Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
As history? Yes. As story? No.So you've written off Genesis?
No need to. Its exegetical value is nil. Post #10 is worth much more reading time, and is without doubt the best post of the thread.Did anyone actually think about post#11?
Or is everyone already stuck on what they believe?
Why are there 2 creation stories? How could God create the same thing twice? What is the point for Genesis 1 and 2????
No need to. Its exegetical value is nil. Post #10 is worth much more reading time, and is without doubt the best post of the thread.
Did you read the post? There's every justification for allegorizing these passages, because that's what the stories are.It is not history. It is a God given account of what transpired. There is no justification for allegorizing these passages. God never says He is telling us a story.
As for Post 10, it is largely intellectual speculation. If God was not saying anything that hadn't been said before, that does not prove that Moses simply co-opted existing accounts as though it were the word of God. Reason tells me that anyone who is that close to God doesn't have to rely on second hand information.
No need to. Its exegetical value is nil. Post #10 is worth much more reading time, and is without doubt the best post of the thread.
My objection is simply this:Actually no.
Post#10 refers to Genesis as a mix of items carried from one generation to the next.
Most of what we know is delivered in this way.
Post#10 holds Genesis only to that regard no more.
To say that Genesis is just another story is ...shallow.
Did you really have objection to my viewpoint?....or were you hoping a simple denial would be sufficient?
My objection is simply this:
your argument does not work, because there is nothing in the textual criticism to suggest that the stories are, in any way, progressive or continuous. They compliment each other, but they do not "build" on one another. They are two completely different theological discussions of the creation myth. The second one was produced first, and the first one actually came second.
Chapter Two follows Chapter One.
On the one hand, the creation myths are just stories -- that is, they do not attempt to relate historical fact. They present a theological truth through the use of allegory. It's a literary device. On the other hand, they are powerful theological statements, which does make them deeper than "just stories."
And are you attempting to take away Scripture?
The 'story of creation' is a lie?
Yes, I'm fully aware of that. I'm also aware that, for whatever reason, the redactor put the stories in an order that is not chronological with regard to the writing of them.Chapter Two follows Chapter One.
No, merely that the story of creation is not -- was never meant to be -- historical fact.And are you attempting to take away Scripture?
The 'story of creation' is a lie?
The methodology I use is based upon solid textual criticism. What, exactly, is your methodology?My method allows acceptance of scripture....as is.
Yes, I'm fully aware of that. I'm also aware that, for whatever reason, the redactor put the stories in an order that is not chronological with regard to the writing of them.
No, merely that the story of creation is not -- was never meant to be -- historical fact.
The methodology I use is based upon solid textual criticism. What, exactly, is your methodology?
Scripture, "as-is," is chronologically out of order. How does your methodology address that fact?
BZZZZZZT!!!First....Do you regard Genesis as the result of a conversation between God and Moses?
Genesis is the first book of Moses....right?
BZZZZZZT!!!
Moses didn't write anything. Genesis is the result of at least four authors from at least four different traditions.
It is written god created man in (his own image), = "both male and female", creative principle.In Genesis 1, like Enuma Elish, have specific order of creation, but part from the creation of man, man's role is minimal, and little detail is given in the creation. All Genesis say is that man and woman was created in God's image.
Yep.And the forty days and nights up on the mount are also a myth?
What does that have to do with the mythic nature of the stories?I suppose you don't believe in anyone?
I use the NRSV almost exclusively in my study and exegesis.I have seen a copy of Genesis that does not bear the name of Moses.
Neither does it carry the title Genesis.
And it makes literal assertion that Chapter Two is a retelling of Chapter One.
The story line is retold in modern English.
And it seems a bit more vague in detail...more so than King James.
Is this the book you use?
Yep.
What does that have to do with the mythic nature of the stories?
I use the NRSV almost exclusively in my study and exegesis.