Listening to you this time struck me that besides being an intelligent scholar you have a big heart for those who are repeatedly marginalized because of what people want/need the Bible to say to make them feel good. Thank you and keep up the good fight.
I realized a while ago that Dan is not doing this to display his considerable knowledge of the Bible, he is battling the forces of evil with their own device. ❤
It goes beyond marginalization of specific groups. It's from that account of Adam and Eve that we get the notion of Original Sin. Imagine how differently Christianity would have developed without that notion in the mix.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Imagine a world in which the church let Marcion of Sinope establish that the God in the OT is evil and Jesus was a separate "Good" God to correct the mistakes.
Wow. While I am a non-believer, I have always been fascinated by mythology and ancient religious texts. Your presentation is what you claim, a scholarly presentation. I look forward to more history and context on Biblical texts.
A few points I would add: A) The chapters are split up a bit awkwardly, so the Genesis 2 - 3 account starts with Genesis 2:4. The first three verses of Genesis 2 are actually the end of the Genesis 1 account. B) The Genesis 1 account refers to the deity as Elohim, which is typically rendered as "God" in English-language Bibles. The Genesis 2-3 account refers to them as YHWH Elohim, typically rendered as "the LORD God." (Except when the serpent is speaking, then it's just "God." Not sure why.) Once we get to Chapter 4, the deity is referred to as simply YHWH / the LORD, without God at the end. Lots of interesting implications to these name changes. C) For anyone wondering why these accounts aren't reconcilable, there are a lot of reasons, but one you can look at has to do with the creation of plants. If you look at Genesis 1:11-13 and Genesis 1:26-31, you'll find that the God / Elohim of this account first created plant life on the third day, three days before they first created human beings. Compare this with Genesis 2:4-9. Here, it's explicitly stated that no plant life or vegetation existed when the LORD God / YHWH Elohim created the first human. This is only one of many differences regarding the order in which the events of creation took place, but I picked out plant life because it strikes me as a particularly clear example.
Found this to support your post Two Different Conceptions of the Divine Creator The nature of the God of the first creation story is well-expressed in Psalm 148:5; וכי הוא צוה ונבראו, “for it was He who commanded that they be created.” God is extremely powerful, and His (yes-this God is masculine) words cause the primordial chaos (see 1:1-2) to restructure itself into the well-organized world that we know, where everything occupies its proper place. Although powerful, He has a divine council with whom He sometimes deliberates, as made clear in the plural נעשה, “let us make” in 1:26. (see Rashi and the sources he cites from b. Sanhedrin 38b and Tanhuma). This suggests that God is king-it is kings who have such advisors, and engage in massive building projects. Tov, “good,” is a theme word of this account-a good God creates a good world; the story, for example, narrates how God first creates foodstuffs, and then the animals who will eat them (vv. 29-30). Creation is highly symmetrical and well organized. This God also looks far ahead and thinks about Israel, creating the Shabbat already as part of creation, even though its full meaning will not become evident until it is assigned as an ’ot (sign) and berit(covenant) between God and Israel in Exodus. Genesis 2:4b depicts a very different God. He is not king, but much more parent-like and personal. He walks the garden (3:8) and talks to people (3:9-19)-this is unimaginable for the royal, distant, powerful God of the first story. He makes mistakes. First He thinks that land animals or birds might be suitable mates for the man (2:19). Then He makes the same error of all young-parents-He does not know how to define limits, and says “You can do everything but this,” not realizing that all children will of course gravitate to “this,” here, eating of the tree. But God remains parental, for example, replacing the primordial couple’s fig-leaf with a more permanent, leather garment, dressing them Himself (3:21). Kings never do that to their subjects! Focus on the term tzelem e-lohim brings out an irony and a further difference between the two stories. Although there is much debate in parshanut about the meaning of this term, in the Bible, tzelem is always used to mean a physical, three-dimensional, “plastic” representation. Thus, this phrase in Genesis 1 suggests that people look like God, a notion also found in Ezekiel’s heavenly vision in 1:26. Nevertheless, the rest of the Genesis 1 depicts God as most un-human like. This is clearest in the use of the verb bara’ for divine creation. The second creation story uses verbs like ‘asah and yatzar, which are also used of humans, suggesting that in some way God’s creation is analogous to, or contiguous with, human acts of creation and building and forming and making. In contrast, the verb bara’ only has God as its subject, and is a way of expressing that the creation by God is completely different than any human building endeavor (and that is why many parshanim understand the term as referring to creation ex nihilo, יש מאין, which humans can certainly not do-this is possible, but not certain). This presents a wonderful irony concerning the first creation story, which depicts a God who has a human form, but acts in a way that is most unlike humans-an image which strongly contrasts with the anthropomorphic God of the second creation story. Credit Prof. Marc Zvi Brettler is Bernice & Morton Lerner Distinguished Professor of Judaic Studies at Duke University, and Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies (Emeritus) at Brandeis University. He is author of many books and articles, including How to Read the Jewish Bible (also published in Hebrew), co-editor of The Jewish Study Bible and The Jewish Annotated New Testament (with Amy-Jill Levine), and co-author of The Bible and the Believer (with Peter Enns and Daniel J. Harrington), and The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently (with Amy-Jill Levine). Brettler is cofounder of Project TABS (Torah and Biblical Scholarship)
Alright so I’m definitely stupid but am I missing something on part C of your comment? Genesis 2:4-9 doesn’t clearly indicate that vegetation came after man. Yes, it wasn’t grown yet in the beginning of this section, and there was “no man to till it,” but god watered the ground and THEN formed Adam of the dust. I don’t think this necessarily gives us a major discrepancy in the accounts.
@@Papa-dopoulos What translation are you using? It's pretty explicit in the NRSV. I know in the NIV, they deliberately mistranslated verse 8 to read "had planted" instead of "planted" as part of an inerrantist attempt to reconcile this, but planted is the more correct translation, and indicates this is the first appearance of plants. If it's 2:6 you're hung up on, that shouldn't be taken to imply that the stream (or mist) coming up from the ground had anything to do with the creation of plant life. Partly because it just doesn't say that, but also because that verse is part of the same statement clarifying why plants hadn't appeared yet, not a new or separate event. Hence "a stream would rise up" in the NRSV, as opposed to "and a stream rose up" or "then a stream rose up." (I would also point out that the text doesn't imply the LORD God was responsible for the stream.) In any case, plants are just one example; the whole order of creation for humans, plants, and animals is listed very differently between the two accounts. Genesis 1 gives the order as plants, then sea and sky animals together, then land animals, then humanity as a species, all created with spoken commands. Genesis 2 gives the order as a single human man created by hand from the ground, then plants, then land and sky animals together also created from the ground (interestingly, the creation of sea animals isn't included in this account), then a single human woman created from the man.
I have always found it very interesting that both creation accounts were left in the bible -- that it wasn't cleaned up to make one consistent narrative. To me that suggests that the people who put those two accounts one after the other were not expecting their audience to treat the text as a historically accurate account.
At the time it was compiled, I think you're right. However, I think the Genesis 2 account at least was intended to be taken literally despite the author knowing it was false. Why? It's not not really an allegory - it's more in the genre of an explanatory myth. These kinds of myths are taken literally by the unwashed, and as useful fiction by the educated.
@@scienceexplains302 I have a hard time believing that. I would think most ancient people naturally believed these as factual and explanatory since their worldview is supernatural. Heck most fundamentalist today think these myths are historical.
@@jimralston4789 Maybe there are different levels of belief. But some of the stories are metaphor and others are contradictory. It’s possible that people believed that Elohim formed the world and Yahweh formed Israel. That would be one way Genesis 1 and 2 wouldn’t conflict so much. But believing that Yahweh created the first people in G2 and Cain was afraid the people outside Eden would kill him. What people? Yahweh had supposedly created just one family.
Eve being blamed for being deceived because that verse goes on to say, "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." If he was there all along, then he must've at least seen and maybe heard the talking snake yet isn't described as deceived, but if he wasn't deceived why did he eat it? It's one of the most bizarre lines in the story. Either he was deceived and ate it just like Eve so they must have been equally culpable, or he wasn't deceived yet ate it anyway despite being perfect. Somehow, perfection doesn't entail automaton-level obedience, even though neither had eaten from the tree of knowledge and knew disobedience was wrong. It smacks of punishment being due to not doing as you're told because of who told you and their authority, not because you were doing anything immoral or wrong. That kind of makes sense as society shifted away from agrarian to settled and the appearance of leaders and kings demanding obedience due to their title, especially with regard to something like tax collection and surrendering a portion of what you've laboured to grow because some person calling themselves a king takes it under threat of force or death.
Like there is so much, so watch any aithiest like @mindshift and you'll see some examples but make sure to also check for yourself to fully understand it as well. Atheist are willing to ask the questions Christians are clearly avoiding it for ms it's painting our beautiful god the wrong way. People who take the Bible literal are also crazy to me😂💀
Genesis 1 is specifically structured to follow the pattern of priestly behavior. Just as priests are commanded in Leviticus (and derivative texts such as Ezekiel) to "separate", "distinguish", etc... many things, God in Genesis 1 behaves just like a priest in how day and night, sky and land, land and sea, etc... are "separated". This is literature in service of an established pattern, not a purely historiographical or theological account.
