Please help me understand the discrepancies.

[enigma]

Please help me understand the discrepancies.

In the beginning:
Day one - creation of the heavens and earth, light and darkness (day and Night) and evening and morning
Day two - creation of the sky
Day three - creation of ground(earth) and water(sea), and all vegetation
Day four - creation of seasons, day, month, year. creation of the Sun and Moon
Day five - creation of all the creatures
Day six - creation of man and woman

Genesis 1:27-30
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Day seven - creation of a holy day of rest

It seem that here God has given man and woman absolutely everything possible without condition of any kind. But just a few words later, in Genesis 2:4, there is another account of this first week; a more specific account of the creation of the heavens and earth, man woman, yet another player(the serpent) and worst of all conditions.

Genesis 2:16-17
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Yikes! First it seems that God has created the perfect being, man and woman, made in His own image, sinless as He is sinless and then out of nowhere He commands them not to do something or they will die. Is Genesis 2:17 Gods promise(threat) of violence. And is Genesis 3:15-19 Gods violence in action. Or, does a presumed distinction of right and wrong give the right the authority to act violently without persecution of their own. Does this not set the stage for every holy war for eternities to come?

Genesis 3:15-19
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

What's it all mean?
Is this where we have obtained our violent tendencies?

Thanks

 

[cyberjosh]

Hello enigma and welcome to the boards.

The differences in the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts are primarily because they show two different aspects of God's character, shown more clearly in the Hebrew in His names. And the names of God are not insignificant and merely randomly chosen for each verse upon a whim as it suited the writer at the time, as some may think (even JEDP proponents understand that - they just make the wrong conclusions). In Genesis 1 we see primarily the work of Elohim - which is primarily revealing of the covenant nature of God consistantly through Scripture ("I will be your God and you will be my people" - Leviticus 26:12) and it is also believed that the root of Elohim (in the singular 'Eloah') comes from another Hebrew word with the same cognates meaning 'oath' or 'covenant': ×Âָלָ׆alah. But God (Elohim) In Genesis one is blessing man as the Covenant God who promises blessing and tells them to go forth and multiply (also a Covenant blessing promised to Abraham - many decendants).

In chapter 2 we see for the first time the proper divine name of God Yahweh used, and the character of Yahweh can primarily summed be up as righteousness: a just God who is Holy, who cannot tolerate wickedness and demands righteousness of His creatures. But of course since God himself is just and multifaceted in His character (Hebrews 1:1) we are shown this in light of his already bestowed blessing on His creatures. Thus we see the judgement and mercy of God side by side, both of which are legitimate displays of His character.

Out of God's covenant nature as Elohim we see the first thing He does to mankind once He has created them was to "bless them" (Genesis 1:28), but when we see Yahweh first mentioned when He creates mankind we see that His first action to man is to "command the man" (Genesis 2:16). Therein we see the two underlying principles of God's diverse yet unified character: the God who blesses yet who also demands righteousness and therefore has commandments which must not be broken, for to do so would to be to depart from the only source of life. Such a departing is doing violence to one's self. God's statement that if they disobeyed that they would surely die was primarily a pronouncement of fact rather than a malevolent threat of hostility. The character of God needs to be understood to comprehend His dealings with man. Hopefully careful study of His ways will reveal His workings to you more clearly.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

If you would like to read more about the covenant nature of Elohim read my OP here.

 

[cyberjosh]

Now as for the enmity between the woman and the serpent, even that is a bit of mercy. Because God is here saying that though they both fell into the Serpent's deception that God was not here going to wholly disown them and hand them over to Satan. Rather He predicts (and pronounces) a life-long, nay, a race/species-long struggle. And a struggle can only denote resistance, and resistance to Satan must mean a struggling in the opposite direction toward God, it just depends in which direction the struggle takes a person. Since also the serpent's curse is spiritual in nature it reaffirms that our real battle is not "against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12) because the predicted struggle was against Satan (the Serpent). This is our primary battle ground. What happens in the spiritual could drive men to wars among themselves, and other forms of discord, but therein does not lie our primary battle ground. The enmity is spiritual in nature, even with in our own selves, "For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another" (Galatians 5:17).

