Posts: 7157
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 20, 2015 at 1:20 pm
(January 20, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Drich Wrote:  Ah, I see the problem. You think that the Chapter and verse denotations suggest a beginning and end in the Hebrew text. I'm not going by that, but by the stories themselves. As I said in an earlier post, the first account is from 1:1 to 2:3 and the second is from 2:4 to 2:25. It's also pretty clear that the writer of the second account wrote chapter three, as it matches the style of the second creation account. I'm not so sure about chapter four, because we suddenly go from a writer who uses proper names sparingly to one who no longer uses "the man" or "the woman" to describe the characters.
So there could be at least three people's writings in those first few chapters, which means that Genesis may originally have read as a sort of anthology of legends and fantasy tales. Someone (or someones) tried to clean it up a bit at some point, or perhaps this is just the result of stories being told and re-told during a time when printing materials were crude and very scarce.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 1347
Threads: 2
Joined: October 10, 2013
Reputation:
10
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 20, 2015 at 1:21 pm
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2015 at 1:23 pm by h4ym4n.)
.....
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 20, 2015 at 1:23 pm
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2015 at 1:24 pm by robvalue.)
Genesis is a hoot. It's like a non-stop insight into the primitive knowledge and assumptions of the actual authors. Or their ability to steal stories from previous mythologies and patch them together. Which is not very good, hence parts happening more than once and in different ways. Dumbasses.
Posts: 441
Threads: 12
Joined: March 1, 2013
Reputation:
10
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 20, 2015 at 1:48 pm
(January 20, 2015 at 1:23 pm)robvalue Wrote: Genesis is a hoot. It's like a non-stop insight into the primitive knowledge and assumptions of the actual authors. Or their ability to steal stories from previous mythologies and patch them together. Which is not very good, hence parts happening more than once and in different ways. Dumbasses.
Not so much dumb as simply telling just-so-stories around the campfire for generations, then finally writing them down. The "dumb" comes in when people start to believe the stories.
"Tell the one again about Where Language Came From, Grandpa!"
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 20, 2015 at 2:04 pm
(January 20, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Drich Wrote: I know you new, so here a little tip.. No matter how convincing the atheist arguement 'seems' to be, be patient and wait to see how I respond. It's not always the case, but I have been known to pull a few rabbits out of my hat from time to time.
You actually think that? That's adorable! 
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 5466
Threads: 36
Joined: November 10, 2014
Reputation:
53
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 20, 2015 at 2:08 pm
(January 20, 2015 at 2:04 pm)Esquilax Wrote: (January 20, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Drich Wrote: I know you new, so here a little tip.. No matter how convincing the atheist arguement 'seems' to be, be patient and wait to see how I respond. It's not always the case, but I have been known to pull a few rabbits out of my hat from time to time.
You actually think that? That's adorable!
Drich should just quit the facade and change his name to Dunning-Kruger.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 20, 2015 at 2:13 pm
Change 'rabbit' to 'chimera' and 'hat' to 'ass', and I'll agree that you're absolutely capable of making good on your promise. Hell, most of your posts are evidence of this.
Posts: 743
Threads: 35
Joined: December 1, 2014
Reputation:
12
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 20, 2015 at 3:08 pm
Do Genesis chapter 1 and 2 use different names for God (Elohim vs. Yahweh)? If so, that would be a clue that they are distinct traditions.
Posts: 7157
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 20, 2015 at 3:18 pm
The NIV translation uses "God" in the first creation account, and "the LORD God" in the second account and in chapter three. In chapter four, this changes to just "the LORD." Chapter five not only returns to using only "God" but also refers to the creation of "male and female" which he named "mankind." It does not mention Adam and Eve by name, which makes you think that the writer of chapter five is the same as the writer of the first creation account.
I know that there are something like four or five different sources that are identified as writers of the OT, and their works are differentiated by such things as writing style. It's really not that hard to notice some of the differences when reading the first few chapters of Genesis, they're that pronounced.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 441
Threads: 12
Joined: March 1, 2013
Reputation:
10
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 20, 2015 at 3:48 pm
(January 20, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Tonus Wrote: The NIV translation uses "God" in the first creation account, and "the LORD God" in the second account and in chapter three. In chapter four, this changes to just "the LORD."
The NIV is translating three distinct phrases here. In Creation 1.0, the Hebrew word is אלהים , elohim, lit. "god(s)." This is translated as "God."
Then in creation 2.0 (starting in gen. 2:4), the tetragrammaton יהוה yod-heh-vav-heh (YHVH) is added, giving us אלהים יהוה , elohim YHVH, lit. "god(s) YHVH." This is translated as "The LORD God."
Finally, the tetragrammaton alone is translated simply as "The LORD."
I never looked before, but you're right - the second account of creation uses the "proper name" of BibleGod, but the first uses simply the generic "god(s)." This is especially interesting in light of ancient (likely pre-Biblical) proto-semitic texts which reference YHVH as the chief god in a pantheon, whose wife happens to be Ashtorah.
It looks like the second account of creation was pasted in to make it clear that the earlier account was talking about YHWH, not some other generic god. This was likely done around the time that YHWH was elevated from pantheon chief to One True God.
It's funny, because the Arabs did the same thing much later, when they elevated Allah, the Moon-God, to the same status.
|
