Discrepancies in Genesis?

[Desert Snake]

I've never noticed any, any evidence that Genessis 1 & 2 are from different sources?
From another thread
If you could, just simply present what you think is the indication of this.

 

[sojourner]

I've never noticed any, any evidence that Genessis 1 & 2 are from different sources?
From another thread
If you could, just simply present what you think is the indication of this.

Genesis 2 is from the Yahwist source. It refers to God as "LORD." Genesis 1 is from the later Elohist source, which refers to God with the generic "elohim."

Here's a Wikipedia link that explains:

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Desert Snake]

Genesis 2 is from the Yahwist source. It refers to God as "LORD." Genesis 1 is from the later Elohist source, which refers to God with the generic "elohim."

Here's a Wikipedia link that explains:

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Yahwist' doesn't mean anything dude. There was never an argument among the Hebrews whether JHVH and Elohim mean the same Deity, they always have. That's why later in Scripture you find the common 'Lord G-d' used in conjunction. You might be talking about a time difference or authorship style, but that is not a discrepancy, even if we assume different authorship.

Btw 'Elohim' is simply saying 'G-d and Host' or as some think, a descriptor of G-d. 'G-d' in this context is the same way we use the word.

 

[columbus]

I've never noticed any, any evidence that Genessis 1 & 2 are from different sources?
From another thread
If you could, just simply present what you think is the indication of this.

I don't pretend to remember enough to be helpful. But there are at least two traditions that can be sorted out of Genesis. One is called the "P", from attribution to priestly sources. Another is called the "j", from jahwist sources. It is all fascinating, but I don't claim to be able to explain it.

Tom

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't pretend to remember enough to be helpful. But there are at least two traditions that can be sorted out of Genesis. One is called the "P", from attribution to priestly sources. Another is called the "j", from jahwist sources. It is all fascinating, but I don't claim to be able to explain it.

Tom

Thanks, i'll look into that. You can probably tell I don't study this stuff, but it's always interesting.

 

[sojourner]

'Yhwist' doesn't mean anything dude. There was never an argument among the Hebrews whether JHVH and Elohim mean the same Deity, they always have. That's why later in Scripture you find the common 'Lord G-d' used in conjunction. You might be talking about a time difference or authorship style, but that is not a discrepancy, even if we assume different authorship.

Btw 'Elohim' is simply saying 'G-d and Host' or as some think, a descriptor of G-d. 'G-d' in this context is the same way we use the word.

It does indicate a discrepancy of authorship. Did you read the link I provided?
"Yahwist" is a term that indicates the author that used YHVH. "Elohist" is a term that indicates the author that used "elohim." This "source theory" applies only to the Pentateuch, which is why "later in scripture," you find the commonality. It all indicates a process of redaction in putting several different sources together.

 

[sojourner]

Thanks, i'll look into that. You can probably tell I don't study this stuff, but it's always interesting.

It's all right there in the link I provided. You can also search "JEPD" and come up with a Wikipedia article that specifically outlines the four-source theory of "Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomist." Here's the link for your convenience:

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gnostic]

'Yhwist' doesn't mean anything dude. There was never an argument among the Hebrews whether JHVH and Elohim mean the same Deity, they always have.

Actually it does. It originated with the split of the kingdom into two separate kingdoms - the north, Israel, and the south, Judah. Israel were the elohists, and Judah were yahwists. Two competing traditions.

 

[Desert Snake]

It does indicate a discrepancy of authorship. Did you read the link I provided?
"Yahwist" is a term that indicates the author that used YHVH. "Elohist" is a term that indicates the author that used "elohim." This "source theory" applies only to the Pentateuch, which is why "later in scripture," you find the commonality. It all indicates a process of redaction in putting several different sources together.

Fair enough, I'll check that out.

 

[gnostic]

Genesis 2 is from the Yahwist source. It refers to God as "LORD." Genesis 1 is from the later Elohist source, which refers to God with the generic "elohim."