I hope this in some manner answers your questions.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[wavy]

The discrepancies exist because there are two creation accounts in Genesis falling within two literary strata: the Priestly literary stratum (Gen i.1-ii.3) and the Jahwist literary stratum (Gen ii.4 & onwards).

Both use different names for 'God', both envision him differently, both have a distinct literary style, and their chronology is incompatible. The Priestly version seems to be an etiology explaining the origin of the cosmos, but most importantly the Sabbath. The Priestly version culminates with Yahweh resting on the Sabbath and sanctifying the day. In other words, the story reflects one tradition of why ancient Israel worshipped on the Sabbath which is also reflected in the Priestly emendation to the Elohist version of the Ten Commandments in Exo xx.10-11 (contrast that with the Deuteronomistic version of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy v which states liberation from Egypt is the reason for honoring the Sabbath, or the Jahwist version of the Ten Commandments in Exodus xxxiv, where the Sabbath appears to be related to agricultural practices).

The Jahwist version of creation seems to be reworked from ancient Mesopotamian myths, where paradise gardens, snake gods, immortality and other mythical similarities often feature.


~eric

 

[cyberjosh]

The discrepancies exist because there are two creation accounts in Genesis falling within two literary strata: the Priestly literary stratum (Gen i.1-ii.3) and the Jahwist literary stratum (Gen ii.4 & onwards).

Both use different names for 'God', both envision him differently, both have a distinct literary style, and their chronology is incompatible. The Priestly version seems to be an etiology explaining the origin of the cosmos, but most importantly the Sabbath. The Priestly version culminates with Yahweh resting on the Sabbath and sanctifying the day. In other words, the story reflects one tradition of why ancient Israel worshipped on the Sabbath which is also reflected in the Priestly emendation to the Elohist version of the Ten Commandments in Exo xx.10-11 (contrast that with the Deuteronomistic version of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy v which states liberation from Egypt is the reason for honoring the Sabbath, or the Jahwist version of the Ten Commandments in Exodus xxxiv, where the Sabbath appears to be related to agricultural practices).

The Jahwist version of creation seems to be reworked from ancient Mesopotamian myths, where paradise gardens, snake gods, immortality and other mythical similarities often feature.


~eric

LOL. I call everyone as my witness that I said, "even JEDP proponents understand that - they just make the wrong conclusions". Deciet is a horrible thing, sorry to break it to you plain.

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Enigma,

I have offered you a Biblical solution, while wavy offered you the worldly solution. You must test them to see which holds up best to God's truth.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[wavy]

LOL. I call everyone as my witness that I said, "even JEDP proponents understand that - they just make the wrong conclusions". Deciet is a horrible thing, sorry to break it to you plain.

~Josh

Show how my conclusions are wrong. You just seem to be reading things into the text that aren't there with pseudo-knowledgable Hebrew explanations of the different names for the biblical deity. Your Hebrew name explanations are completely arbitrary. For example, you state:


In chapter 2 we see for the first time the proper divine name of God Yahweh used, and the character of Yahweh can primarily summed be up as righteousness: a just God who is Holy, who cannot tolerate wickedness and demands righteousness of His creatures.


...Except that what you describe is actually characteristic of Priestly literature (which uses the name elohim). The Priestly corpus consist mostly of laws, statutes, judgments, etc., more than any other stratum. You also state:


But God (Elohim) In Genesis one is blessing man as the Covenant God who promises blessing and tells them to go forth and multiply (also a Covenant blessing promised to Abraham - many decendants).


...Except that there are two versions of Yahweh's covenant with and promise to Abraham: one found in the Jahwist stratum (Gen xv.1-21) and one found in the Priestly stratum (Gen xvii.1-27). There's simply no connection between the names used for 'God' and the presentations of his character. You also haven't acknowledged the fact that the Priestly and Jahwist chronologies contradict each other in the creation stories.


