What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?

You must read it as though you wish to prove it wrong. Sometimes you will read something that way, and it turns out that you prove it right, other times you will prove it wrong.Also, break down each section and think of what it ACTUALLY is saying, and not what the author wanted us to think, etc.This seems to be the way I break things down. It's not often that I am actually able to disprove the authors, however the Bible is full of mistakes, so it's quite easy.Trék

You heard me.Genesis 5 lists the descendants of Adam. Supposedly the JE stories are not concerned with timelines like R and P are. IMO, R and P are trying to make the stories more realistic and work them into reality.Do you have anything that breaks down the verses for you concerning the documentary hypothesis?I think Friedman has gone a little further than some I've seen.I will read the section on the R author again to maybe give you an idea of his reasoning.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

as far as i know, genesis 5 is generally considered a priestly work, as are all genealogical listings in the torah. i mean, i could be wrong -- the contention is tha the priests who wrote that source had a je document, into which they worked their own text. in some respects, p is also part of r. i saw a bible once with the different sources highlighted. i couldn't remember what it is -- turns out it's one of friedman's books. so, i guess i can't use that to support this particular idea lol.

---

אָרַח

literalness (in the literal sense of the word) is a good thing, but so is the context and intention of the author. what it's actually saying is sometimes not what it means. what do we do in the case of idioms or metaphor? did ruth really uncover boaz's feet, or did she do something else?it actually says she did something with his feet. but the author wanted use to think of something else.rather, what we should not do is start with the idea of what we want it to say, or what we want to think, and try to defend that position based on ignoring or accepting evidence based on how well it agrees.

---

אָרַח

Well, if this subject has you so excited yer throwing your money around like that you should see if they also have a copy ofTitle : How the Bible became a book : the textualization of ancient Israel
Author : Schniedewind, William M.
Publisher, Date : Cambridge, U.K. ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2004.
ISBN : 0521829461 - Description : xiii, 257 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Call Number : 220.1 SCHNIEDEWIN 2004It examines the political agendas operating during and after the Exile in Babylon. Fascinating stuff.lfen

sounds like a good read. i think it's time i had another class...

quote:

---

as far as i know, genesis 5 is generally considered a priestly work, as are all genealogical listings in the torah. i mean, i could be wrong -- the contention is tha the priests who wrote that source had a je document, into which they worked their own text. in some respects, p is also part of r.

---

I went back and reviewed the info on the redactor.Friedman agrees that both P and R are priestly, but not necessarily the same person. He does consider R to be an Aaronid priest. His theory is that Ezra is the redactor and the author of P is from King Hezekiah's court.

that is highly traditional. what does he base the claim on?

---

אָרַח

Let's see if I can get this right. These are his premises and I find them compelling.R is from the 2nd Temple days.R added Numbers 15 a chapter of laws that is separated from the other priestly laws. Inserted in an odd place. Repeating things that have already been said, but Numbers 15 does not mention the Tabernacle. P emphasizes the Tabernacle supposedly.The holiday called "Booths" in Leviticus 23:4-37, is not something that was familiar to the people when Ezra read the Torah to the people.Ezra had the power and the backing of the emperor. Two people in the Bible are considered lawgivers. Moses and Ezra.The following verses supposedly shows what documents Ezra was intersted in. The emperor also authorized Ezra to teach and enforce Excerpt from book He also mentions an ancient tradition (mentioned I think in the Fourth Book of Ezra, a pseudepigrapha) concerning Ezra and the Torah. Apparently the original scroll was burned up in the fire that destroyed the first Temple. But apparently Ezra was able to restore it by a revelation.Have you heard the burning tradition before or something else?

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

i've heard that it was lost, circa exile, and restored from memory. i wasn't aware of the source of the claim... this could be where it came from.that argument does sound somewhat reasonable. i'll have to look at it some more and maybe read a few books of ezra... think i might go check out one of friedman's books from the library.

---

אָרַח

There are two stories of the creation. So many of us automatically pick up the protestant bible thinking nothing of the fact that anything having to do with the Roman Church was taken out during the new codification. It was unfortunate that the Roman Church was a political entity as well as a church entity. Anyway take a look at the Catholic Bible and you'll see what it all looked like before the changes.Also, there are some more related ideas in my postings. If you go to my profile and look at them. For what's worth, I believe the greatest gift from God is the one most often denied. Our minds.

So what are the differences in the Catholic Bible that supposedly allow a reasonable reconcilliation of Genesis 1 and 2?

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

Click here for the first two chapters in Genesis according to the Douay-Rheims Bible.Other than finding that the language of the Catholic Bible makes the King James seem modern by comparison, I don't know what there will answer the questions you (and I, for that matter) have.

Thanks,
I've got a Catholic Bible, I just don't see that it is considerably different concerning content than any other translation as Jacob intimates. I guess we wait for Jacob to return and show us his point.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

We wait with bated breath.