Two Creation Accounts?

[shunyadragon]

It's funny though, here we are talking about the Bible and not the alleged Sumerian mythology. I think you just think that way because, like I said, the medieval interpretation of the Bible isn't perceived as modern day intellectualism. The trouble with that, as I've said, is that the medieval interpretation isn't accurate.

I am going by the factual evidence of the evolution of texts from the Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite, and Ugarit cultures. The Hebrew texts are very very late and reflect heavily on editing, redacting and compiling material from ancient texts.

Ancient mythology is not meaningful in today's world.

 

[metis]

Contrary to the belief of some, the Documentary Hypothesis has not fallen out of favor but instead been added to by some other hypotheses. typically based on oral traditions being passed on down. The idea that Moses wrote the Torah has been discounted by biblical scholars with the primary exception of those within more fundamentalist denominations. There simply is not one shred of evidence to support the concept that Moshe wrote them all.

 

[Earthling]

What is the oldest written account of genesis and the oldest complete account of genesis?

Are you referring to extant manuscripts?

 

[shunyadragon]

What is the oldest written account of genesis and the oldest complete account of genesis?

The Dead Sea scrolls has much of the text of Genesis.. and are roughly from between 200BCE and 100CE

 

[Earthling]

I am going by the factual evidence of the evolution of texts from the Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite, and Ugarit cultures. The Hebrew texts are very very late and reflect heavily on editing, redacting and compiling material from ancient texts.

Ancient mythology is not meaningful in today's world.

Okay. When did Moses allegedly write Genesis and how long before that had the events in the creation account, i.e. Adam taken place. Then, how are those Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite and Ugarit cultures dated, for example, within that time period?

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay. When did Moses allegedly write Genesis and how long before that had the events in the creation account, i.e. Adam taken place. Then, how are those Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite and Ugarit cultures dated, for example, within that time period?

Allegedly is the key. There is no evidence to support Moses authorship. The Sumerian cuneiform texts are dated to around 1600 BC

 

[BubbaGumps]

Contrary to the belief of some, the Documentary Hypothesis has not fallen out of favor but instead been added to by some other hypotheses. typically based on oral traditions being passed on down. The idea that Moses wrote the Torah has been discounted by biblical scholars with the primary exception of those within more fundamentalist denominations. There simply is not one shred of evidence to support the concept that Moshe wrote them all.

I think that is a fair assessment. Outside of fundamentalist interpretations, there are no independent scholars who entertain the idea that the content of Genesis is the work of a single individual that was composed at a particular point in time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The documentary theory claims that documents on which the Pentateuch were based were not written by Moses, but rather they were written by various authors much later, beginning in the tenth century B.C.. It claims the Pentateuch was written by four primary sources. They are called "J" (Jahwist), "E" (Elohim), "P" (Priest Codex) and "D" (Deuteronomy). The alleged reasoning behind this division is that these various authors used various terms for God, and their styles varied as well. Their clams are often wrong. For example, the word bara (created) is used at [1] The real foundation of these claims, however, seems to come from a natural proclivity to deny the possibility of the supernatural. If the alleged prophecies of Daniel were fulfilled by the second century B.C.E. then that book must have been written at that time.

Though much of the documentary hypothesis has fallen out of favor with scholars in the late 20th century, a great deal of it remains popular with atheists who are in need of affirmation of their position on the supernatural, so there have been subtle changes in the theory which pretty much fall under the same problematic conclusions.

[1] Ancient Orient and Old Testament, by K. A. Kitchen, 1968, p. 115

Correct, it has been known for quite some time that "Moses" was not real person. He was a mixture of mythical figures from other religions.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I know. Unbelievers like to think there's no making any sense of it because that would require thought.

Incorrect. We like to think there's no making sense of it because the actual "truth" of any of the supernatural, not-of-this-world, claims of the un-observable are ones that no believer is capable of sufficiently demonstrating. You just can't do it. You can't. Can't. I could show you how to program in Javascript, for instance, and we could go through the knowledge and tools necessary to do so, and you could produce actual results that you could take and show anyone else you wanted to. There's absolutely nothing like this with regard to religious belief. You can't work out a prayer, for example, that works in the same way no matter who you have use it. You can't call upon the forces you believe exist to come to any verifiable results. You may as well worship a pair of dice, or a magic 8-ball with regard to reliance on results. Honestly. This is where you are at.

If you make up a story and I interpret to mean something that it obviously doesn't that don't render the text to your liking, though, so . . . test me.

Test you with what? You want me to make up a story that you can try and interpret? Or are you asking me to test you on The Bible? Your sentence above is worded rather confusingly. I'm having trouble trying to interpret whatever it was that you probably thought was obvious...

