Two Creation Accounts?

[ecco]

And that is the key to understanding the biblical accounts. We wouldn't have this problem if Gen began with 'Once Upon a Time'. Another key to the creation account is the realization that the final form of the Pentateuch that we read today was compiled during the Babylonian exile and the temptation of the exiles to adopt their religious rites. Gen is of little priority other than to give a 'history' of the people of Exodus. God's inspiration must be related in terms of what is common at the time.

If it's written in the style of what is common at the time, why do you believe it was inspired by God. Why not just accept the fact that it was written by people to address questions like:
Where did we all come from?
Why do people do bad things?

 

[ecco]

Hence, the reader is not held to undeviating literalness in interpreting the words, "the LORD said to Moses." One must keep in mind that the Pentateuch is the crystallization of Israel's age-old relationship with God.

If not, then why is it written: "the LORD said to Moses."
Why couldn't Moses have just written down laws? Why did there have to be a pretense that the laws came from a god.

On the other hand, perhaps the people who wrote these things down actually believed there was a Moses and a god who spoke to him. Perhaps that was what they believed because those were the established oral legends.

 

[pearl]

If it's written in the style of what is common at the time, why do you believe it was inspired by God. Why not just accept the fact that it was written by people to address questions like:
Where did we all come from?
Why do people do bad things?

Questions addressed to whom? All of the creation myths have in common the some sense of a wholly Other.

 

[pearl]

If not, then why is it written: "the LORD said to Moses."

Only humans speak words.

Why did there have to be a pretense that the laws came from a god.

No pretense, that's what inspiration is, a mystical encounter, the receiver must make it public.

Perhaps that was what they believed because those were the established oral legends.

And these sagas handed down relate Israel's relation to its God, which the history of begins with Exodus.

 

[metis]

Where could Biblical ideas have come from? Noah's story looks a lot like Gilgamesh's story but the ideas are opposite. The results are opposite. Noah doesn't evolve from Gilgamesh nor Gilgamesh from Noah.

What is believed by many scholars is not that the Flood accounts are a replica of Gilgamesh but that it is hypothesized by some that Jews would have taken that Babylonian story and sharply revised it to include, not Babylonian values, but early Jewish values. All societies pretty much have done that historically, and it's especially common amongst societies that have and use oral traditions.

For an example of that process, use Wikipedia's account of "Santa Claus" and see how that narrative changed quite radically over the centuries: Santa Claus - Wikipedia

I hate hearing concrete assurances (not by you but in general) that we now know how the Bible evolves. We don't.

Correct, but there are hints at times.

We are still learning things about the cultures in the Bible.

Absolutely, which is why I have had subscriptions to BAR.

 

[metis]

Bur this does not deny the role of Moses in the development of the Pentateuch. It is true we do not conceive of him as the author of the books in the modern sense. But there is no reason to doubt that, in the events described in these traditions, he had a uniquely important role, especially as lawgiver. Even the later laws which have been added in P and D are presented as a Mosaic heritage. Moses is the lawgiver par excellence, and all later legislation is conceived in his spirit, and therefore attributed to him. Hence, the reader is not held to undeviating literalness in interpreting the words, "the LORD said to Moses." One must keep in mind that the Pentateuch is the crystallization of Israel's age-old relationship with God.

I did not say, nor do I believe that Moses never existed or that he didn't have an impact on Torah. But the relatively late writings in Torah imply that much was carried orally and eventually written from more than one source, and most theologians that I have read believe that the first chapters of Genesis probably were mainly from oral accounts, eventually submitted to writing.

Thus, to put it the way Joseph Campbell did, "... and the myth* became the reality".


*"myth" in his and my context does not mean nor imply falsehood, as you're probably aware of.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Why the contradiction in the two creation accounts of Genesis 1:1-4:26?

The two creation accounts are given in different order, but that doesn't make them contradictory. The first account is a chronological account (Genesis 1:1-2:4) and the second account is a topical account. (Genesis 2:5-4:26) The first account is a chronological description of the creation of the heavens and earth and it's inhabitants. The second account describes the human race and the fall into sin, introducing various aspects of the story as they are necessary.

I believe the creation account in the Bible is referring to the creation of the Adamic Cycle and is referring to the Suns of Truth which appear in each Day of God.

2 Peter 3:8

With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

As the Bible is about mans relationship with God I do not believe the creation story is referring to the beginning of the physical existence of this earth which science has conclusively proven to be billions of years old.

I understand that in the Adamic Cycle there have been 7 Days of God where an Educator appeared. So we have Educators like Buddha, Krishna, Muhammad, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus and Abraham. This period is also know as the Prophetic Cycle because in each of these Faiths there is clear prophecies foretelling a Promised One Who would appear at the end of the Age or Cycle.

Muhammad was the last of the Prophets Who prophesied.

After this was to appear the Cycle of Fulfillment when all the prophecies and promises such as world peace and the lamb and wolf laying together in peace (antagonistic sects and peoples ) would gradually be fulfilled and peace would reign on earth.

So to me the creation story is more about God’s relations with humanity and that each Day of God refers to each age a new Prophet, Manifestation or Teacher appears.

And in the Adamic Cycle there were to be 7 Days of God so to speak. And then the age of fulfilment when a new world dawns which we have already begun to see. It says in Revelation a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ which is referring to a new spiritual reality and a new worldly reality which I believe is this scientific age and are are sorting out a new spiritual reality amongst us which I believe will eventually lead to peace and reconciliation.