Perhaps part of the reason that the Genesis 2-3 narrative is not well loved by later Jewish writers is the obvious Greek pagan influence on the garden narrative. In an increasingly Hellenized world, maintaining ethnic identity would be a priority for the priests and scribes. Greek literature has about a thousand year head start on Hebrew literature, and the garden narrative is the most salient and obvious Greek influence: a woman named Zoe leads a man into a paradise of promiscuity (Göttingen Septuagint) where they get an entheogen from a serpent which grants self knowledge. Bring that up to a modern Christian and they get all defensive about it -- it's obviously a sore spot that needs to be massaged a bit.
Differing Conceptions of the Divine Creator The very beginning of the Bible presents one of the clearest pieces of evidence that the Torah is composed of various sources, more or less complete, written documents that have been woven together to comprise the text that we now have. Some readers know this theory well, and may have accepted it, perhaps incorporating one of the many models that this site has outlined about how such ideas might be integrated into Judaism. For others, this theory is more novel, or its basis is unclear. To address these different audiences, this piece has two parts. The first outlines why I, as a biblical scholar, believe that the beginning of Genesis contains two different creation stories. But for me, outlining these sources is just the beginning, a prerequisite for understanding each source on its own terms. Thus, the second part will explore the different God depicted in each section. Part 1 The Sources of the Creation Stories I begin with a simple question: According to Genesis, in what order were the land animals, man, and women created? This “simple” question has two different answers. According to Genesis 1:24-27, God creates the land animals (vv. 24-25), and then man and woman (vv. 26-27). However, in Genesis 2:7, God creates man, and then in v. 19 creates animals, and in v. 22 creates woman. Thus, the commonly heard idea that Genesis 2 is an elaboration upon Genesis 1, filling in various details, does not work-the two accounts tell different stories. Credit Prof. Marc Zvi Brettler
Don’t LDS believe that Genesis 1 is a “spiritual” creation by God and 2-3 are the physical creation by Jehovah or the pre-mortal Jesus? How do you respond to their way of thinking?
Because it doesn't suit them. Genesis gives men power to dominate women and oppress minorities that don't fit the categories of male and female. Taking the Bible literally means they can invoke any verse out of context to wield power whenever and wherever it benefits them.
I was surprised to recently read the NIV's take on Genesis 2:19 - saying God "had" formed out of the ground- was that an attempt by NIV translators to fix the problem of two creation accounts?
NIV creates some glaring problems for Apologists, most notably Numbers 5:11-31 in that it permits abortion in the event of adultery. So they tend to reject it and pretend that the euphemisms used in the other versions are literal.
Is there a version of the Bible that re-arranges things so that once can read it from what are theorized to be the oldest work toward the newest elements? I see the text (or rather all the voices that added to it over time) in conversation with itself/one-another. One hypothesis I heard in an undergraduate old testament class was that Genesis 1 was possibly written during the exile and is a response to the Babylonian creation myth. Not sure if that is still a credible idea these days but the idea that a hebrew scholar was exposed to that creation account and in an effort demarcate their conception and role of the divine from that of the religions tradition he was suddenly surrounded by is so much more interesting to me. And in my view leaves room for inspiration (mitigated by human imperfection).
It's an interesting idea to order the Bible like that. For the OT in particular I think it would be difficult, since so many of the books are layers of editing and redaction. Still a good project. Easier to do with the NT, since those texts are more distinct with less layers of editing
This is one of the many *Sumerian Creation* myths. Passed down to the Babylonians. Each city had it's own take on these stories. You can make your own decision. *Creation* When Anu, the lord, made heaven shine, made earth dark… Heaven and earth he held together as one… Day did not shine; in night, heaven stretched forth. Earth, bringing forth plant life did not glow on its own… The text describes the Sumerian high god Anu’s creation of the world. When Anu separates heaven and earth, the heavens shine but the earth does not. In other words, when the heavens and earth were combined in the primordial mush, there was perpetual night. By separating the heavens from the earth, Anu also separates light from darkness.Wayne Horowitz notes the parallel with Genesis: In NBC 11108:8, as in Genesis, where day exists before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, the heavens are conceived to have had their own glow, irrespective of the presence of luminaries She in turn roused her son Enki, the god of wisdom, and urged him to create a substitute to free the gods from their toil. Namma then kneaded some clay, placed it in her womb, and gave birth to the first humans. *Flood* Only the good man, Atrahasis (his name translates as `exceedingly wise’) was warned of the impending deluge by the god Enki (also known as Ea) who instructed him to build an ark to save himself. Atrahasis heeded the words of the god, loaded two of every kind of animal into the ark, and so preserved life on earth. *Moses* A mother floats her baby down the river in a basket and is rescued by a gardener and grows up to be powerful in the kings court. “ is it,is it,is it, is it, *Moses* no its Sargon. Aka Sargon the Great The bible is little more than a collection of hand me down stories.
Each story could stand on its own. It is when they are combined that we find internal contradictions. The irony is that if a group needs the bible to be univocal so that it can be used as an "absolute" statement of divine truth, they force the texts into irreconcilable error, thus undermining it as an absolute record of truth. And all so one group can use the bible as a cudgel against all others. Power is more important to them than faith. Funny how that works.
After DE converting in the last 5 years though it took decades, reason would tell me that any supposed holy, God created written communications to us mortals would be self-evidently, revealing in any time, or tongue. This communication would have to be absolutely unimpeachable by anyone reading it, any person, a child, an elder whatever. There would be no room for doubt, for opinions in perception, of doctrinal dissention or sectarian conflicts because an all-knowing being could do this. It hasn't happened. To make it easier in what I'm saying, anyone at any time in any language would immediately be gobsmacked, convinced, without forming a thought about questioning the truth of this information, whether read or played through recording, undeniable to 100% of people. It just doesn't happen.
All the people that are gobsmacked, or just take their pastor's word for it that they would be if they read it, assume that those of us who aren't are just in deliberate denial because we want to sin with impunity.
@@MrMortal_Ra It’s an interesting theory, but seems odd to list creation in order, but omit the fact that he created Adam before day 3. But hey, it’s fiction, so we can imagine whatever we want! ☺️
@@joshuacromley7439 I can’t wait to get to the New Testament! I’m reading the whole thing in order (and posting a video per chapter) and I just started 😅
@@joshuacromley7439 Matthew ("sad man hangs himself") is the one from the Sundance indie drama version of the story; Acts ("evil man spontaneously explodes") is the one from the Hollywood summer blockbuster. 😄
@@JoelReadsBible Founding father of America and Deist, Thomas Paine laid out in his book "The Age of Reason" how the four gospels' accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ contradict each other such that they are obviously lying about his resurrection. I recommend listening to the Age of Reason on TH-cam. I also recommend doing a comparison/contrast of the four gospels accounts of the resurrection when you get to that subject. The fact that the Bible itself is lying to everyone's faces about the big miracle of Jesus'es resurrection and no one is talking about it is huge. This miracle is the proverbial cornerstone of Christiantiy. More than Genesis, because people who take Genesis as metaphor and allegory believe that Jesus sacrificed himself for our personal sins rather than the sins of Adam and Eve. Even if you can point to the existence of a historical Jesus, it still wouldn't prove that his resurrection or any of his other miracles happened. It's always just been taken on faith that they did, and that you can't prove one way or the other that they didn't. But this is different! The contradictions between what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote about the resurrection are proof of the negative! They are proof that the miracle didn't even happen and that the gospel authors were lying about it the whole time! Every atheist should be talking about this! It should be their go-to hip pocket argument for why Christianity is false. Why it isn't is beyond me.
I've heard a few different takes from Apologists in regards to this (never really to my satisfaction), but this is the first time I've heard someone elude to possibly different deities from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 (unless I am misunderstanding). If that is the case, is this implying that El was the creator of the Heavens and Earth and Yahweh is the creator of "man?" Or at the very least, the creator of "his people?"
Well let's also look at what God says when Adam and Eve eat the apple. God says "quick before they eat the fruit of eternal life, they'll be like us?" Sorry I might have gotten it mixed up but still Whoes us? Us as in Gods? Who was he talking to. There is a possibility that he could be referring to his angels, we'll never know until we die
@@SherlockReasoningYeah, I've often wondered about that as well and there are other passages that elude to polytheism. This is just the first time that I considered Genesis 1 and 2 as separate accounts from two different Gods.
@@SherlockReasoningYou should know. The Bible clearly shows & claims that God consists to two separate & distinct entities. A being called the Word (Jesus) & a being called the Father. Hence, "let us".
@@glenwillson5073 but how can it be Jesus at that time especially when Jesus actually came down on earth and had no recollection of the past and future
@@SherlockReasoning Jesus is only called Jesus when he comes down. Before that he is called the word. It was the word that did all the creating of everything that was created. Where do you get the idea that he had no recollection of before he was born as Jesus? Jesus prophesied of the future, therefore he must have known something.
"ESV then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. NIV Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." When does your bibles say life begins?
Separate from the evidence that the Bible is a compilation of writings of multiple authors, and often poorly translated for those depending on reading it in English, don’t we misunderstand the old testament by seeing it as the story of the one and only god, instead of the story of the relationship of the Jewish God with His people. There are many acknowledgments of the existence of other gods, but in the context that these people need to be exclusively tied to their one god.