 

[Baladas]

Isn't the common threads in mythology interesting? Just think! All of those stories came from the scattering after the tower of Babel!

I prefer to call it Etemenanki, the ziggurat of Marduk.

 

[sealchan]

I think that what you see in modern day Christian theology is a perceived need to dismiss the text as literal due to it's medieval interpretation not being in harmony with current science. That makes them look stupid. The difficulty with that is the medieval interpretation isn't the Biblical interpretation, so they dismiss Adam and sin as allegory and come up empty handed when the need for a Messiah for Adam's sin is proposed.

They basically dismiss the Bible for the traditions of man. God's word or man's word?

Those who suppose that they are in touch with "God's word" more so than the other humans who are reading and interpreting the same text yet have come to different understandings...these people have yet to convince anyone that they do anything other than misrepresent the authority of God as their own in an effort to trump the validity of those differing thoughts of others.

Those who say they know God's word are cleverly not saying "My understanding is superior to yours". It is always an end of useful discussion of God's word in my experience.

Human's wrote the Bible and I doubt that God wants us to think anything other than what has actually happened in this regard. Is what has actually happen less important that what has not actually happened?

 

[Baladas]

I am going by the factual evidence of the evolution of texts from the Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite, and Ugarit cultures. The Hebrew texts are very very late and reflect heavily on editing, redacting and compiling material from ancient texts.

Ancient mythology is not meaningful in today's world.

I prefer a literal interpretation of the Enuma Elish. It's more fun.

In all seriousness though, I deeply enjoy mythology and I do feel that it can be meaningful.
It probably shouldn't ever dictate someone's worldview though in my opinion.

 

[metis]

I prefer a literal interpretation of the Enuma Elish. It's more fun.

In all seriousness though, I deeply enjoy mythology and I do feel that it can be meaningful.
It probably shouldn't ever dictate someone's worldview though in my opinion.

Happy Birthday!!!

 

[Earthling]

Those who suppose that they are in touch with "God's word" more so than the other humans who are reading and interpreting the same text yet have come to different understandings...these people have yet to convince anyone that they do anything other than misrepresent the authority of God as their own in an effort to trump the validity of those differing thoughts of others.

Those who say they know God's word are cleverly not saying "My understanding is superior to yours". It is always an end of useful discussion of God's word in my experience.

Human's wrote the Bible and I doubt that God wants us to think anything other than what has actually happened in this regard. Is what has actually happen less important that what has not actually happened?

And you don't see the irony in that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What exactly does it mean to say they are mutually exclusive?

It means that they can't both be true in the same sense at the same time.

And the order differentiation doesn't constitute a contradiction unless you assume that both are given as chronological.

And I do, because there is no reason to think otherwise

Because one account is chronological and one is topical.

So you keep saying. One what basis did you decide that one account was not chronological, and on what basis did you choose which was which? It seems to be by whim.

what or where specifically, are these contradictory genealogies of Jesus?

I think that you can find those yourself.

You're unaware of these two mutually exclusive genealogies? Why are you making authoritative pronouncements on how scripture is to be interpreted?

Unbelievers like to think there's no making any sense of it because that would require thought.

Thought is what rational, empirical skeptics specialize in - reason applied to evidence. We reject faith, which not only requires no thought, but languishes in its presence.

to say that two versions of one account is contradictory because they are given in different orders is just desperation.

How about these two accounts:

• I arise every morning, then have a bowel movement.

• I have a bowel movement every morning, and then arise.

What is your response if I say that these two are not contradictory because the first account is chronological, but the second is topical?

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

Well, I don't claim the Bible is inerrant, but to say that two versions of one account is contradictory because they are given in different orders is just desperation.

Desperate how?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Well how about this for a crazy idea. There were actually two creations. God made the earth millions of years ago and it was beautiful and perfect. Over millions of years it became empty and void. ( Not the way it was made ) Then a few thousand years ago God RE-created a new earth by transforming the old one. This way both those who believe in an old earth and those who believe in a new earth can be happy. And nothing in the Bible says this could not be true. So, crazy? Or just too hard for most people to see?

 

[metis]

I can google flat earth but that doesn't make it true. At least the unbelievers have the guts to defend their positions.

Thanks for showing why I made the choice I did.

 

[metis]

Well how about this for a crazy idea. There were actually two creations.

Maybe not so crazy after all. The Lubavitch believe there were seven creations that were each partially destroyed, and it's only the last one that we read about in Genesis.

As for me, I have no belief one way or the other on this.

 

[sealchan]

And you don't see the irony in that.

The only irony is for any "man" to think they know "God's word" while claiming that another equally sincere and intelligent man does not.