|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5042 days) Posts: 14 From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that the Bible is considered accurate and totally free of error.
Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. Inerrancy and infallibility are not interchangeable.
quote:Not reliable for what? Just because one tries to consult a cookbook to fix their car, does not make the cookbook unreliable for cooking. The person is in error for using the wrong book for the job, not the book. What scripture claims the writings in the Bible are infallible?What book quotes either of the creation stories? A non fiction book quoting a fictional book or character does not automatically make the non fictional book unreliable. It depends on what is being presented and the reason for the quote or reference.
quote:What are you comparing the accuracy against? Since the creation stories are fiction and written at different times, why do you feel they should agree with each other? Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Accurate and free of error it is then. quote:Again it depends on what information one is seeking in the Bible. If you're looking for scientific facts, then it is your error for looking to the Bible for such information not what's written in the Bible. quote: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," 2 Timothy 3:16, NIV This verse does not imply inerrancy. The Bible is good for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Righteousness deals with behavior. What error do you find in the Bible concerning behavior?
"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:18, NIV I don't see how Matthew 5:18 implies the Bible is without error. You need to elaborate on that one.
quote:What do you think truth means? This is part of a prayer Jesus made to God. This doesn't speak of the Bible as we know it today. In Jesus' day God's instruction (Torah) was fact. The Torah existed. I see no reference to lack of errors.
quote: "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Jesus was speaking against divorce. The A&E story is a foundational myth in Judaism. He isn't saying the story is an actual event, but the concept the story presents serves his purpose.
Mark 10:5-9, NIV In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Psalms are songs/poetry. Psalm 102 is specifically a prayer of lament. The author is unknown. The prayer doesn't give us enough information to know if the person was referencing either creation story. Odds are the stories had not been combined yet. We'd have to know when the psalm was written to know if the person had access to either creation story.
Psalm 102:25, NIV quote:I know many people feel the creation stories are actual events; but even if the story was consistent, it still wouldn't be an actual event. The stories not agreeing is not an error because they weren't written to agree. The stories were written centuries apart and intentionally combined centuries later. The individual stories themselves tell us they aren't actual events. There's no need to compare. You need better evidence. I use the Documentary Hypothesis and the rules of PaRDeS Interpretation. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:What is your evidence that the reference means the speaker thought the event as written in Genesis was an actual event? Hasn't mankind consisted of male and female throughout history?Didn't the Hebrews and Jews have marriages centuries before Jesus? Don't the man and woman leave their families to make a family of their own? As I said before, just because a nonfiction speech has a fictional reference it doesn't make the speech fiction or the fictional, fact. We have to look at the point being made. He was speaking against a divorce practice of the time.
Divorce and Remarriage According to Instone-Brewer, the Hillelite rabbis had invented a new form of divorce clause a few decades before Jesus, that went by the formal statement for any cause. The Hillelite rabbis had invented this divorce clause from a single word in Deuteronomy 24:1. They argued that a man could divorce his wife for any cause he came up with, no matter how trivial. Not all rabbis agreed with this position, but the any cause divorce had become the popular excuse to get a legal divorce. When people use the term "good Samaritan" they aren't acknowledging the parable is fact. They are referring to the point of the story.
Secular Example: Gordon Gekko is a fictional character and the main character and antagonist of the 1987 film Wall Street by director Oliver Stone. Gekko was portrayed by actor-producer Michael Douglas, in a performance that won him an Oscar for Best Actor.
Gekko has become a symbol in popular culture for unrestrained greed (with the signature line, "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good"), often in fields outside corporate finance.
On October 8, 2008, the character was referenced in a speech by the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in his speech "The Children of Gordon Gekko" concerning the Financial crisis of 2007-2010. Rudd stated It is perhaps time now to admit that we did not learn the full lessons of the greed-is-good ideology. And today we are still cleaning up the mess of the 21st-century children of Gordon Gekko.[8] On July 28, 2009, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone cited Gekko's greed is good slogan in a speech to the Italian senate, saying that the free market had been replaced by a greed market, and also blamed such a mentality for the 2007-2008 financial crisis.[9] Are the gentlemen who referenced Gekko saying that the movie was a factual account and Gordon Gekko is not a fictional character?
quote:No, the former does not assume an actual event. People know it's a myth and I'm sure Jesus knew his legends and parables. Jesus is going to speak in the vernacular of the time. Who else is he going to say did this? That's what the average person knew as the origin of all things. This wasn't a science seminar. It was about behavior. quote:Then show your evidence that the story and the lessons were falsehoods at the time the story was written. A writer can only work with the information known to him and his audience. The stories are fiction. Genesis 1: Written in the temple/cosmos motif. It is a setup for the Sabbath law, which was also written by the Priestly writer. It isn't recounting an actual event.