IMO all "creation vs evolution" debates should focus on the physical claims of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. If they want everyone to believe a literal word for word account of the creation story in Genesis "as an alternative to evolution", then they should have to prove the physical claims of Genesis 1 true before they can move on to whether or not evolution by natural selection is scientifically sound. Like, "Please, tell us how the sun is unnecessary for the day/night phenomenon to happen on Earth. After all, according to Genesis 1 the sun and moon weren't created until the third day, Earth had already existed, and God had already 'divided the light from the dark and called the light day and the dark night'. So in order for your story to be true daytime must be possible on Earth in absence of the sun. How? And don't just use your imagination to make up an explanation. Provide physical evidence." Nothing that any creationist has said to disparage evolution has ever proven the series of events laid out in Genesis 1 true. They should have to prove their claim true. We should put them on the defensive. Bear in mind this doesn't apply to the people who don't take Genesis literally, but those people are fine with evolution as an explanation of how life diversified after it got started and they aren't trying to teach young earth creationism in schools. Only the fundamentalists are.
I could be wrong, but I think we have at least mostly moved past the "teach YEC in school" being a viable option, and people have switched to "teach intelligent design in school" approach instead. While I realize this is often used as a cover for people that really believe something like YEC to dress up some anti-evolution ideas in a more scientific garb, intelligent design itself doesn't explicitly claim a literal reading of Genesis or even necessarily that evolution didn't happen. So unfortunately I think the methods to fight against such movements needs to be a little more refined than "Genesis obviously isn't literal, therefore you can't teach 'evolution alternatives' in public schools".
@@matthewnitz8367Intelligent Design didn't survive scrutiny in Kitzmiller v. Dover and has done nothing to redeem itself scientifically since. You can't just replace "Creationist" with "Intelligent Design Proponent" and "God" with "Designer" and fool us. And the reason they haven't done further science to refine their claims is because it's not science, it's religious apologetics, and it continues to work on the credulous just how it is.
@@exhumus Oh, I absolutely agree Intelligent Design has been discredited both legally and scientifically. I just think that much more was required than just saying "A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is scientifically infeasible, case closed". And to say that would be a sufficient answer is to discount the incredible work and thorough evidence that was marshalled in Kitzmiller v Dover to make a truly compelling case.
Everyone thinks Revelations is the most mysterious and difficult book of the Bible to understand, but I would say Genesis is by far the most difficult.
Actually Genisis 1 has the creation of man, genisis 2 talks about "FORMING" man out of the dust. Next we have YAHWEH making the garden and once again "FORMING" man these are three seperate accounts. If you include the post flood world you would come up with the 4 worlds as described by the Hopi. Just different perspectives with no relavance on what the Bible is about. Perhaps explaining pre human existance such as neanderthal and such.
Dan, back in university I had a philosophy professor who was Jewish, and tried to demonstrate an argument (I forget exactly what) using Genesis 1. He said in the original Hebrew, when YHWH commands something of Creation, the noun and verb used were etymologically related, but when the creation actually came into being, the noun and verb were not. He tried to explain this by saying in English it would be like saying "YHWH commanded the trees to produce produce (i.e. fruits and vegetables), and the trees produced fruit." In this hypothetical YHWH did not say fruit; they said produce, but the trees produced fruit, and my professor said this could be interpreted as Creation rebelling against YHWH right from the beginning. In your opinion is there anything to this interpretation, either the linguistic or the philosophical one?
Disclaimer: I have no clue, however I remember prof. Kipp Davis explaining what was going on in some biblical passage with specific reference to the Hebrew poetry and rhetoric style. Very crudely, if you see a rhyme pattern, and it gets interrupted for no apparent reason, it is an indication that the text has been manipulated. All this premise just to say that the use of specific words in the original Hebrew may simply be due to the author rhyming, building a chiasm, playing on words (which there’s a lot of in the original). As Dan always notes, the Bible has no intrinsic meaning, meaning is read into it by people. And Jews in particular have a long tradition of discovering all sorts of meanings in the biblical text. Perfectly legitimate endeavor but it doesn’t mean that that was the original author intention.
I think operating on the assumption that Genesis 1 was written to replace Genesis 2 is falling into the same trap. All we can say with reasonable certainty is that there are two stories, and the individuals that assembled Genesis included both. Both stories have useful lessons that can be used to make our lives better, so I for one am happy to have access to both.
What useful lessons? The only lessons in Genesis 1 consist of "This is how everything came to be...which is totally wrong" and "Human, screw up the planet as you will, it's all yours." Genesis 2 and 3 is "The only reason you exist is to be my gardener, get to it", "I'm a bad creator and going to blame you because I made mistakes", "Everything is the woman's fault", "I lied and the serpent is the one that told the truth, so curse him to" and "Everyone is going to suffer and die because you did something you had no idea was wrong because I'm a callous asshole". There's nothing in those three chapters that are of any use whatsoever.
I think there are a few textual arguments that suggest Genesis 1 was written with knowledge of Genesis 2+3. Then the question is, did the author want Gen 1 to be compatible or not compatible with the existing text? It looks to me like the latter, so a replacement text becomes a good explanation within that category.
Unfortunately, Gen 2 and 3 are pretty much baked into place for Chrtianity. You lose those and Original Sin is pretty much gone. So Gen 1 exists in a disassociate state for Christians never to be critically assessed.
The Bible no where supports the irrational "original sin" concept as invented by the Catholic church. There are two original sins in the Bible. Original, in the sense & meaning of, original being the first occurrence of something. There is the first time a spirit being, Satan, sinned. And there is the first time flesh & blood human beings, Adam & Eve, sinned. And you could rightly say, that there have been millions of original sins from Adam until now - the first time, each & every person who has ever lived, sinned is that persons original or first sin.
@@alanb8884Rebelled, disobeyed and waged war against God as the result of harbouring resentment and jealously due to vanity & pride in his abilities. (suggest study all references to Satan & fallen angels, wicked spirits etc..)
@@glenwillson5073 Although this well-known Christian doctrine has much in common with the pagan Zoroastrian Persian dualism from which it spawned, it is completely alien to the teachings of the Jewish Scriptures. There is not one example in the Jewish Scriptures where any angel, Satan included, ever opposes God’s will.
It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from “This month is to you,” (Exod. 12:2) which is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded. Now for what reason did He commence with “In the beginning?” Because of the verse “The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations” (Ps. 111:6). For if the nations of the world should say to Israel, “You are robbers, for you conquered by force the lands of the seven nations of Canaan,” they will reply, "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He deemed proper."
Dan misses the main point, which is that the final redactors of Gen 1 - 3 intended their composite text to be liturgical, and as Bishop Tom Wright said, "a temple story."
The Jewish people have an unbroken historical tradition to the very time of Moses that he is the author of the Torah. Moses wrote these five books by Divine dictation: every word in them was dictated to Moses by God Himself.
@@fordprefect5304 There seems to be a disagreement between Jews and non-Jews regarding the Jewish Torah. Between these two schools of opinion the reader must judge for himself.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 It was Israeli (Jews) archeologists who proved the Exodus story was written in the 7th/6th century. Since then a wealth of archeological evidence has been found that proves Egypt controlled Canaan/Israel from the 16th to the 12th centuries. Making a Joshua conquest impossible.
@@fordprefect5304 There is an Egyptian document called the Ipuwer Papyrus which is believed to have been created sometime in the nineteenth dynasty. Also known as Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage and with a source text believed to be much “older” than the nineteenth dynasty, the document speaks of absolute catastrophe in the kingdom. Beyond simply referencing vague misfortunes, the author of Admonitions relays specific kinds of events that bear an uncanny resemblance to the plagues of the Exodus, as well as Jewish scripture. Now what?
Not a big fan of the documentary hypothesis. i think it makes more sense to think that the 6th century BCE author was taking pre exilic traditions from israel and judah (God as distant and God as intimate) and combining them together. ezra was largely doing propaganda (“moses” wrote these 5 books). He wasn’t doing editorial stitching. P.S.: i probably shouldn’t say i agree with the supplementary hypothesis either. Thought it meant something other than “the bible was written between 623-165 BCE.” P.P.S.: Even if it can be unequivocally demonstrated that Genesis contains 2 creation stories that tells us absolutely nothing about how Exodus, etc. was composed. Exodus is a 10th century BCE text. It’s pretty obviously borrowing from the acts of solomon used for 1 kings 1-14. There are only 2 references to “pharaoh’s daughter” in the bible. One is in Exodus (2:5). The other is in 1 kings (3:1). There simply are no “sources” in Exodus.
