MUST be creating a "big picture" that God wants us to figure out. I reject that presumption. There is no "big picture" hidden in there, and you are trying to take the two stories and "harmonize" them in some meta-narrative of sorts.

    My response to this is simple. Modern scholarship. I accept the Documentary Hypothesis to be largely valid. If you are unfamiliar with it, here's a brief explanation of how this pertains to these two creation stories:

    The Torah (or Pentateuch) is the collective name for the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. According to tradition they were dictated by God to Moses, but when modern critical scholarship began to be applied to the Bible it was discovered that the Pentateuch was not the unified text one would expect from a single author. As a result, the Mosaic authorship of the Torah had been largely rejected by leading scholars by the 17th century, and the modern consensus is that it is the product of a long evolutionary process.

    In the mid-18th century, some authors started a critical study of doublets (parallel accounts of the same incidents), inconsistencies, and changes in style and vocabulary. In 1780 Johann Eichhorn, building on the work of the French doctor and exeget Jean Astruc's "Conjectures" and others, formulated the "older documentary hypothesis": the idea that Genesis was composed by combining two identifiable sources, the Jehovist ("J"; also called the Yahwist) and the Elohist ("E"). These sources were subsequently found to run through the first four books of the Torah, and the number was later expanded to three when Wilhelm de Wette identified the Deuteronomist as an additional source found only in Deuteronomy ("D").Later still the Elohist was split into Elohist and Priestly ("P") sources, increasing the number to four.

    <snip>

    The supplementary approach was dominant by the early 1860s, but it was challenged by an important book published by Hermann Hupfeld in 1853, who argued that the Pentateuch was made up of four documentary sources, the Priestly, Yahwist, and Elohist intertwined in Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers, and the stand-alone source of Deuteronomy. At around the same period Karl Heinrich Graf argued that the Yahwist and Elohist were the earliest sources and the Priestly source the latest, while Wilhelm Vatke linked the four to an evolutionary framework, the Yahwist and Elohist to a time of primitive nature and fertility cults, the Deuteronomist to the ethical religion of the Hebrew prophets, and the Priestly source to a form of religion dominated by ritual, sacrifice and law.
    The two creation accounts were written by the Priestly and Yahwist sources. There are scholarly works out there which go into detail in the texts showing the different authors. Here's one I found in a simple Google search (once I got past all the apologist site drivel whining about it) Link. That both were spliced into the scripture does not mean there is some grand picture from above you are supposed to figure out how to fit together like puzzle pieces. I don't think it concerned the original readers too terribly much, because it's not about historical facts and science. It's about the message of the various stories and the cultural significance and relevance they provide. Reading it literally destroys that message, and hence why I say, you invalidate scripture.
     
    #104 Windwalker, Sep 12, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
  5. pearl

    pearl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    5,691
    Ratings:
    +2,785
    Religion:
    Catholic
    There are primarily two traditions in the first two chapters of Gen., the Priestly and the Yahwist with a few other sources thrown in.
     
  6. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,053
    Ratings:
    +11,922
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Okay, animals are not mention, which I can see as perhaps indicating that they were not meant to be food; although, one must still grapple with god's declaration that man have "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." If this was not meant to mean that they serve as food, then in what sense does man have "dominion" over them, and why would this be important?

    Actually not. Aside from no mention that they started eating animals we have this.

    Genesis 3:17-19, 23
    17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground;

    23 therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
    which clearly indicates things were growing for man.

    .
     
  7. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,053
    Ratings:
    +11,922
    Religion:
    Atheist
    OMG! If this isn't trying to fit a square peg into a round hole I don't know what is. But thanks for the smile anyway.

    .
     
  8. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Christian
    You thinking that you understand scripture is like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole that doesn't exist. You read but you do not understand.
     
  9. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,053
    Ratings:
    +11,922
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Well, I do understand jhwatts' need to make sense of the two accounts of Genesis no matter how screwball his concocted scenario has to be.

    In any case, should I take this to mean you buddy-up with jhwatts and his two creations?

    .
     
  10. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Christian
    If that is your conclusion you may think what you will. Anybody who puts the least bit of faith in abiogenesis is liable to think anything.
     
  11. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,053
    Ratings:
    +11,922
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Boy, if you have trouble with a simple "Yes" or "No" question, you best prepare yourself for high school where some questions actually require you to answer in complete sentences. Sentences that

    1. Begin with a capital letter
    2. Have at least one main clause (a clause that contains an independent subject and verb)
    3. Express a complete thought.​

    So, get out your pencil and start practicin'. ...................................................................or not. :D

    .
     
  12. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Christian
    Ad hominem. Your tactics are consistent, I'll give you that. ;)
     
  13. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,053
    Ratings:
    +11,922
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Said the pot to the kettle.