Because Genesis I contains the essence of Priestly knowledge in a most concentrated form, and this knowledge was esoteric, the Temple traditions represented by P are never explicitly communicated in these materials.37 Stephen A. Geller has observed that P more than any other biblical author, reveals what he has to say by how he says it.38 Instead of openly verbalizing his theological concepts, P employs a method of ‘literary indirection’ through placement, juxtaposition, and subtle allusion to impress these unarticulated concepts on the structure of the Pentateuch. Employing the tools of literary analysis has allowed scholars to shed light on a number of these ‘esoteric’ themes.39 Beginning with Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, scholars have discerned P’s remarkable use of intratextuality between Genesis 1 (the creation account) and Exodus 25-31 (instructions for the building of the Tabernacle) to suggest a correspondence between the creation of the world and the building of the sanctuary.40 The widespread ancient Near Eastern (ANE) temple-as-cosmos motif undoubtedly lay behind this intratextuality.41 In Exod. 25-31 God in seven speeches instructs Moses regarding the construction of the Tabernacle and its furnishings as well as the priestly vestments. Peter Kearny argued that these seven speeches correspond verbally and conceptually to the seven days of creation of Genesis I.42 The Adam and Eve story is easy. Man from dirt, woman from bone, searching animals for mate, talking snake, magic trees...etc. How do you discern a story is fiction?How do you know the Pandora story is fiction? Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I explained in Message 11. Jesus would have known the Jewish legends. The verse does not support that Jesus does or doesn't "believe" the story was an actual event. As I showed in Message 11, the use of fictional characters in a speech doesn't mean the speaker feels the character existed in real life. The A&E story is a foundational myth.
quote:They didn't have to. They had the legends. They still pull from the legends for their teachings. First, why did God choose Abram? The Bible is basicly mute on this point, however, Jewish legend tells us that Abram was chosen because of his monotheistic beliefs and practices. According to legend, one day when Terah was away on business, Abram was left to care for the family's idol shop. Abram took a hammer and smashed all but the largest idol and then placed the hammer in the idol's hands. Terah was furious upon returning and seeing the destruction and promptly asked Abram what had happened. Abram's reply to his outraged father's inquiry was that the large idol had become upset with the other idols and had destroyed them with the hammer. Terah countered that Abram knew full well that idols cannot move. "If they cannot save themselves," replied Abram, "then we are superior to them and should not worship them." The disciples asked Jesus about what he'd said.
He answered, "anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." He didn't refer back to the A&E story. The A&E story doesn't say anything about remarriage as committing adultery.
quote:The author of Exodus 20:1-17 also wrote the Genesis 1 account. The Genesis 1 account is a setup for the Sabbath law. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The Bible is a book of religion, why would one author say something else is a myth? The components of the story itself tells us it is fiction. One of the early church fathers took it as fiction.
Paul and Jesus were learned in Jewish techniques for argument and midrash. There's no way to know their personal views of the creation stories. The NT contains teachings, not personal thoughts. quote:It doesn't prove he personally believes the stories to be actual events. Using it as a religious teaching tool doesn't necessarily reflect his personal view of the stories. In the book "A History of the Jews" by Paul Johnson, he notes that as early as 175 BCE, that there were Jews who felt the Law, as it was written at that time, was not very old and did not go back to Moses. Philo (20 BCE — 50 CE) was known to the early Christians. Philo's View of God.
That's why I say the teaching in the NT doesn't necessarily reflect a personal view on the issue of whether the story was a historical event or a just so story. Look at this Philosophy Course Description .
My position on the verses shared so far, is that they don't confirm that Jesus or Paul personally felt that the creation stories were actual historical events. ABE
quote:That would be a different topic. The Doctrine of Original Sin was a later development.
The doctrine of original sin was first developed in second-century Bishop of Lyon Irenaeus's struggle against Gnosticism Even Augustine of Hippo (November 13, 354 — August 28, 430), who promoted the idea of original sin felt the Bible was metaphorical.
Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted as properly literal, but rather as metaphorical, if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. While each passage of Scripture has a literal sense, this "literal sense" does not always mean that the Scriptures are mere history; at times they are rather an extended metaphor. Edited by purpledawn, : ABE Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
This is the Accuracy and Inerrancy Forum, not Bible Study.