*Exodus is a 10th century BCE text* Try reading the bible and a history book [Genesis 11] 11:27 Now these are the descendants of Terah. Terah was the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran was the father of Lot. 11:28 Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his birth, in *Ur of the Chaldeans* *The Chaldeans do not take control of Babylon (Ur) until 626BCE* Therefore the bible could not have been written before the 6th century [Numbers 20]:14 Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom: “Thus says your brother Israel: You know all the hardship that we have met: 15 how our fathers went down to Egypt, and we lived in Egypt a long time. And the Egyptians dealt harshly with us and our fathers. 20:18 And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword *The oldest city in Edom does not appear in history until 725 BCE and besides it was controlled by Egypt until the 8th century. The only thing there were Egyptian copper mines and the Egyptian army* And the documentary hypothesis there is plenty of evidence for it. “pharaoh’s daughter" The term pharaoh did not come into use until the 8th century
@@fordprefect5304 i have nothing to dispute about Genesis and numbers. They are clearly 6th century BCE texts potentially knowledgable of “Aesop’s” Fables. The Deir Alla Inscription provides a more original account of Balaam. My dispute is with Exodus. The Exodus text almost 100% pre dates jeroboam ll and probably dates contemporaneous to the Bubastite Portal. We know that writing existed at least by the time of david and many of the details of 1-2 samuel and the acts of solomon are relevant to the 10th century BCE period (Baruch Halpern, etc.). Heck, the “song” in Exodus probably has roots in the 1225-1175 BCE period. Also, i have no idea what you’re talking about with the term “pharaoh.” The term was very much utilized after the egyptians reconquered egypt after a period of canaanite rulership.
@@danielgibson8799 Exodus never happened. That is a provable fact. The oldest Hebrew writing dates to 850BCE. *The Exodus text* Half the cities Joshua smote did not exist before the 8th/9th or 10th centuries BCE Many if not most of the places mentioned in the Exodus did not exist within the same chronological period as one another. Pithom (Per‐Atum/Tckenu) and Raamses (Per‐Ramesses), the two “treasure cities” claimed to have been built by the Hebrews, never existed at the same time. Pithom did not exist as a significant settlement before the 26th Dynasty. Prior to this, the settlement was known as Tckenu, and was still referred to as such in the Ptolemaic period. It was an obscure garrison town which mainly, if not exclusively, served as a waystation for Egyptian expeditions. Even in its enlarged Roman state, the town barely registered on either Egyptian or Greco-Roman accounts.[17] Per‐Ramesses, the Royal Residence of the Ramessides, was abandoned at the end of the New Kingdom, centuries earlier.[17] (Dynasties 25-26)747-525 BC Dating the bible I recommend. th-cam.com/video/9uIXzUEwrOg/w-d-xo.html *Argue Pharaoh with her* "However, most of the biblical occurrences relating to the Egyptian king only use the word Pharaoh rather than an actual name. Since this reflects Egyptian practice that only started in the 8th century B.C.E., these biblical texts must date from that period or later. In other words, the frequent use of the term Pharaoh in the Exodus narrative does not reflect second millennium practices, but reflects, at the earliest, a late monarchic horizon." Dr. Shirly Ben-Dor Evian
Name one contradiction between Gen 1 & Gen 2&3. There are superficially apparent contradictions within Gen 1 itself but are not really contradictions once examined.
According to Genesis, in what order were the land animals, man, and women created? This “simple” question has two different answers. According to Genesis 1:24-27, God creates the land animals (vv. 24-25), and then man and woman (vv. 26-27). However, in Genesis 2:7, God creates man, and then in v. 19 creates animals, and in v. 22 creates woman. Thus, the commonly heard idea that Genesis 2 is an elaboration upon Genesis 1, filling in various details, does not work-the two accounts tell different stories. And before you give me the standard apologist answer that one chapter compliments the other Genesis: 1 credits Elion Genesis: 2 credits El-Yahweh the god assigned to Israel by Elyon *The bible tells me so* Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (Dead Sea Scrolls) When Elyon divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he established the borders of the nations according to the number of the sons of the gods. Yahweh’s portion was his people, [Israel] his allotted inheritance.
@@fordprefect5304 What can I tell you. Gen 1 gives a basic overview outline of events. Gen 2 gives extra detail. How do I know this is true? Because extra detail is in fact found in Gen 2. There's the clue right there, it's not rocket science, as they say. For example; Gen 1 does not mention God giving instructions to Adam & Eve regarding not eating from a certain tree. Gen 2 gives extra information that God instructed Adam regarding this before Eve was created. This is not a contradiction, it's the full picture, it's extea detail - obviously. Animal creation? You are assuming Gen 2:19 is the same event as Gen 1:24. Only one sample of each previously created beast (Gen1:24) was needed for Adam to name it and God brought it to Adam (Gen 2:19). God may or may not have especially created each individual sample beast for Adam to name. God did specifically create a one off creature to swallow Jonah. Sorry but, biblical verses are often complimentary. Information on any particular subject is in fact often scattered throughout the Bible. You've got to find it & put it all together. If you don't understand this you will fall into Isaiah's snare and understand nothing. For example if different books chapters & verses give the names of different people present at a particular event it's not a contradiction. It means all mentioned people were at the event. It would be a contradiction if one verse said person A was at the event and another verse said person A was not at the event. Not sure what you think your last paragraph proves. The bible presents different names for God and defines God as consisting to two separate individuals. The word, which is Jesus, and the Father. All references to God in the Bible are meaning either the word/Jesus or the Father or both.
@@glenwillson5073 I am not assuming anything. You can argue with these guys Prof. Marc Zvi Brettler is Bernice & Morton Lerner Distinguished Professor of Judaic Studies at Duke University, and Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies (Emeritus) at Brandeis University. He is author of many books and articles, including How to Read the Jewish Bible (also published in Hebrew), co-editor of The Jewish Study Bible and The Jewish Annotated New Testament (with Amy-Jill Levine), and co-author of The Bible and the Believer (with Peter Enns and Daniel J. Harrington), and The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently (with Amy-Jill Levine). Brettler is cofounder of Project TABS (Torah and Biblical Scholarship) - TheTorah Prof. Konrad Schmid is Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. He received his Ph.D. and his Habilitation from the University of Zurich. He is the author of Genesis and the Moses Story (2010); The Old Testament: A Literary History (Fortress Press, 2012); and A Historical Theology of the Hebrew Bible (2019), and the co-editor of The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research [with Thomas B. Dozeman and Baruch J. Schwartz] (2011) and The Formation of the Pentateuch [with Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson , and Dalit Rom-Shiloni] (2016). Since 2017, he has served as president of the Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft für Theologie (Academic Society for Theology) and he is currently also the President of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament (IOSOT). In 2018, Schmid was awarded the Humboldt-Forschungspreis, and in 2019 an ERC Advanced Grant for the project How God Became a Lawgiver (www.divlaw.uzh.ch). In the fall of 2022, he served as Lady Davis Visiting Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I am sure you can teach theology to them.
Just want to point out that the majority of scholars might just be wrong. In my academic field, the majority of scholars are frequently wrong. As a different case in point, I’ve become quite interested in Napoleon biographies since the movie came out recently. It was quite instructive to see how few Napoleon scholars agree on many aspects of his life, even though it was quite well-documented by his contemporaries. As usual, the political perspective of the scholar had a massive impact on how his life was described and interpreted. I suspect that this case is very similar. This young man has a particular point he wants to make against a certain sub-set of society and views the text through that lens. When you’ve been around scholars of all types and fields like I have, you realize that scholarship is not done in a vacuum. Every scholar has a perspective they are pushing. It’s how scholarship is done. It’s how you get published. A paper without an argument doesn’t get you anywhere. This young fellow just pretends that his perspective is more academic or scholarly than those he disagrees with. You will find plenty of Bible scholars that disagree with his position. But I must admit that he does a good job of bringing out a particular perspective on scripture that is often ignored or overlooked by Christians.
Disagree. After years of studying Genesis 1-3, I am not convinced they were written as two separate contradictory accounts. The account of Genesis 1:1-2:4 is focused on the “whole world” and Elohim bringing order to a non-ordered system. Genesis 2:4 and following is Yahweh, the covenant name of the God of Israel, creating a people for himself. Adam & Eve were the first priests, and this account is focused on the history and the land of Israel. John Walton’s work on this is very informative. Genesis 1 is a creation account but not one of ex nihilo, but one of God bringing order. Naming and separating were acts of creation in the ancient world.
Listening to you this time struck me that besides being an intelligent scholar you have a big heart for those who are repeatedly marginalized because of what people want/need the Bible to say to make them feel good. Thank you and keep up the good fight.
I realized a while ago that Dan is not doing this to display his considerable knowledge of the Bible, he is battling the forces of evil with their own device. ❤
It goes beyond marginalization of specific groups. It's from that account of Adam and Eve that we get the notion of Original Sin. Imagine how differently Christianity would have developed without that notion in the mix.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Imagine a world in which the church let Marcion of Sinope establish that the God in the OT is evil and Jesus was a separate "Good" God to correct the mistakes.
@@paulcleary8088 Yeah, that one's nasty. You think historical anti-Semitism was bad? That could be far worse.
@@paulcleary8088 Jesus was still an a$$hole, callously using slavery as a given in his parables instead of condemning slavery.
This is one reason why I say no one can be a Bible literalist. The accounts cannot be reconciled.
Same here!
Yeah sadly at one point I was a fundamentalist/literalist. That was before I read it :)
No, they can...
@@markwildt5728let me take a wild guess…
It happens to be the certain flavour of Christianity you were conveniently born into?
@markwildt5728 No, they can't.
Look up the below article from a Biblical scholar:
*"Genesis' Two Creation Accounts"* - Dr Steven DiMattei
Wow. While I am a non-believer, I have always been fascinated by mythology and ancient religious texts. Your presentation is what you claim, a scholarly presentation. I look forward to more history and context on Biblical texts.