I thought Genesis 1 was P (Priestly source). I often get the P confused with the E.

 

[sojourner]

I thought Genesis 1 was P (Priestly source). I often get the P confused with the E.

Did I say "Elohist?" I meant to say "Priestly." Thanks for catching that!

 

[Aman777]

Genesis 2 is from the Yahwist source. It refers to God as "LORD." Genesis 1 is from the later Elohist source, which refers to God with the generic "elohim."

Dear Readers, False Teaching. The entire Bible was written by the Holy Spirit and correctly calls God, Elohim and LORD God, YHWH orJesus. Some JWs and other fringe groups teach that the only God is Jehovah. This is incorrect because they don't recognize Jesus as LORD in the Old Testament, and they have "added vowels" to YHWH in a vain attempt to deceive others. God Bless all of you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[sojourner]

Dear Readers, False Teaching. The entire Bible was written by the Holy Spirit and correctly calls God, Elohim and LORD God, YHWH orJesus. Some JWs and other fringe groups teach that the only God is Jehovah. This is incorrect because they don't recognize Jesus as LORD in the Old Testament, and they have "added vowels" to YHWH in a vain attempt to deceive others. God Bless all of you.

In Love,
Aman

This is off-topic. The topic is "discrepancies in Genesis." Please try to stay on topic.

 

[Aman777]

This is off-topic. The topic is "discrepancies in Genesis." Please try to stay on topic.

Dear sojourner, Any you are trying to convince us that understanding the Bible is dependant on which HUMAN source to believe? Of course you are. That is the desception of the "supposed" descrepancies in Genesis, which is the Topic or this thread. Your views are totally without merit, while God's Holy Word is Truth. Your idea that this is "off topic" is soundly refuted. Try again? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[outhouse]

I thought Genesis 1 was P (Priestly source). I often get the P confused with the E.

It was

You are correct




The documentary hypothesis describes the Priestly source as using the title Elohim as the general name for God in the primeval period (Genesis 1-11).

 

[outhouse]

Did I say "Elohist?" I meant to say "Priestly." Thanks for catching that!

It is so fragmented, its tough to make heads or tales without getting into each verse separately.

 

[sojourner]

Dear sojourner, Any you are trying to convince us that understanding the Bible is dependant on which HUMAN source to believe? Of course you are. That is the desception of the "supposed" descrepancies in Genesis, which is the Topic or this thread. Your views are totally without merit, while God's Holy Word is Truth. Your idea that this is "off topic" is soundly refuted. Try again? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

No. I'm saying that understanding the sources of the texts gives us a greater understanding of how and why the texts say what we think they say.

The topic of this thread is this:

I've never noticed any, any evidence that Genessis 1 & 2 are from different sources?
From another thread
If you could, just simply present what you think is the indication of this.

So, I provided the answer, which is the four-source theory. The answer was on-topic, and gives the OP the answer for which he was asking. Your accusation of my being off-topic is soundly refuted.

My views are within acceptable limits of the best available scholarship; the only "without merit" are your baseless arguments, which have little to do with "God's truth." You've offered nothing but your own opinion.

Stop derailing the thread. come back when you have something real -- other than your own opinion -- to offer.

 

[sojourner]

It was

You are correct




The documentary hypothesis describes the Priestly source as using the title Elohim as the general name for God in the primeval period (Genesis 1-11).

Yep. I don't know why I did that. Old age, I guess...

 

[sojourner]

It is so fragmented, its tough to make heads or tales without getting into each verse separately.

The sources intermingle atrociously. It takes a real keen eye, just to get through the first few chapters of Genesis.

 

[outhouse]

The sources intermingle atrociously. It takes a real keen eye, just to get through the first few chapters of Genesis.

I try and just go north and southern traditions with J and E

But even that gets tough because P redacted and redefined them all to a J primacy.