But the 7; days in my view does not refer to the creation of this physical world as science has already proven it is billions of years olds. The creation story to me about the appearance of God’s religions and Messengers during those 7 days.

 

[pearl]

most theologians that I have read believe that the first chapters of Genesis probably were mainly from oral accounts, eventually submitted to writing.

True. The purpose of Gen makes sense only as it relates to Exodus.

 

[ecco]

ecco:
If it's written in the style of what is common at the time, why do you believe it was inspired by God. Why not just accept the fact that it was written by people to address questions like:
Where did we all come from?
Why do people do bad things?
​

Questions addressed to whom?

​

Questions raised by ignorant people to their equally ignorant leaders. Leaders who knew enough to never say "I Don't Know".
Leaders who found it in their best interests to say GodDidIt. Leaders who passed these beliefs on from generation to generation to the extent that they were "facts".

All of the creation myths have in common the some sense of a wholly Other.

Of course they do. If you were the leader of a small tribe thousands of years ago and were asked "Why did so many people in that village by the sea die when the waves came in?" how would you have responded?

Would you have told your people that that's just part of nature and happens from time to time? Or would you have used it as a teaching moment to show what happens when most of the people in a settlement by the sea become evil?

 

[ecco]

If not, then why is it written: "the LORD said to Moses."

Only humans speak words.

That's a meaningless response. AKA Ducking and Dodging.

Why did there have to be a pretense that the laws came from a god.

No pretense, that's what inspiration is, a mystical encounter, the receiver must make it public.

You don't know the difference between pretense, inspiration, and a mystical encounter?

And these sagas handed down relate Israel's relation to its God, which the history of begins with Exodus.

Ah, the Exodus. Another myth, as even Hebrew scholars will now admit.

 

[metis]

Ah, the Exodus. Another myth, as even Hebrew scholars will now admit.

Personally, I take all scriptures as "myth", which does not mean nor imply falsehood within theological and anthropological circles, so what's truly important in this vein is not whether the "history" is accurate but what are the basic teachings dealing with in regards to faith and morality.

 

[pearl]

Leaders who knew enough to never say "I Don't Know".

That's what Mystery is, "I Don't Know"

"Why did so many people in that village by the sea die when the waves came in?" how would you have responded?

They drowned.

Of
Would you have told your people that that's just part of nature and happens from time to time? Or would you have used it as a teaching moment to show what happens when most of the people in a settlement by the sea become evil?

You are trying to place a 21cent mindset back to a primitive mindset. It doesn't work. The greater problem is some people continue to blame misfortune on evil.

 

[pearl]

That's a meaningless response. AKA Ducking and Dodging.

If you believe God speaks words then be my guest.

You don't know the difference between pretense, inspiration, and a mystical encounter?

The encounter belongs to the mystic alone. He makes it public within the human limitation of the time.

Ah, the Exodus. Another myth, as even Hebrew scholars will now admit.

Exodus is embellished with myth but the reality is Israel a people acknowledging one God.

 

[ecco]

That's what Mystery is, "I Don't Know"

Right, but instead of admitting it, they made up gods and stories about gods.

They drowned.

Yes, they died because they drowned. But you know that wasn't the question. You would not have lasted very long as a giver of knowledge.

You are trying to place a 21cent mindset back to a primitive mindset. It doesn't work. The greater problem is some people continue to blame misfortune on evil.

So you tell me I'm wrong and then show that I'm right. Do you even understand what you wrote?

 

[ecco]

If not, then why is it written: "the LORD said to Moses."

Only humans speak words.

That's a meaningless response. AKA Ducking and Dodging.

If you believe God speaks words then be my guest.

I don't believe that.
My question, which you failed to address was:
If not, then why is it written:
"the LORD said to Moses."

 

[ecco]

You don't know the difference between pretense, inspiration, and a mystical encounter?

The encounter belongs to the mystic alone. He makes it public within the human limitation of the time.

So you don't know the difference between pretense, inspiration, and a mystical encounter. OK.

 

[ecco]

Personally, I take all scriptures as "myth", which does not mean nor imply falsehood within theological and anthropological circles, so what's truly important in this vein is not whether the "history" is accurate but what are the basic teachings dealing with in regards to faith and morality.

What are the basic teachings of the Exodus?

 

[pearl]

Right, but instead of admitting it, they made up gods and stories about gods.

Once again you equate the mindset of primitive man with that of today. It is through 'stories' that their experience of their God is related. It is the 'story' of who we are as believers.

So you tell me I'm wrong and then show that I'm right. Do you even understand what you wrote?

Now you're babbling.

 

[ecco]

Once again you equate the mindset of primitive man with that of today. It is through 'stories' that their experience of their God is related. It is the 'story' of who we are as believers.

Now you're babbling.

Here is what you said...

You are trying to place a 21cent mindset back to a primitive mindset. It doesn't work. The greater problem is some people continue to blame misfortune on evil.

In reference to blaming "evil", you stated that I was wrong because I was trying to place a 21st Century mindset back to a primitive mindset. You said "It doesn't work". Then you said "people continue to blame misfortune on evil", thereby admitting that you see no difference between the mindset of people then and people now.

 

[pearl]

In reference to blaming "evil", you stated that I was wrong because I was trying to place a 21st Century mindset back to a primitive mindset. You said "It doesn't work". Then you said "people continue to blame misfortune on evil", thereby admitting that you see no difference between the mindset of people then and people now.

Refers to fundamentalists not mainstream Christians. It doesn't work as a position to argue from.