A few points I would add:
A) The chapters are split up a bit awkwardly, so the Genesis 2 - 3 account starts with Genesis 2:4. The first three verses of Genesis 2 are actually the end of the Genesis 1 account.
B) The Genesis 1 account refers to the deity as Elohim, which is typically rendered as "God" in English-language Bibles. The Genesis 2-3 account refers to them as YHWH Elohim, typically rendered as "the LORD God." (Except when the serpent is speaking, then it's just "God." Not sure why.) Once we get to Chapter 4, the deity is referred to as simply YHWH / the LORD, without God at the end. Lots of interesting implications to these name changes.
C) For anyone wondering why these accounts aren't reconcilable, there are a lot of reasons, but one you can look at has to do with the creation of plants. If you look at Genesis 1:11-13 and Genesis 1:26-31, you'll find that the God / Elohim of this account first created plant life on the third day, three days before they first created human beings. Compare this with Genesis 2:4-9. Here, it's explicitly stated that no plant life or vegetation existed when the LORD God / YHWH Elohim created the first human. This is only one of many differences regarding the order in which the events of creation took place, but I picked out plant life because it strikes me as a particularly clear example.
Found this to support your post
Two Different Conceptions of the Divine Creator
The nature of the God of the first creation story is well-expressed in Psalm 148:5; וכי הוא צוה ונבראו, “for it was He who commanded that they be created.” God is extremely powerful, and His (yes-this God is masculine) words cause the primordial chaos (see 1:1-2) to restructure itself into the well-organized world that we know, where everything occupies its proper place. Although powerful, He has a divine council with whom He sometimes deliberates, as made clear in the plural נעשה, “let us make” in 1:26. (see Rashi and the sources he cites from b. Sanhedrin 38b and Tanhuma). This suggests that God is king-it is kings who have such advisors, and engage in massive building projects.
Tov, “good,” is a theme word of this account-a good God creates a good world; the story, for example, narrates how God first creates foodstuffs, and then the animals who will eat them (vv. 29-30). Creation is highly symmetrical and well organized. This God also looks far ahead and thinks about Israel, creating the Shabbat already as part of creation, even though its full meaning will not become evident until it is assigned as an ’ot (sign) and berit(covenant) between God and Israel in Exodus.
Genesis 2:4b depicts a very different God. He is not king, but much more parent-like and personal. He walks the garden (3:8) and talks to people (3:9-19)-this is unimaginable for the royal, distant, powerful God of the first story. He makes mistakes. First He thinks that land animals or birds might be suitable mates for the man (2:19). Then He makes the same error of all young-parents-He does not know how to define limits, and says “You can do everything but this,” not realizing that all children will of course gravitate to “this,” here, eating of the tree. But God remains parental, for example, replacing the primordial couple’s fig-leaf with a more permanent, leather garment, dressing them Himself (3:21). Kings never do that to their subjects!
Focus on the term tzelem e-lohim brings out an irony and a further difference between the two stories. Although there is much debate in parshanut about the meaning of this term, in the Bible, tzelem is always used to mean a physical, three-dimensional, “plastic” representation. Thus, this phrase in Genesis 1 suggests that people look like God, a notion also found in Ezekiel’s heavenly vision in 1:26. Nevertheless, the rest of the Genesis 1 depicts God as most un-human like.
This is clearest in the use of the verb bara’ for divine creation. The second creation story uses verbs like ‘asah and yatzar, which are also used of humans, suggesting that in some way God’s creation is analogous to, or contiguous with, human acts of creation and building and forming and making. In contrast, the verb bara’ only has God as its subject, and is a way of expressing that the creation by God is completely different than any human building endeavor (and that is why many parshanim understand the term as referring to creation ex nihilo, יש מאין, which humans can certainly not do-this is possible, but not certain).
This presents a wonderful irony concerning the first creation story, which depicts a God who has a human form, but acts in a way that is most unlike humans-an image which strongly contrasts with the anthropomorphic God of the second creation story.
Credit Prof. Marc Zvi Brettler is Bernice & Morton Lerner Distinguished Professor of Judaic Studies at Duke University, and Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies (Emeritus) at Brandeis University. He is author of many books and articles, including How to Read the Jewish Bible (also published in Hebrew), co-editor of The Jewish Study Bible and The Jewish Annotated New Testament (with Amy-Jill Levine), and co-author of The Bible and the Believer (with Peter Enns and Daniel J. Harrington), and The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently (with Amy-Jill Levine). Brettler is cofounder of Project TABS (Torah and Biblical Scholarship)
Alright so I’m definitely stupid but am I missing something on part C of your comment? Genesis 2:4-9 doesn’t clearly indicate that vegetation came after man. Yes, it wasn’t grown yet in the beginning of this section, and there was “no man to till it,” but god watered the ground and THEN formed Adam of the dust. I don’t think this necessarily gives us a major discrepancy in the accounts.
@@Papa-dopoulos What translation are you using? It's pretty explicit in the NRSV. I know in the NIV, they deliberately mistranslated verse 8 to read "had planted" instead of "planted" as part of an inerrantist attempt to reconcile this, but planted is the more correct translation, and indicates this is the first appearance of plants. If it's 2:6 you're hung up on, that shouldn't be taken to imply that the stream (or mist) coming up from the ground had anything to do with the creation of plant life. Partly because it just doesn't say that, but also because that verse is part of the same statement clarifying why plants hadn't appeared yet, not a new or separate event. Hence "a stream would rise up" in the NRSV, as opposed to "and a stream rose up" or "then a stream rose up." (I would also point out that the text doesn't imply the LORD God was responsible for the stream.) In any case, plants are just one example; the whole order of creation for humans, plants, and animals is listed very differently between the two accounts. Genesis 1 gives the order as plants, then sea and sky animals together, then land animals, then humanity as a species, all created with spoken commands. Genesis 2 gives the order as a single human man created by hand from the ground, then plants, then land and sky animals together also created from the ground (interestingly, the creation of sea animals isn't included in this account), then a single human woman created from the man.
Thank you for consistently delivering this message Dan.
I have always found it very interesting that both creation accounts were left in the bible -- that it wasn't cleaned up to make one consistent narrative. To me that suggests that the people who put those two accounts one after the other were not expecting their audience to treat the text as a historically accurate account.
The written Torah expects the reader to have access to the oral Torah explanations. Without them, the text is incomprehensible.
At the time it was compiled, I think you're right. However, I think the Genesis 2 account at least was intended to be taken literally despite the author knowing it was false. Why? It's not not really an allegory - it's more in the genre of an explanatory myth. These kinds of myths are taken literally by the unwashed, and as useful fiction by the educated.
I doubt that historical believability was a major concept in religious communities (anywhere) when these stories were written
@@scienceexplains302 I have a hard time believing that. I would think most ancient people naturally believed these as factual and explanatory since their worldview is supernatural. Heck most fundamentalist today think these myths are historical.
@@jimralston4789 Maybe there are different levels of belief. But some of the stories are metaphor and others are contradictory.
It’s possible that people believed that Elohim formed the world and Yahweh formed Israel.
That would be one way Genesis 1 and 2 wouldn’t conflict so much.
But believing that Yahweh created the first people in G2 and Cain was afraid the people outside Eden would kill him.
What people? Yahweh had supposedly created just one family.
I wonder why people ignore other creation accounts in the Bible Job 38 and Ps 104?
Eve being blamed for being deceived because that verse goes on to say, "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." If he was there all along, then he must've at least seen and maybe heard the talking snake yet isn't described as deceived, but if he wasn't deceived why did he eat it? It's one of the most bizarre lines in the story. Either he was deceived and ate it just like Eve so they must have been equally culpable, or he wasn't deceived yet ate it anyway despite being perfect. Somehow, perfection doesn't entail automaton-level obedience, even though neither had eaten from the tree of knowledge and knew disobedience was wrong. It smacks of punishment being due to not doing as you're told because of who told you and their authority, not because you were doing anything immoral or wrong. That kind of makes sense as society shifted away from agrarian to settled and the appearance of leaders and kings demanding obedience due to their title, especially with regard to something like tax collection and surrendering a portion of what you've laboured to grow because some person calling themselves a king takes it under threat of force or death.
Right after watching this I was shown an apologist's video telling me that actually there are no contradictions and it all fits together. 🙄
Like there is so much, so watch any aithiest like @mindshift and you'll see some examples but make sure to also check for yourself to fully understand it as well.
Atheist are willing to ask the questions Christians are clearly avoiding it for ms it's painting our beautiful god the wrong way.
People who take the Bible literal are also crazy to me😂💀
Genesis 1 is specifically structured to follow the pattern of priestly behavior. Just as priests are commanded in Leviticus (and derivative texts such as Ezekiel) to "separate", "distinguish", etc... many things, God in Genesis 1 behaves just like a priest in how day and night, sky and land, land and sea, etc... are "separated".
This is literature in service of an established pattern, not a purely historiographical or theological account.
Yes , you’re on the right track. One sequence appears on the Wikipedia page “Dating the Bible” in the section “Table I: Chronological Overview”
Biblical Grifters: Damn you, Dan! We survived your predecessors and we will survive you!
Ahhh, the Merovingian! Sweet Matrix reference.