The verses in John are the same as the others. It may or may not reflect the personal belief of the writer concerning the reality of the creation stories in Genesis. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You're not "listening" to what I'm saying. PurpleDawn writes: Message 15My position on the verses shared so far, is that they don't confirm that Jesus or Paul personally felt that the creation stories were actual historical events. Message 13The verse does not support that Jesus does or doesn't "believe" the story was an actual event. As I showed in Message 11, the use of fictional characters in a speech doesn't mean the speaker feels the character existed in real life. I've shown you evidence from reality that fictional characters can be used in real speeches to make real points. That doesn't mean the fictional character or story is real. I also showed you church fathers that spoke as though the creation stories were real events, but didn't personally believe they were real events. This is so that you can understand that using fiction within a real speech isn't evidence of what the writer or speaker truly believes about the fiction. Yes, there are those who probably did absolute believe it was a real event; which makes my point. The writing itself doesn't tell us what Jesus personally believed or what the writer personally believed. I've written letters and stories for others that don't necessarily reflect my point of view or personal beliefs and I mix fact and fiction. The point of the message is what's important. That is what the writer wants the audience to understand. Whether the creation stories were real events or not was not the point of the verses presented.
quote:There's no way to tell. I consider the Book of Matthew we have today to have originally been a satire. The synoptics were written around or after 70CE. Mark (65-80CE) - This one had no genealogyMatthew (80-100CE) - This author was concerned with numerology for his satire purposes. He didn't go to Adam, he started with Abraham. Luke (80-130CE) - This author supposedly investigated the past, but tends to clash with the OT and only he took the genealogy to Adam. The author was Greek, not Jewish. We have to remember that the people of the time were inundated with various religions and various gods and goddesses. To attract the Greeks and Romans, his god needed to be as good as theirs. So we still have the potential that the author is presenting fact with fiction. Notice the bulk of the Jews weren't buying into this religion, but gentiles did. Who in this scenario didn't grow up knowing the legends of the Jews? Odds are the gentiles. People don't live to be over 600 or 900 years old. The Redactor added the ages for his purposes. Do you understand what I'm saying? The NT can't tell us what Jesus or the writers personally believed concerning the creation stories.
quote:YHWH is the God of Abraham. Acts 7:32 "I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.... Those are the fathers Paul speaks of, not Adam. The rest of the verses again can simply be a writer using a foundational myth to make a point. All we have is the end product, not the personal thoughts behind the letter.
quote:Since the authors are unknown, except for Paul, there is not way to know their actual personal beliefs on the subject. There is no concrete evidence either way. Given that Paul was Jewish and knew the Jewish Legends and Myths, we have no way of knowing what his actual personal belief concerning the creation stories. His writings are not concrete evidence since it is possible to write contrary to personal belief to make a point. I understand Paul's lessons and I don't feel the Genesis stories are actual events. Whether the creation stories are fact or fiction does not change Paul's point. It may affect Christian Doctrine, but that's not Paul's problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:This is the accuracy and inerrancy thread, not Bible Study. You won't find the information inside the text. That's not the purpose of the text. I've already shown you from outside the text that Jews and Christians are able to write contrary to their personal beliefs when it comes to the creation stories. I've also shown you that before the first century many Jews knew the Laws didn't go back to Moses. So there was Bible criticism before Christ. Message 15 Also note that before Jesus, many Jews were also looking to get rid of the sacrificial system. It was gross and expensive. If you understand that, then you'll understand Paul better. I've also told you that Jesus and Paul were learned in Jewish techniques for argument and midrash.
D’rash (pronounced deh-rahsh' also called "Midrash") This is a teaching or exposition or application of the P'shat and/or Remez. (In some cases this could be considered comparable to a "sermon.") For instance, Biblical writers may take two or more unrelated verses and combine them to create a verse(s) with a third meaning. There are three rules to consider when utilizing the d'rash interpretation of a text: 1. A drash understanding can not be used to strip a passage of its p'shat meaning, nor may any such understanding contradict the p'shat meaning of any other scripture passage. As the Talmud states, "No passage loses its p'shat."2. Let scripture interpret scripture. Look for the scriptures themselves to define the components of an allegory. 3. The primary components of an allegory represent specific realities. We should limit ourselves to these primary components when understanding the text. These are not styles that we are familiar with today (unless one is Jewish). Do you understand that? Also understand that the A&E story is not necessary for the Jewish religion. Abraham is the beginning of their religion. Those who later crafted Original Sin made the A&E story foundational to that Christian doctrine. Paul didn't promote original sin.