~eric

 

[cyberjosh]

I will try to make a thread soon on the problems with the Documentary Hypothesis, but it is past midnight right now for me and I have to work tommorow (err, today), so I'm headed to bed. For right now all I can say in short is that JEDP rests on a faulty assumption that a writer could not have possibly used multiples names of God in different ways at the same time (which if you've ever read Christian apologetics sites that refute JEDP you'd see that it was based on a faulty understanding of Ancient Near Eastern literary style) and therefore feels the need to arbitrarily divide the text into multiple "contradictory" sources (rather an excuse for spritual ignorance - 1 Corinthians 1). Even Wikipedia notes the "colapse of the consensus" on the Documentary Hypothesis almost 50 years ago. It is outdated and also incorrect, just like the theory of evolution.


Boy am I asking for it, because I just know this hits a nerve somewhere. :-D

 

[wavy]

I will try to make a thread soon on the problems with the Documentary Hypothesis, but it is past midnight right now for me and I have to work tommorow (err, today), so I'm headed to bed. For right now all I can say in short is that JEDP rests on a faulty assumption that a writer could not have possibly used multiples names of God in different ways at the same time (which if you've ever read Christian apologetics sites that refute JEDP you'd see that it was based on a faulty understanding of Ancient Near Eastern literary style) and therefore feels the need to arbitrarily divide the text into multiple "contradictory" sources (rather an excuse for spritual ignorance - 1 Corinthians 1). Even Wikipedia notes the "colapse of the consensus" on the Documentary Hypothesis almost 50 years ago. It is outdated and also incorrect, just like the theory of evolution.


Boy am I asking for it, because I just know this hits a nerve somewhere. :-D

So basically you can't prove that I'm wrong, since I just dismantled your name explanations...

Anyway, you are most definitely asking for it because you need to expand your horizons. The majority of biblical scholars accept the Documentary Hypothesis as the foundation for study of the Pentateuch, just as most scientists (with the exception of creationism or Intelligent Design proponents) accept evolution. The evidence for evolution mounts all the time and the evidence for the DH is overwhelming. Anyway, the scholarship of 'wikipedia' is the equivalence of toilet water. Anybody can write or edit an article on that site.

And lastly, whatever 'apologetic' sites you've been lingering on, I suggest you abandom them quickly since they're dishonest. The DH is not based on the switch of different names throughout the Pentateuch. That was and remains an ignorant 'apologetic' straw man.


~eric

 

[MarkT]

So basically you can't prove that I'm wrong, since I just dismantled your name explanations...

Anyway, you are most definitely asking for it because you need to expand your horizons. The majority of biblical scholars accept the Documentary Hypothesis as the foundation for study of the Pentateuch, just as most scientist (with the exception of creationist or Intelligent Designist proponents) accept evolution. The evidence for evolution mounts all the time and the evidence for the DH is overwhelming. Anyway, the scholarship of 'wikipedia' is the equivalence of toilet water. Anybody can write or edit an article on that site.

And lastly, whatever 'apologetic' sites you've been lingering on, I suggest you abandom them quickly since they're dishonest. The DH is not based on the switch of different names throughout the Pentateuch. That was and remains an ignorant 'apologetic' straw man.

All scholars are wrong wavy. I know that because I've never seen anything written by a scholar that comes close to an understanding of the Bible. And that's because their hearts are far from God. I would answer them like Jesus answered the Pharisees, "You are wrong because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God."

 

[Scott1]

The majority of biblical scholars accept the Documentary Hypothesis as the foundation for study of the Pentateuch,

When's the last time you met a "biblical scholar"? Sheesh.... at my college it is common knowledge that within Wellhausen’s lifetime, many points of his argument were disproved.... often by new archaeological discoveries that contradicted his historical account. Wellhausen’s theory illustrates the undue influence of historicism, as he tends to date the four sources of the Pentateuch by where they fit into his historical scheme rather than on scientific criteria.