Perhaps part of the reason that the Genesis 2-3 narrative is not well loved by later Jewish writers is the obvious Greek pagan influence on the garden narrative. In an increasingly Hellenized world, maintaining ethnic identity would be a priority for the priests and scribes. Greek literature has about a thousand year head start on Hebrew literature, and the garden narrative is the most salient and obvious Greek influence: a woman named Zoe leads a man into a paradise of promiscuity (Göttingen Septuagint) where they get an entheogen from a serpent which grants self knowledge. Bring that up to a modern Christian and they get all defensive about it -- it's obviously a sore spot that needs to be massaged a bit.
The Sinai revelation took place in the Hebrew year 2448 (1312 B.C.E.). That's way before Homer.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 lol
@@k98killer That's how I react when non-Jews speculate about Jewish history.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 show me any manuscripts of this that predate Homer
Differing Conceptions of the Divine Creator
The very beginning of the Bible presents one of the clearest pieces of evidence that the Torah is composed of various sources, more or less complete, written documents that have been woven together to comprise the text that we now have. Some readers know this theory well, and may have accepted it, perhaps incorporating one of the many models that this site has outlined about how such ideas might be integrated into Judaism. For others, this theory is more novel, or its basis is unclear.
To address these different audiences, this piece has two parts. The first outlines why I, as a biblical scholar, believe that the beginning of Genesis contains two different creation stories. But for me, outlining these sources is just the beginning, a prerequisite for understanding each source on its own terms. Thus, the second part will explore the different God depicted in each section.
Part 1
The Sources of the Creation Stories
I begin with a simple question: According to Genesis, in what order were the land animals, man, and women created? This “simple” question has two different answers. According to Genesis 1:24-27, God creates the land animals (vv. 24-25), and then man and woman (vv. 26-27). However, in Genesis 2:7, God creates man, and then in v. 19 creates animals, and in v. 22 creates woman. Thus, the commonly heard idea that Genesis 2 is an elaboration upon Genesis 1, filling in various details, does not work-the two accounts tell different stories.
Credit Prof. Marc Zvi Brettler
Don’t LDS believe that Genesis 1 is a “spiritual” creation by God and 2-3 are the physical creation by Jehovah or the pre-mortal Jesus? How do you respond to their way of thinking?
Oh man that was so interesting and helpful. Why on earth don't 6-day creationists address this difference, I wonder when it's so glaringly obvious?
Because it doesn't suit them. Genesis gives men power to dominate women and oppress minorities that don't fit the categories of male and female. Taking the Bible literally means they can invoke any verse out of context to wield power whenever and wherever it benefits them.
I was surprised to recently read the NIV's take on Genesis 2:19 - saying God "had" formed out of the ground- was that an attempt by NIV translators to fix the problem of two creation accounts?
Yup!
NIV creates some glaring problems for Apologists, most notably Numbers 5:11-31 in that it permits abortion in the event of adultery. So they tend to reject it and pretend that the euphemisms used in the other versions are literal.
Is there a version of the Bible that re-arranges things so that once can read it from what are theorized to be the oldest work toward the newest elements? I see the text (or rather all the voices that added to it over time) in conversation with itself/one-another.
One hypothesis I heard in an undergraduate old testament class was that Genesis 1 was possibly written during the exile and is a response to the Babylonian creation myth. Not sure if that is still a credible idea these days but the idea that a hebrew scholar was exposed to that creation account and in an effort demarcate their conception and role of the divine from that of the religions tradition he was suddenly surrounded by is so much more interesting to me. And in my view leaves room for inspiration (mitigated by human imperfection).
It's an interesting idea to order the Bible like that. For the OT in particular I think it would be difficult, since so many of the books are layers of editing and redaction. Still a good project.
Easier to do with the NT, since those texts are more distinct with less layers of editing
This is one of the many *Sumerian Creation* myths. Passed down to the Babylonians. Each city had it's own take on these stories.
You can make your own decision.
*Creation*
When Anu, the lord, made heaven shine, made earth dark… Heaven and earth he held together as one… Day did not shine; in night, heaven stretched forth. Earth, bringing forth plant life did not glow on its own…
The text describes the Sumerian high god Anu’s creation of the world. When Anu separates heaven and earth, the heavens shine but the earth does not. In other words, when the heavens and earth were combined in the primordial mush, there was perpetual night. By separating the heavens from the earth, Anu also separates light from darkness.Wayne Horowitz notes the parallel with Genesis:
In NBC 11108:8, as in Genesis, where day exists before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, the heavens are conceived to have had their own glow, irrespective of the presence of luminaries
She in turn roused her son Enki, the god of wisdom, and urged him to create a substitute to free the gods from their toil. Namma then kneaded some clay, placed it in her womb, and gave birth to the first humans.
*Flood*
Only the good man, Atrahasis (his name translates as `exceedingly wise’) was warned of the impending deluge by the god Enki (also known as Ea) who instructed him to build an ark to save himself. Atrahasis heeded the words of the god, loaded two of every kind of animal into the ark, and so preserved life on earth.
*Moses*
A mother floats her baby down the river in a basket and is rescued by a gardener and grows up to be powerful in the kings court.
“ is it,is it,is it, is it,
*Moses*
no its Sargon. Aka Sargon the Great
The bible is little more than a collection of hand me down stories.
There’s very few T-shirts lately
OMG- imagine how different the World would be if they never included Gen 2 and 3!
"Nobody else seems to care about the passages of Genesis 2 and 3"
Lilith cared😂
Lilith was actually an attempt by rabbis to reconcile the two creation accounts.
Each story could stand on its own. It is when they are combined that we find internal contradictions. The irony is that if a group needs the bible to be univocal so that it can be used as an "absolute" statement of divine truth, they force the texts into irreconcilable error, thus undermining it as an absolute record of truth. And all so one group can use the bible as a cudgel against all others. Power is more important to them than faith. Funny how that works.
What internal contradiction between Chapter 1 and 2?
After DE converting in the last 5 years though it took decades, reason would tell me that any supposed holy, God created written communications to us mortals would be self-evidently, revealing in any time, or tongue. This communication would have to be absolutely unimpeachable by anyone reading it, any person, a child, an elder whatever. There would be no room for doubt, for opinions in perception, of doctrinal dissention or sectarian conflicts because an all-knowing being could do this. It hasn't happened.
To make it easier in what I'm saying, anyone at any time in any language would immediately be gobsmacked, convinced, without forming a thought about questioning the truth of this information, whether read or played through recording, undeniable to 100% of people. It just doesn't happen.
All the people that are gobsmacked, or just take their pastor's word for it that they would be if they read it, assume that those of us who aren't are just in deliberate denial because we want to sin with impunity.
I just posted a video about this 5 mins ago!! The weird contradiction of when Adam was created (day 6 or before day 3)!
@@MrMortal_Ra It’s an interesting theory, but seems odd to list creation in order, but omit the fact that he created Adam before day 3. But hey, it’s fiction, so we can imagine whatever we want! ☺️
@@joshuacromley7439 I can’t wait to get to the New Testament! I’m reading the whole thing in order (and posting a video per chapter) and I just started 😅
@@joshuacromley7439 Matthew ("sad man hangs himself") is the one from the Sundance indie drama version of the story; Acts ("evil man spontaneously explodes") is the one from the Hollywood summer blockbuster. 😄
@@joshuacromley7439 But why work so hard to unearth a few decent teachings? Why not just dump the whole thing?
@@JoelReadsBible Founding father of America and Deist, Thomas Paine laid out in his book "The Age of Reason" how the four gospels' accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ contradict each other such that they are obviously lying about his resurrection. I recommend listening to the Age of Reason on TH-cam. I also recommend doing a comparison/contrast of the four gospels accounts of the resurrection when you get to that subject.
The fact that the Bible itself is lying to everyone's faces about the big miracle of Jesus'es resurrection and no one is talking about it is huge. This miracle is the proverbial cornerstone of Christiantiy. More than Genesis, because people who take Genesis as metaphor and allegory believe that Jesus sacrificed himself for our personal sins rather than the sins of Adam and Eve. Even if you can point to the existence of a historical Jesus, it still wouldn't prove that his resurrection or any of his other miracles happened. It's always just been taken on faith that they did, and that you can't prove one way or the other that they didn't. But this is different! The contradictions between what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote about the resurrection are proof of the negative! They are proof that the miracle didn't even happen and that the gospel authors were lying about it the whole time!
Every atheist should be talking about this! It should be their go-to hip pocket argument for why Christianity is false. Why it isn't is beyond me.
It's especially interesting when you know the source of these early Hebrew stories. The Babylonian myths.. and the many gods of the 1st Hebrews.
I've heard a few different takes from Apologists in regards to this (never really to my satisfaction), but this is the first time I've heard someone elude to possibly different deities from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 (unless I am misunderstanding). If that is the case, is this implying that El was the creator of the Heavens and Earth and Yahweh is the creator of "man?" Or at the very least, the creator of "his people?"
Well let's also look at what God says when Adam and Eve eat the apple.
God says "quick before they eat the fruit of eternal life, they'll be like us?"
Sorry I might have gotten it mixed up but still
Whoes us? Us as in Gods? Who was he talking to.
There is a possibility that he could be referring to his angels, we'll never know until we die
@@SherlockReasoningYeah, I've often wondered about that as well and there are other passages that elude to polytheism. This is just the first time that I considered Genesis 1 and 2 as separate accounts from two different Gods.
