I only bring up STEM for your benefit. Drives you nuts, doesn’t it?
It doesn’t. I was originally an astronomy major so it’s not like I have some hatred for it. The real question is why the idea of driving me nuts matters that much to you.
Just an observation. So… you’re okay?
So, wise ol’ contrarian, can you apologize:
I’d like to see your contribution to the discussion in this area.
Only it’s not as you claim to do it on purpose.
I will add this however, you bringing up STEM when discussing the Bible is uneducated. The Bible is a work of literature, not a scientific theory or a natural phenomenon that needs to be investigated and understood. It needs to be analyzed linguistically and structurally. The New Testament might also be studied philosophically but not the Old Testament as it is not philosophical in nature; it’s more of a legal document than philosophical. But scientifically? Sure, if you want to demonstrate it’s a bunch of pagan influenced mumbo jumbo written to control ancient sheep herders.
1 Like
You’re asking the wrong question. Clearly there are inconsistencies and incongruities. The question is why did the compilers and editors, who would have recognized them as easily as we do, choose to include two versions. The most important reason is that the two accounts don’t contradict one another. You can tell one story two different ways and still have the same ending.
1 Like
Most of today’s believers also don’t realize that Yahweh (The God of the Bible for those that don’t know) arose in older Mesopotamian cultures. There are Sumerian cuneiform writings that make reference to him and his wife.
I grew up in the church and was always told Yahweh rose organically out of what would become the 12 tribes of the Old Testament.
Then let me add this. When I think of your critical approach to my comments, but are incapable of defending your understanding of the scripture, I recall my years in competitive bodybuilding and being judged by some judges who have never lifted a weight or suffered through a diet, yet are self proclaimed critics. Does that ring a bell?
While I was a NPC National Judge there was some discussion that all judges needed to prepare and compete in a bodybuilding contest in order to understand the commitment and sacrifice required to get on stage. It never passed much more than a discussion, so you can relax. No one will make you form a meaningful apology of a scripture passage, but you can feel free to criticize mine. I am a big boy. I have withstood criticism without my feeling being crushed. In fact I accomplished much more than I ever thought I could.
No. I am asking the wrong person.
That is what we are discussing.
You actually believe those are two versions of the same story? You are kidding, aren’t you?
Most properly should be called YHVH in English, or JEHOVAH. In English the Hebrew is most commonly translated as the LORD in the Bible.
Pete Enns is a believer in God as well as a biblical scholar. Anyone interested in the study of the Bible should read some of his work (along with quite a few other authors, but Enns’ work is some of the easiest to find).
This is good information. But you should do yourself a favor and read chapters 1 and 2 and decide what the theme is in each chapter as I suggested earlier. Then try to reconcile what seem to be contradictions between the two accounts, by also determining what is the “purpose” for the events of each chapter. Don’t let his interpretation give you tunnel vision. Just believe there is no contradiction and figure out how that can be possible. It is like solving a puzzle.
Starting with that belief is the issue when it comes to analyzing. One automatically has a presupposition of the answer.
It’s how conspiracy believers tend to think. They start with the end and then try to find evidence or a conclusion that coincides with that. It’s recutting the puzzle pieces to make them fit.
Note, I am not calling you a conspiracy theorist, just recognizing the thought pattern.
I reread the chapters (NRSV) and they read as separate accounts. The orders of creation are different as are the creation modalities described. It can be analyzed either way, as the many disagreements between biblical scholars illustrate. Not everyone agrees with Enns’ analysis. I’m not even sure I agree with it completely.
The huge distinction is I can’t very well insult the Holy Spirit by questioning His ability to keep the word of God at the same time while asking for His help interpreting the scripture. That sounds odd to many, but if I believe that God can give my dead body everlasting life, surely the Holy Spirit can help me interpret the scripture.
I’ll give you my defense of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 tomorrow.
Let’s look at Genesis chapter 1: This concerns the creation of the entire planet earth, from the north pole to the south pole and God’s making it habitable for plant life and animal life, the creation of all life, including one man (and one woman), whom He gave dominion over all creation.
Now for chapter 2: Verses 1 through 3 God rests from His creation work, and He blessed the seventh day.
Then there is a quick recap of creation in verses 4 through 7.
Now the focus turns to prepare for the most important chapter in the Bible: Genesis chapter 3. God created the earth’s first son of God, a sinless, pure creation, and God is giving him a dwelling place where Adam that is perfect and can commune with Him. God makes the Garden of Eden. And God places Adam in the Garden of Eden, and his first act as dominion over all living things is naming all the animals of land and air. Then God gives Adam a woman (to wed.) And God “called their name Adam” (Gen 5:2)
To further set up for Genesis chapter 3, Adam is given rules of the garden.
That is how I interpret chapters 1 and 2.
No, it doesn’t. I don’t see you as having more Biblical knowledge than anyone else who posts here. Note that in many of your posts you make a point to refer to this great knowledge you claim to have. Why? To buttress your argument or to diminish others?
The fact you need to use a bodybuilding analogy to defend yourself, and attack me, is silly. Why not bring up credentials that are relevant to the discussion?
You probably don’t hold these views, but I grew up in a church community (thankfully parents weren’t too religious) and I personally know family friends who actually interpret the above as “the bible says that women are meant to listen to men”
It could be a English as second language thing though
Stylistically alone they are different. One is poetic, one isn’t. Biblical scholars, some of whom are believers, recognize that the two versions vary in style (among other things), as if written by two different authors but you, some random uneducated guy on the internet knows better. You are kidding, aren’t you?
1 Like
That opinion is reinforced by Paul. An issue within Christianity has been the Paul vs Jesus debate.
1 Like
Biblical scholars are also pretty certain chapter 1 was a later addition to text.
Because the initial conditions you applied lead you to that interpretation.
You might be right or Pete Enns might be right in his assessment. Or neither. All I am trying to get those here to see is that the inherit bias one approaches any text (Bible or any any other book/media) with leads to a particular conclusion/interpretation and it’s hard to get out of that bias. Look at the response to the Barbie movie - everyone who saw it based their conclusion of it being either woke BS messaging or a master commentary on modern society according to the initial conditions/beliefs they went into the movie with.
Biases affect all of us regardless of how logical/impartial we all would like to believe we are.
1 Like