    .
     
  14. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Christian
    So you admit it? Yep.
     
  15. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,053
    Ratings:
    +11,922
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Boy, if only this made sense you might have something.

    .
     
  16. jhwatts

    jhwatts Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    118
    Ratings:
    +14
    My responses are noted below.


    1. There are two creation accounts. But the approach to this is not a "literal interpretation" as you are placing as a demand. (Please explain why this cannot be the? You can take a literal approach when you realize that the authors at that time conveyed what they thought in a different way than we do now, also translational errors, and degradation of manuscripts over time really have yielded a different document. This still doesn’t change their literal perception and how they recorded it. There are many differences from the original to deal with, people often assume by abstraction or symbolism a different message than the original literal intention.)

    2. This is not a "fundamentalists only" club debate. (Agreed.) Where I see you running into problems is at the outset with a literalist presupposition that the stories MUST be creating a "big picture" that God wants us to figure out. (How do you know that this is not the case?) I reject that presumption. (Ok.) There is no "big picture" hidden in there and you are trying to take the two stories and "harmonize" them in some meta-narrative of sorts. (You assume this to be the case with little basis, however I feel different as it is single story that is typically perceived as two.)

    My response to this is simple. Modern scholarship. I adhere to the Documentary Hypothesis to be largely valid. If you are unfamiliar with it, here's a brief explanation of how this pertains to these two creation stories:

    The Torah (or Pentateuch) is the collective name for the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. According to tradition they were dictated by God to Moses, but when modern critical scholarship began to be applied to the Bible it was discovered that the Pentateuch was not the unified text one would expect from a single author. As a result, the Mosaic authorship of the Torah had been largely rejected by leading scholars by the 17th century, and the modern consensus is that it is the product of a long evolutionary process.

    In the mid-18th century, some authors started a critical study of doublets (parallel accounts of the same incidents), inconsistencies, and changes in style and vocabulary. In 1780 Johann Eichhorn, building on the work of the French doctor and exeget Jean Astruc's "Conjectures" and others, formulated the "older documentary hypothesis": the idea that Genesis was composed by combining two identifiable sources, the Jehovist ("J"; also called the Yahwist) and the Elohist ("E"). These sources were subsequently found to run through the first four books of the Torah, and the number was later expanded to three when Wilhelm de Wette identified the Deuteronomist as an additional source found only in Deuteronomy ("D").Later still the Elohist was split into Elohist and Priestly ("P") sources, increasing the number to four.

    < snip>

    The supplementary approach was dominant by the early 1860s, but it was challenged by an important book published by Hermann Hupfeld in 1853, who argued that the Pentateuch was made up of four documentary sources, the Priestly, Yahwist, and Elohist intertwined in Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers, and the stand-alone source of Deuteronomy. At around the same period Karl Heinrich Graf argued that the Yahwist and Elohist were the earliest sources and the Priestly source the latest, while Wilhelm Vatke linked the four to an evolutionary framework, the Yahwist and Elohist to a time of primitive nature and fertility cults, the Deuteronomist to the ethical religion of the Hebrew prophets, and the Priestly source to a form of religion dominated by ritual, sacrifice and law.

    The two creation accounts were written by the Priestly and Yahwist sources. There are scholarly works out there which go into detail in the texts showing the different authors. Here's one I found in a simple Google search (once I got past all the apologist site drivel whining about it) Link. That both were spliced into the scripture does not mean there is some grand picture from above you are supposed to figure out how to fit together like puzzle pieces. (That doesn’t necessarily mean they are not. Even if they were separate authors, it doesn’t mean they wasn’t trying to convey the same message.).

    I don't think it concerned the original readers too terribly much, because it's not about historical facts and science. It's about the message of the various stories and the cultural significance and relevance they provide. (This is an assumption made on your part; how did you come to this conclusion? Again, the message is literal however, many choose to assume an abstraction or a symbolic interpretation due to the documents changes over time.) Reading it literally destroys that message, and hence why I say, you invalidate scripture.

    I agree to some extent as certain other books outside of Genesis do have a specific tone and utilize a similar language (specific terms) as the content of the first 10 chapters of Genesis. I have found differences, however these in the first few contain certain similarities that show their relations.


    On a side note, I am very seriously considering running some text analysis to isolate specific authors work based on certain word frequencies and patterns. This is something I have debating on and really now see a real need. If I survive the course of this thread I will post my results.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. jhwatts

    jhwatts Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    118
    Ratings:
    +14

    I’m assuming you crayon was fairly dull when you wrote this.
     
  18. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well, you admitted it by stating that I was guilty as well. Oops.
     
  19. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,094
    Ratings:
    +6,771
    Religion:
    None
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,053
    Ratings:
    +11,922
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Love it!

    .
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
Loading...