@@SherlockReasoningYou should know. The Bible clearly shows & claims that God consists to two separate & distinct entities. A being called the Word (Jesus) & a being called the Father. Hence, "let us".
@@glenwillson5073 but how can it be Jesus at that time especially when Jesus actually came down on earth and had no recollection of the past and future
@@SherlockReasoning Jesus is only called Jesus when he comes down. Before that he is called the word.
It was the word that did all the creating of everything that was created.
Where do you get the idea that he had no recollection of before he was born as Jesus?
Jesus prophesied of the future, therefore he must have known something.
If one creation story is good, then two are even better. The Egyptians had at least four.
"ESV then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. NIV Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." When does your bibles say life begins?
Separate from the evidence that the Bible is a compilation of writings of multiple authors, and often poorly translated for those depending on reading it in English, don’t we misunderstand the old testament by seeing it as the story of the one and only god, instead of the story of the relationship of the Jewish God with His people. There are many acknowledgments of the existence of other gods, but in the context that these people need to be exclusively tied to their one god.
IMO all "creation vs evolution" debates should focus on the physical claims of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. If they want everyone to believe a literal word for word account of the creation story in Genesis "as an alternative to evolution", then they should have to prove the physical claims of Genesis 1 true before they can move on to whether or not evolution by natural selection is scientifically sound. Like, "Please, tell us how the sun is unnecessary for the day/night phenomenon to happen on Earth. After all, according to Genesis 1 the sun and moon weren't created until the third day, Earth had already existed, and God had already 'divided the light from the dark and called the light day and the dark night'. So in order for your story to be true daytime must be possible on Earth in absence of the sun. How? And don't just use your imagination to make up an explanation. Provide physical evidence."
Nothing that any creationist has said to disparage evolution has ever proven the series of events laid out in Genesis 1 true. They should have to prove their claim true. We should put them on the defensive.
Bear in mind this doesn't apply to the people who don't take Genesis literally, but those people are fine with evolution as an explanation of how life diversified after it got started and they aren't trying to teach young earth creationism in schools. Only the fundamentalists are.
I could be wrong, but I think we have at least mostly moved past the "teach YEC in school" being a viable option, and people have switched to "teach intelligent design in school" approach instead. While I realize this is often used as a cover for people that really believe something like YEC to dress up some anti-evolution ideas in a more scientific garb, intelligent design itself doesn't explicitly claim a literal reading of Genesis or even necessarily that evolution didn't happen. So unfortunately I think the methods to fight against such movements needs to be a little more refined than "Genesis obviously isn't literal, therefore you can't teach 'evolution alternatives' in public schools".
@@matthewnitz8367Intelligent Design didn't survive scrutiny in Kitzmiller v. Dover and has done nothing to redeem itself scientifically since. You can't just replace "Creationist" with "Intelligent Design Proponent" and "God" with "Designer" and fool us. And the reason they haven't done further science to refine their claims is because it's not science, it's religious apologetics, and it continues to work on the credulous just how it is.
@@exhumus Oh, I absolutely agree Intelligent Design has been discredited both legally and scientifically. I just think that much more was required than just saying "A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is scientifically infeasible, case closed". And to say that would be a sufficient answer is to discount the incredible work and thorough evidence that was marshalled in Kitzmiller v Dover to make a truly compelling case.
Who is doing Christianity wrong, the evangelical right or the liberation theology left?
Yes.
Everyone thinks Revelations is the most mysterious and difficult book of the Bible to understand, but I would say Genesis is by far the most difficult.
It's difficult because the Hebrew text has no written vowels, no written punctuation and no sequence of earlier and later incidents.
Interesting. 🙋🏻♂️
Actually Genisis 1 has the creation of man, genisis 2 talks about "FORMING" man out of the dust. Next we have YAHWEH making the garden and once again "FORMING" man these are three seperate accounts. If you include the post flood world you would come up with the 4 worlds as described by the Hopi. Just different perspectives with no relavance on what the Bible is about. Perhaps explaining pre human existance such as neanderthal and such.
Genesis 2 is the reboot. Duh. 😉
Actually it seems that Genesis 1 is the newer account, so technically 1 would be the reboot.
You are actually onto something.
The original creation of the universe is Gen 1:1, the reboot is Gen 1:2.
Dan, back in university I had a philosophy professor who was Jewish, and tried to demonstrate an argument (I forget exactly what) using Genesis 1. He said in the original Hebrew, when YHWH commands something of Creation, the noun and verb used were etymologically related, but when the creation actually came into being, the noun and verb were not.
He tried to explain this by saying in English it would be like saying "YHWH commanded the trees to produce produce (i.e. fruits and vegetables), and the trees produced fruit." In this hypothetical YHWH did not say fruit; they said produce, but the trees produced fruit, and my professor said this could be interpreted as Creation rebelling against YHWH right from the beginning. In your opinion is there anything to this interpretation, either the linguistic or the philosophical one?
Disclaimer: I have no clue, however I remember prof. Kipp Davis explaining what was going on in some biblical passage with specific reference to the Hebrew poetry and rhetoric style. Very crudely, if you see a rhyme pattern, and it gets interrupted for no apparent reason, it is an indication that the text has been manipulated.
All this premise just to say that the use of specific words in the original Hebrew may simply be due to the author rhyming, building a chiasm, playing on words (which there’s a lot of in the original).
As Dan always notes, the Bible has no intrinsic meaning, meaning is read into it by people. And Jews in particular have a long tradition of discovering all sorts of meanings in the biblical text. Perfectly legitimate endeavor but it doesn’t mean that that was the original author intention.
@@pansepot1490 Very interesting! That is a useful rubric for these cases. Thank you for sharing.
🤘
Oh my Zeus
I cannot say conclusively that there is no creator of the universe, but I can say that there most certainly is no God of the Bible.
This is so badass. 🔥🔥
🤙
I think operating on the assumption that Genesis 1 was written to replace Genesis 2 is falling into the same trap. All we can say with reasonable certainty is that there are two stories, and the individuals that assembled Genesis included both. Both stories have useful lessons that can be used to make our lives better, so I for one am happy to have access to both.
What useful lessons? The only lessons in Genesis 1 consist of "This is how everything came to be...which is totally wrong" and "Human, screw up the planet as you will, it's all yours." Genesis 2 and 3 is "The only reason you exist is to be my gardener, get to it", "I'm a bad creator and going to blame you because I made mistakes", "Everything is the woman's fault", "I lied and the serpent is the one that told the truth, so curse him to" and "Everyone is going to suffer and die because you did something you had no idea was wrong because I'm a callous asshole". There's nothing in those three chapters that are of any use whatsoever.
@keith6706 Yes, if your narrative is "Bible bad," I'm certain that is all that you would see.
I think there are a few textual arguments that suggest Genesis 1 was written with knowledge of Genesis 2+3. Then the question is, did the author want Gen 1 to be compatible or not compatible with the existing text? It looks to me like the latter, so a replacement text becomes a good explanation within that category.
@@benroberts2222 can you point me in the direction of those arguments?
@@ronjones1414 Okay, put it up. What good lessons can be drawn from Genesis 1 to 3?
Unfortunately, Gen 2 and 3 are pretty much baked into place for Chrtianity. You lose those and Original Sin is pretty much gone. So Gen 1 exists in a disassociate state for Christians never to be critically assessed.
The Bible no where supports the irrational "original sin" concept as invented by the Catholic church.
There are two original sins in the Bible. Original, in the sense & meaning of, original being the first occurrence of something.
There is the first time a spirit being, Satan, sinned.
And there is the first time flesh & blood human beings, Adam & Eve, sinned.
And you could rightly say, that there have been millions of original sins from Adam until now - the first time, each & every person who has ever lived, sinned is that persons original or first sin.
Where did Satan sin in the Bible?
@@alanb8884Rebelled, disobeyed and waged war against God as the result of harbouring resentment and jealously due to vanity & pride in his abilities.
(suggest study all references to Satan & fallen angels, wicked spirits etc..)
@@glenwillson5073 Although this well-known Christian doctrine has much in common with the pagan Zoroastrian Persian dualism from which it spawned, it is completely alien to the teachings of the Jewish Scriptures. There is not one example in the Jewish Scriptures where any angel, Satan included, ever opposes God’s will.
@@alanb8884 Can't believe you don't know what the Bible says about Satan. Suggest you read everything relating to Satan, you'll find it.
Interesting video, thank you for that.
Grammar nazi here: it's "erring" not "airing"
It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from “This month is to you,” (Exod. 12:2) which is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded. Now for what reason did He commence with “In the beginning?” Because of the verse “The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations” (Ps. 111:6). For if the nations of the world should say to Israel, “You are robbers, for you conquered by force the lands of the seven nations of Canaan,” they will reply, "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He deemed proper."
Dan misses the main point, which is that the final redactors of Gen 1 - 3 intended their composite text to be liturgical, and as Bishop Tom Wright said, "a temple story."
Genesis 1 is our Creator and Genesis 2 is our Maker (Demiurge).
So God wrote the Bible right?
The Jewish people have an unbroken historical tradition to the very time of Moses that he is the author of the Torah. Moses wrote these five books by Divine dictation: every word in them was dictated to Moses by God Himself.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 Except this is 2023 and Moses/Exodus have been proven to have never happened
@@fordprefect5304 There seems to be a disagreement between Jews and non-Jews regarding the Jewish Torah. Between these two schools of opinion the reader must judge for himself.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 It was Israeli (Jews) archeologists who proved the Exodus story was written in the 7th/6th century.