quote:I don't mind getting into a discussion on Paul with you, but Paul is difficult and it takes time to write a reasonable answer. If I do this and all I get from you is, "I disagree show me something else." I'm not going to continue. Back up your disagreement with something comparable, not just another question. Remember that Paul's ministry to the gentiles came after Jesus' death. He wasn't one of Jesus' disciples and didn't go to the original disciples until much later after his conversion. I don't feel the original disciples presented Jesus as a sacrifice to forgive sins like the Temple sacrifices were. Paul used sacrificial language to "sell" his gospel, but it didn't replace the temple sacrifices. The original disciples encouraged Paul to participate in sacrifices in the Temple. If they felt these sacrifices were superfluous, they wouldn't have encouraged Paul to participate. Also remember than there was no atonement sacrifice for intentional sins. Jesus Was Not A Sacrifice To Forgive Sins Hebrews 10:26 (Not Pauline) For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins Paul preached against sin and presented Jesus' death as a guilt offering for unintentional sins. The resurrection was acceptance of the offering. Whether Adam is real or not is irrelevant to the point. People know they sin. Paul's creative reasoning for why we sin doesn't change his point. Sacrifices for atonement were a common practice in that day. Even if Paul said sin is just in our nature, but I have the perfect fix for it so God will forgive you; the point is the same. Jews knew the story and Gentiles probably had a similar story to draw from. It doesn't really matter where our "sinful" nature really comes from. The average person doesn't want the details and it doesn't make for a good sales speech.
quote:You're going to have to tell me what scripture you looking at. Not all letters attributed to Paul are actually by Paul. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Wow, you didn’t even address the arguments I made in Message 11. Apparently you’re not an avid reader. Let’s look at the argument that Jesus was making. You summarize it as saying that because God created man and woman for each other, the sanctity of marriage should be kept. You say that he's clearly stating that the event of woman being created for man by god is the REASON. That’s not what Jesus said. You’re making that assumption because you know the A&E story. Jesus pulled a line from each story to make his own point. The first line is alluding to Genesis 1.
But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. The second is the narrator’s conclusion from the A&E story.
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will be come one flesh. After Adam said:
This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man Then the narrator stated that this is why a man will leave his family and cleave to his wife. Adam and Eve didn’t have a family, so the narrator is talking about his own culture. Oddly enough at the time of Jesus a man didn’t leave his family and unite with his wife. The wife left her family (bought by the husband) to join the man's family. In the book How People Lived in the Bible (Thomas Nelson Publishers) we have this information.
In ancient times, marriage had very little to do with love. It had everything to do with babies. The whole point of a marriage was procreation. Although new parents were happy to have a daughter, every couple hoped their newborn would be a son. You see, men stayed with a family and increased its size and wealth by bringing in their own wives, and still more children. So the Genesis statement about a man leaving his family doesn’t even match with the reality of the time. No matter what god one believes in or even if one doesn’t believe in a god, humans procreate sexually, not asexually. This characteristic is shared by mammals, most reptiles and flowering plants. For those who believe in a god, God created all of those male and female also, but that has nothing to do with marriage. In some Jewish and Christian interpretations, the one flesh in Genesis 2:24 refers to a baby. In reality, two people cannot become one flesh. So Jesus’ argument is that since God made mankind male and female, a man will leave his parents and be united with a woman and the two will become one. Then he makes his conclusion:
Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. This argument doesn’t really follow since making mankind male and female doesn’t say which males and females go together. Divorce and remarriage doesn't negate male and female procreation. In their reality, the parents decided who would be paired up. Females could be married as young as 13. He also could be referencing something from the Jewish marriage ceremony of the time. I can't find anything on what the ancient ceremony entailed. Jesus is making an argument against divorcing for minor reasons as I showed in Message 11. He isn’t necessarily implying that the Genesis accounts are fact. Notice that in his explanation to his disciples he says, And if a woman divorces her husband That’s only allowed in Greek and Roman law, not Jewish. Jesus didn’t preach to the Gentiles. The author made a mistake or expanded a teaching made by Jesus to include the Gentiles. I’ve shown you that fiction can be used to make a point in reality without deeming the fiction to be fact. Please address my arguments and the questions I asked you in Message 11. What is your evidence that the reference means the speaker thought the event as written in Genesis was an actual event? Are the gentlemen who referenced Gekko saying that the movie was a factual account and Gordon Gekko is not a fictional character? How do you discern a story is fiction? How do you know the Pandora story is fiction? How you present Pandora's box serves your purpose it isn't evidence that Jesus personally believed the Genesis stories to be actual events. Considering that divorce and remarriage are still allowed in Judaism his argument apparently didn't make an impression. Since divorce and remarriage are allowed among most sects of Christianity, his argument still didn't stick. It wasn't a sound argument. What is written isn't concrete evidence that Jesus personally believed the creation stories were factual events. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:No they don't. quote:This isn't about definitions. quote:What fallacy? He's making a reasoned argument for his time to clergy. Being made male and female wasn't the cause and that isn't what it says in Genesis. This comment attributed to Jesus is not evidence for or against the claim that the creation stories were actual events. As I've shown, fiction can and has been used to make a valid point.