YOU need to open your horizons.... and a college text book or two.... maybe you'll do a bit of research on Wellhausen and realize what his TRUE intention was in promoting this theory..... I'll give you a hint: it was NOT to find out the truth. :-D

Peace be with you eric,
S

 

[wavy]

When's the last time you met a "biblical scholar"? Sheesh.... at my college it is common knowledge that within Wellhausen’s lifetime, many points of his argument were disproved.... often by new archaeological discoveries that contradicted his historical account. Wellhausen’s theory illustrates the undue influence of historicism, as he tends to date the four sources of the Pentateuch by where they fit into his historical scheme rather than on scientific criteria.

YOU need to open your horizons.... and a college text book or two.... maybe you'll do a bit of research on Wellhausen and realize what his TRUE intention was in promoting this theory..... I'll give you a hint: it was NOT to find out the truth. :-D

Peace be with you eric,
S

Except that cybershark's assertion was made about the obsolescence of the DH in general, not particularly Wellhausen's model, which I never denied has been modified and disproved in some respects.

You would do well to actually read what was written so you do not interpolate by building straw men. The ad hominem is noted and unwelcome as well. It appears you have nothing of significance to say either.

What is the 'truth', by the way? That Moses wrote the Pentateuch?

~eric

 

[Scott1]

In your post, you offered:

The majority of biblical scholars accept the Documentary Hypothesis as the foundation for study of the Pentateuch,

.... and this is utterly false.

Why respond to an outdated, and profoundly erroneous post?

In Christ,
S

 

[wavy]

In your post, you offered:

The majority of biblical scholars accept the Documentary Hypothesis as the foundation for study of the Pentateuch,

.... and this is utterly false.

Why respond to an outdated, and profoundly erroneous post?

In Christ,
S

We can banter back and forth all day about where the consenus lies...something I'm not inclined to do (you apparently have not read any material on the DH, or relatively very little). Anyway, this thread is about the demonstrable discrepancies between the creation narratives. Let's remain on topic, shall we?


~eric

 

[Scott1]

(you apparently have not read any material on the DH, or relatively very little).

:-?

Anyway, this thread is about the demonstrable discrepancies between the creation narratives. Let's remain on topic, shall we?

We shall.....

Please help me understand the discrepancies.

The Book of Genesis prepares the reader for the Pentateuchal legislation. It tells us how God chose a particular family to keep His Revelation, and how He trained the Chosen People to fulfill its mission. From the nature of its contents, the book consists of two rather unequal parts; cc. 1-11 present the features of a general history, while cc. 12-49 contain the particular history of the Chosen People.

By a literary device, each of these parts is subdivided into five sections differing in length. The sections are introduced by the phrase elleh tholedhoth (these are the generations) or its variant zeh sepher toledhoth (this is the book of the generations). "Generations," however, is only the etymological meaning of the Hebrew toledhoth; in its context the formula can hardly signify a mere genealogical table, for it is neither preceded nor followed by such tables.

As early Oriental history usually begins with genealogical records, and consists to a large extent of such records, one naturally interprets the above introductory formula and its variant as meaning, "this is the history" or "this is the book of the history." We understand history, in these phrases, not as a narrative resting on folklore, but as a record based on genealogies. Moreover, the introductory formula often refers back to some principal feature of the preceding section, thus forming a transition and connection between the successive parts. Gen. 5:1, e. g., refers back to Gen. 2:7 sqq.; 6: 9 to 5:29 sqq. and 6:8; 10:1 to 9:18-19, etc.

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/bible_books_old_1.htm#_Toc527781385

.... or in other words, it's a story.... so it's important that the reader be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.

In Christ,
S

 

[Oracle]

enigma

A lot of the confusion arises from misguided belief that Adam was the first human being, a belief which arises from a lack of understanding of the Hebrew from which the Old Testament was translated from.

Genesis 1:26-27; 'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them'.

Genesis 2:7; 'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul'.

In the first account, we see that God created (from the Hebrew word 'bara') man. In John 1:3, we are told that it is by the Word all things exist. In other words, God said the word, and it happened. In the second account, God formed (from the Hebrew word 'yatsar') man from the dust of the ground. The Hebrew word yatsar means to squeeze into shape, to mould, as does a potter with the clay. Here, God didn't speak the word to cause man to appear, but rather use existing matter to form, or mould into shape a man. It is this particular man that God breathed into the breath of life, and made him a living soul.

