Who are you to doubt the creation account given by Moses?

The O.T. was written over such a broad amount of time with so many different styles that it isn't logical to think that it was written by any one author.

No argument from me on that one ... but not really related
to the question I raised with funky.

Hi,Wellhausen has demonstrated that there were at least four different authors of the Torah.Only fundie scholars support mosaic authorship, no one in mainstream universities would promote a single author of the Torah.But as far as the topic goes, the creation accounts are from two different traditions, if Moses authored them boththen he was certainly schizophrenic, as these two accounts disagree on almost everything.Brian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

I see the two creation accounts as showing two aspects of God. First is God the all powerful creator, the second portrays a more personal God that reaches out and touches us and forms us by his own hand.

Take a look at native american creation stories.Different tribes have different stories, but there are
a number of common elements.Now imagine that, for some very good reason, two tribes
needed to almagamate. Would they discard one set of beliefs
or would they try to combine them into a semblance of
compatibility?

I'm not aware of two Hebrew tribes coming together within the timeframe that Genesis was written, that could have accounted for such an explanation.

Do we have extra biblical references to pre-genesis time
frames to work with?Where are the histories of the Hebrews?Genesis talks of different sons of Adam founding
different tribal dynasties, suggestive of a disparate
tribal 'nation'.

They don't have to.The fusion may have taken place in the oral tradition period.And what of the fusion between the Israelites and the Canaanites? The book of Ruth indicates that the complete replacement of the population that Joshua indicates did not occur.

Thats exactly my point. While I didn't say it directly, I think (this is just my unresearched opinion) there were two creation accounts being passed on, and the writter of Genesis put both in. One of the points that the creation account does make very clear is that there was one God that created. This is a direct slap in the face to the Caanites. Furthermore, another theme of Genesis is that the God of the Hebrews is dominant over all the other Gods of the region.As I'm not very familiar with Canaanite mythology, I can't further contrast the two religions. If you know of some simularities between the Hebrew and the Canaanite creation accounts, I'm all ears.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I don't know. I'm far from a biblical scholar. As I don't believe in a single Adam (I tend to insert the Hebrew translation for the word here which means "man" or "mankind" *note it is not used as a pronoun in the Hebrew text), being an evolutionary creationist, I take this as metaphorical.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I don't think we're that far apart.I know the OT often paints Canaanite religion as a polytheistic abomination, but of course propoganda is one of the literary forms contained therein When Abraham first got to Canaan, he met up with a priest-king who Genesis acknowledges as a priest of God - Melchizedek. Does this hark back to a monotheistic strand within Canaanite religion?Who knows eh?

I think we are more-or-less of the same opinion
concerning the inclusions within the Bible of two
creation accounts.If you are not a Bible literalist I am in agreement
with you on the content of the bible (although perhaps
in disagreement over the ultimate source).On the polytheistic discussion going on ... weren't Ba'al
and Beelzebub pre-one-God hebrew deities? Or where they
babylonian or some-such?

Okay, I am far from an expert on this... I had it just explained to me. First of all, Genesis is broken into 4 seperate and distinct sections each authored by a different person. We know this because of style differences and the language in which God is refered to. Before Moses, God had yet to give himself a name... so he had many different ones. The writer of this passage refers to God in the same language that the Canaanites refer to their God. This was explained to me as the "el God" format. Abraham recognized that they were serving the same God. Now we get into a very fuzy area. He wasn't worshiping the many gods of the Canaanites, but a single God. (keep in mind God hadn't revealed himself yet) Its because Abraham realised that they were worshiping the same god, that he is refered to as "a man of God."edit: (I realised I didn't really answer your question)
It just might seem that a "strand" of the Canaanites were following the same God as the Hebrews. Fortunately, I'm a little bit more of a universalist than most, so I don't find this hard to accept.[This message has been edited by Flamingo Chavez, 05-01-2003]

"Ba'al" is one of the God of the Canaanites. Now, the Canaanites were simply the people that lived in Canaanin. They were actually a mix of several different peoples. Most of their religions differed heavily from city to city."Beelzebub" I think there is a reference to this name in Revelation, he has several other names... Lucifer, Satan or the Devil.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I looked it up in the meantime ... sorry!!Beelzebub or Ba'al Zebub is the God of Accaron (Ekron),
the evil spirit encountered in the new testament was
Beelzeboul (which may or may not have referred to the
same entity).Info above found at:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Beelzebub