quote:Understood. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You may not like to talk about purpose, but that's what this is about. The Gen 2 writer wrote his story. A few hundred years later or so the Gen 1 writer wrote his story. Then a several hundred years after that the Redactor put them together. Each had their purpose. The order was irrelevant to the Redactor's purpose for joining the stories. If it was an issue, he would have changed it. If I put two stories together on purpose, it is not an error. When people read to tell a story, no one goes back to compare the consistency. The average person didn't have a book to analyze. They just listened to the story. Edited by purpledawn, : Subtitle Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Still you don't address the arguments I've made. The definitions only tell us what the words mean, not necessarily what Jesus believed personally. Even if someone used the argument today that since mankind evolved to procreate sexually, married couples should not divorce except when one partner has sex with someone else. Therefore, what nature has joined together let man not separate. It still isn't a valid argument because the fact that mankind procreates male and female has nothing to do with marriage in general or an individual marriage. The author has Jesus appealing to the authority of God. Please address the arguments I'm making. I promoted this topic to the science forum because you wanted to discuss inerrancy and you made it clear to ICANT that you didn't want the Bible as the last word. So far you aren't addressing arguments made from outside the Bible. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Accurate about what? Since the Redactor joined the two stories without fixing the order, this is evidence that he knew they were foundational myths. The creation stories weren't critical to the Jewish religion. It wasn't an error when he linked the two stories. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Redactor is from the Documentary Hypothesis. You said: As it turns out, the story of Adam in the Garden is more accurate than even the fundamentalists teach. I asked accurate about what? You gave me nothing specific to ask about. So you're saying the A&E story is accurate with science. Is that science of today or then? Even if the story didn't match with our science at all, that still doesn't make either story in error. I don't consider the stories to have errors. If Moses wrote the whole thing, he wrote it that way on purpose and therefore it is not an error. If the two stories were written by two different authors, again there is no error. If a Redactor spliced them together, he had a purpose for doing so in spite of the order difference. Again, no error. Looking to any creation story for scientific facts is an error on the part of the searcher. The writers wrote about their surroundings, so if some parts of the story matches the area it shouldn't be a surprise. It doesn't make the story an actual event though. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I've made it know that my arguments are based on the more current work of Richard Elliott Friedman. In Friedman's essay "Some Recent Non-Arguments Against the Documentary Hypothesis" (1996), Friedman writes:
For more than a century, the documentary hypothesis has been the basic model for scholars who study the origins of the first books of the Bible. Periodically we hear that the hypothesis is in question, but this is not really true. It remains the dominant model in which we work. For most scholars, it is sufficiently established as to be assumed in their research, and generally those who challenge it are really refining rather than attacking it. quote: On page 95, Friedman addresses Radday's methods.
Radday then made changes of his own to this set of identifications. Genesis 14, the story of Abraham and the battle of the kings, is generally not regarded as part of any of the three main sourceworks of Genesis. Radday, however, simply decided to call it part of P. Why? In Radday's own words, "We put it, for the sake of convenience and for the lack of any better, into P. For no good reason at all, he was studying the language of an author while including an entire chapter that, according to the hypothesis being tested, was by someone else. Worse, he excluded the creation story of Genesis 1--probably the most famous passage in P--from the study altogether because, according to Raday, his was a study of prose, and Genesis 1 is poetry. But Genesis 1 is prose. It is beautiful, patterned prose, but this fact does not make it legitimate to call it petry and exclude it from the analysis. In all. I found errors in 29 of the 50 chapters of Genesis in Radday's source identification. Most of the errors were serious enough to throw off the results of the analysis. ...Radday and his colleagues had given whole chapters of J to E, and E to J, and then cam up with 82-percent coalescence of J's and E's "language behavior"! What else could we expect? It is still a valid hypothesis. It has not been disproved, only refined. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024