IIRC the current explanation is that after the Assyrians invaded and took over the north from the Cannonites the displaced in Judea took their “war god” Yahwah as their “only one” or their most favorite, in an attempt to gain hist powers to win back the north.
After a short time of this being their favorite people saw it as the only god at all.
With this “discovery” of Deuteronomy, a 300 year old lost book of Moses that conveniently declared all other gods as heretical while also meeting the needs of the contemporary leaders all of the other gods were deemed heretical and many books were written to change them to be monotheistic.
There are still a few references to the original Cannonite gods of the son Baal, the mother god Asherah and their father god of El, who was redefined to be Yahweh.
Women were pretty much pure property at the time and the story fits their role in that point in time. I don’t think there was as much of a drive to reduce their power at that point in history but there was a huge push towards monotheism.
That’s exactly what they say. The notion that the creation account should be interpreted literally is a relatively recent development (within the last few hundred years) and is uncommon among theologians except for the most conservative fundamentalists.
How do you know which translation is more accurate? Do you speak ancient Hebrew? :dubious:
I think the idea of the Babylonian creation myth being grafted on as G-1 makes the most sense. The video linked to above makes this case. Good video, BTW. I think I’ve seen those ideas before, but he presents it very coherently.
Now imagine in your mind an elephant that has been created, all parts present and accounted for, but not yet formed. Part of the trunk is in the lower intestine, an eyeball is dangling from an aorta, the nerves are just all over the place and exposed to the open breeze, and its throat is hanging off one of the feet.
Well, see, originally the light came from two great Trees, one golden and one silver. But a fallen angel and a giant spider composed of darkness came along and poisoned the Trees, killing them, so the angels took the last fruit and the last flower of the Trees and formed them into two great carriages, piloted by two angels, and those became the Sun and Moon. And the angel who pilots the Moon is in love with the angel who pilots the Sun, but she spurns him, and that’s why the Sun and Moon don’t follow the same cycle in the sky. See? It all makes sense.
You are not missing anything that is uncommon. It can certainly appear to contradict upon initial observation; however to someone reading it from the presupposition that it is correct and the basis for all life, this is very easily explained/understood. If you are reading it with the express purpose of “proving it wrong”, no explanation will ever be good enough for you. It all depends what presuppositions (foundation) you start with.
The word “Day” in the Hebrew language can refer to many different ideas. When you see it stated referring to “evening and morning” it is always referring to a literal 24 hour period. There are other instances where it can be taken literally, but for the purpose of Genesis 1&2, you should be able to see the difference already.
Do you notice that no one in this thread has said a word about what a “day” might mean? The main issue is that the sequence of events is different in the two accounts.
So let me get this straight: There are only two ways to look at this-the correct way(there ain’t nothing wrong with the book, no how, no way), and the “I’m out to prove the Bible is wrong no matter what!” way?
What is a sequence of events if it does not have to do with time? What is the standard for that time in this passage? How can you understand the sequence without first understanding the time/s discussed?
I am sorry if I do not understand something…but seems pretty base to me.
If I say that X happens before Y, what difference does it make what a time interval is if I then tell you that Y happened before X? No fiddling with time intervals can explain that discrepancy.
Exactly. I have often said any excuse will do if you don’t want to do it. This is why I waste very little time on political or religious questions on the internet.
Along with the separate names for the Deity, there is also the basic style of writing. Genesis 1, (or Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:3) is a poem in the original. It is written in a very formalized style that sets out the creation as a series of actions over three days, followed by a second series of actions that echoes the first days in the next three days:
Day 1, Light; Day 4 Sun, Moon, stars;
Day 2 separate the heavens from the seas, (since the vasults of the heavens restrain waters); Day 5, populate the seas with fish and the heavens with birds;
Day 3, bring forth the land; Day 6, bring forth everything that lives on land.
Day 7, rest.
On each day, at the end God blesses it. The structure indicates that creation was an orderly process, not something that was the result of a pair of gods fighting over something else and the blessing of God shows that God intends the world to be a good place, not the afterthought of a wicked or capricious god.
From Genesis 2:4 onward, a totally different prose style tells a different story in prose, explaining why God created the Earth for man and how man screwed it up.