Mankind was in existance long before Adam came on the scene. What made Adam different is that God had a special relationship with him. It was through Adam that the knowledge of God would come to the rest of creation.

Other evidence in the scriptures that Adam could not have been the first man is found in Genesis 4. In verse 14, when God sentenced Cain to be banished from his presence, Cain was afraid that if others found him, they would slay him. Cain obviously knew of the existance of other people. In verse 17, Cain found a wife, had a child, and built a city (not just a house). Adam and Eve didn't have daughters until later, so their had to be other people around, not only for Cain to find a wife, but to also build a city.

Now for the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God did not threaten violence if Adam ate of the fruit of that tree. He warned Adam of the consequences if he did eat, just as a parent warns a child of the consequences of doing something dangerous, like playing with the power outlet. God did not cause Adam to die. Adam brought death upon himself, and the rest of mankind by ignoring God's warning.

We obtained our violent tendancies, because we inherited Adam's sin. God however, did not leave man to his fate of death, but immediately put into place his salvation plan for mankind. Genesis 3:15 is the first prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ (the seed of the woman), the redeemer of mankind.

 

[cyberjosh]

So basically you can't prove that I'm wrong,

Uh, "basically", I really had to go to bed and I gave you a very short and only fractional abstract of the problems. Thus you are far from pronouncing your victory yet.

since I just dismantled your name explanations...

You mean since you did no such thing....

Anyway, you are most definitely asking for it because you need to expand your horizons.

I have. How do you think I know of the DH? I have read many things on it that poke holes in it. Like I said when I get more time I'll try to address specific points in a new thread.

The majority of biblical scholars accept the Documentary Hypothesis as the foundation for study of the Pentateuch,

That is a big blanket statement. Not the ones that actually believe the Bible is inspired! Lol.

just as most scientists (with the exception of creationism or Intelligent Design proponents) accept evolution.

Bait & hook, bait & hook. I knew your responses before you gave them.

The evidence for evolution mounts all the time and the evidence for the DH is overwhelming.

I'm not overwhelmed, I have the truth on my side.

For the longest time I was a push-and-shove apologist (me being the one pushed and shoved around by every "wind of arguement"), depending almost solely on scholarly studies for the foundations on which to defend my faith. But now I have an unshakable confidence in my God and in the Bible, and therefore I am no longer afraid of man's arguments, but can meet any doubts or obscurities in man's theories in stride because I realize God's truth takes precidence over man's often short coming attempts to explain it away with our own methods. Thus I will always default on my confidence in God.

Sorry to sound arrogant at times, but stubborness must be met with stubborness from time to time, and conviction with conviction.

Anyway, the scholarship of 'wikipedia' is the equivalence of toilet water. Anybody can write or edit an article on that site.

Double check the authors whom it cites, find out for yourself. It's far from the only one who claims that JEDP no longer dominates the debate and has problems.

And lastly, whatever 'apologetic' sites you've been lingering on, I suggest you abandom them quickly since they're dishonest.

Abandon critical thinking? No sir! I've had long enough to be spoon fed the world's wisdom, in its pseudo-intelligence to explain God and the Bible.

I might as well start listening to what the Jesus Seminar says about Jesus next!

The DH is not based on the switch of different names throughout the Pentateuch. That was and remains an ignorant 'apologetic' straw man.

Not wholly, because it is based on what some consider different emphases in a passage due to different authors with different agendas and POVs, but it is no doubt often applied to seperation in names for delimiters of the differing authors (J and E for their name sakes).

~Josh

 

[enigma]

But can we all, at the very least, agree that the earth in about 3,000 ears old?

It seems that my query has started a new "Holy War"

The different perspectives are important though as they will influence how I come to see
truth.

 

[Scott1]

But can we all, at the very least, agree that the earth in about 3,000 ears old?

Ummm.... I don't agree with that at all.