Since then a wealth of archeological evidence has been found that proves Egypt controlled Canaan/Israel from the 16th to the 12th centuries. Making a Joshua conquest impossible.
@@fordprefect5304 There is an Egyptian document called the Ipuwer Papyrus which is believed to have been created sometime in the nineteenth dynasty. Also known as Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage and with a source text believed to be much “older” than the nineteenth dynasty, the document speaks of absolute catastrophe in the kingdom. Beyond simply referencing vague misfortunes, the author of Admonitions relays specific kinds of events that bear an uncanny resemblance to the plagues of the Exodus, as well as Jewish scripture. Now what?
Not a big fan of the documentary hypothesis. i think it makes more sense to think that the 6th century BCE author was taking pre exilic traditions from israel and judah (God as distant and God as intimate) and combining them together. ezra was largely doing propaganda (“moses” wrote these 5 books). He wasn’t doing editorial stitching.
P.S.: i probably shouldn’t say i agree with the supplementary hypothesis either. Thought it meant something other than “the bible was written between 623-165 BCE.”
P.P.S.: Even if it can be unequivocally demonstrated that Genesis contains 2 creation stories that tells us absolutely nothing about how Exodus, etc. was composed. Exodus is a 10th century BCE text. It’s pretty obviously borrowing from the acts of solomon used for 1 kings 1-14. There are only 2 references to “pharaoh’s daughter” in the bible. One is in Exodus (2:5). The other is in 1 kings (3:1). There simply are no “sources” in Exodus.
*Exodus is a 10th century BCE text*
Try reading the bible and a history book
[Genesis 11]
11:27 Now these are the descendants of Terah. Terah was the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran was the father of Lot.
11:28 Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his birth, in *Ur of the Chaldeans*
*The Chaldeans do not take control of Babylon (Ur) until 626BCE*
Therefore the bible could not have been written before the 6th century
[Numbers 20]:14 Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom: “Thus says your brother Israel: You know all the hardship that we have met: 15 how our fathers went down to Egypt, and we lived in Egypt a long time. And the Egyptians dealt harshly with us and our fathers.
20:18 And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come
out against thee with the sword
*The oldest city in Edom does not appear in history until 725 BCE and besides it was controlled by Egypt until the 8th century. The only thing there were Egyptian copper mines and the Egyptian army*
And the documentary hypothesis there is plenty of evidence for it.
“pharaoh’s daughter" The term pharaoh did not come into use until the 8th century
@@fordprefect5304 i have nothing to dispute about Genesis and numbers. They are clearly 6th century BCE texts potentially knowledgable of “Aesop’s” Fables. The Deir Alla Inscription provides a more original account of Balaam. My dispute is with Exodus. The Exodus text almost 100% pre dates jeroboam ll and probably dates contemporaneous to the Bubastite Portal. We know that writing existed at least by the time of david and many of the details of 1-2 samuel and the acts of solomon are relevant to the 10th century BCE period (Baruch Halpern, etc.). Heck, the “song” in Exodus probably has roots in the 1225-1175 BCE period. Also, i have no idea what you’re talking about with the term “pharaoh.” The term was very much utilized after the egyptians reconquered egypt after a period of canaanite rulership.
@@danielgibson8799 Exodus never happened. That is a provable fact.
The oldest Hebrew writing dates to 850BCE.
*The Exodus text* Half the cities Joshua smote did not exist before the 8th/9th or 10th centuries BCE
Many if not most of the places mentioned in the Exodus did not exist within the same chronological period as one another. Pithom (Per‐Atum/Tckenu) and Raamses (Per‐Ramesses), the two “treasure cities” claimed to have been built by the Hebrews, never existed at the same time. Pithom did not exist as a significant settlement before the 26th Dynasty. Prior to this, the settlement was known as Tckenu, and was still referred to as such in the Ptolemaic period. It was an obscure garrison town which mainly, if not exclusively, served as a waystation for Egyptian expeditions. Even in its enlarged Roman state, the town barely registered on either Egyptian or Greco-Roman accounts.[17] Per‐Ramesses, the Royal Residence of the Ramessides, was abandoned at the end of the New Kingdom, centuries earlier.[17]
(Dynasties 25-26)747-525 BC
Dating the bible I recommend.
th-cam.com/video/9uIXzUEwrOg/w-d-xo.html
*Argue Pharaoh with her*
"However, most of the biblical occurrences relating to the Egyptian king only use the word Pharaoh rather than an actual name. Since this reflects Egyptian practice that only started in the 8th century B.C.E., these biblical texts must date from that period or later. In other words, the frequent use of the term Pharaoh in the Exodus narrative does not reflect second millennium practices, but reflects, at the earliest, a late monarchic horizon."
Dr. Shirly Ben-Dor Evian
Name one contradiction between Gen 1 & Gen 2&3.
There are superficially apparent contradictions within Gen 1 itself but are not really contradictions once examined.
According to Genesis, in what order were the land animals, man, and women created? This “simple” question has two different answers. According to Genesis 1:24-27, God creates the land animals (vv. 24-25), and then man and woman (vv. 26-27). However, in Genesis 2:7, God creates man, and then in v. 19 creates animals, and in v. 22 creates woman. Thus, the commonly heard idea that Genesis 2 is an elaboration upon Genesis 1, filling in various details, does not work-the two accounts tell different stories.
And before you give me the standard apologist answer that one chapter compliments the other
Genesis: 1 credits Elion
Genesis: 2 credits El-Yahweh the god assigned to Israel by Elyon
*The bible tells me so*
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (Dead Sea Scrolls)
When Elyon divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he established the borders of the nations according to the number of the sons of the gods. Yahweh’s portion was his people, [Israel] his allotted inheritance.
@@fordprefect5304
What can I tell you. Gen 1 gives a basic overview outline of events. Gen 2 gives extra detail. How do I know this is true? Because extra detail is in fact found in Gen 2. There's the clue right there, it's not rocket science, as they say.
For example; Gen 1 does not mention God giving instructions to Adam & Eve regarding not eating from a certain tree.
Gen 2 gives extra information that God instructed Adam regarding this before Eve was created. This is not a contradiction, it's the full picture, it's extea detail - obviously.
Animal creation? You are assuming Gen 2:19 is the same event as Gen 1:24. Only one sample of each previously created beast (Gen1:24) was needed for Adam to name it and God brought it to Adam (Gen 2:19). God may or may not have especially created each individual sample beast for Adam to name. God did specifically create a one off creature to swallow Jonah.
Sorry but, biblical verses are often complimentary. Information on any particular subject is in fact often scattered throughout the Bible.
You've got to find it & put it all together. If you don't understand this you will fall into Isaiah's snare and understand nothing.
For example if different books chapters & verses give the names of different people present at a particular event it's not a contradiction.
It means all mentioned people were at the event.
It would be a contradiction if one verse said person A was at the event and another verse said person A was not at the event.
Not sure what you think your last paragraph proves.
The bible presents different names for God and defines God as consisting to two separate individuals.
The word, which is Jesus, and the Father. All references to God in the Bible are meaning either the word/Jesus or the Father or both.
@@glenwillson5073 I am not assuming anything.
You can argue with these guys
Prof. Marc Zvi Brettler is Bernice & Morton Lerner Distinguished Professor of Judaic Studies at Duke University, and Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies (Emeritus) at Brandeis University. He is author of many books and articles, including How to Read the Jewish Bible (also published in Hebrew), co-editor of The Jewish Study Bible and The Jewish Annotated New Testament (with Amy-Jill Levine), and co-author of The Bible and the Believer (with Peter Enns and Daniel J. Harrington), and The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently (with Amy-Jill Levine). Brettler is cofounder of Project TABS (Torah and Biblical Scholarship) - TheTorah
Prof. Konrad Schmid is Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. He received his Ph.D. and his Habilitation from the University of Zurich. He is the author of Genesis and the Moses Story (2010); The Old Testament: A Literary History (Fortress Press, 2012); and A Historical Theology of the Hebrew Bible (2019), and the co-editor of The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research [with Thomas B. Dozeman and Baruch J. Schwartz] (2011) and The Formation of the Pentateuch [with Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson , and Dalit Rom-Shiloni] (2016). Since 2017, he has served as president of the Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft für Theologie (Academic Society for Theology) and he is currently also the President of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament (IOSOT). In 2018, Schmid was awarded the Humboldt-Forschungspreis, and in 2019 an ERC Advanced Grant for the project How God Became a Lawgiver (www.divlaw.uzh.ch). In the fall of 2022, he served as Lady Davis Visiting Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
I am sure you can teach theology to them.
Just want to point out that the majority of scholars might just be wrong. In my academic field, the majority of scholars are frequently wrong. As a different case in point, I’ve become quite interested in Napoleon biographies since the movie came out recently. It was quite instructive to see how few Napoleon scholars agree on many aspects of his life, even though it was quite well-documented by his contemporaries. As usual, the political perspective of the scholar had a massive impact on how his life was described and interpreted. I suspect that this case is very similar. This young man has a particular point he wants to make against a certain sub-set of society and views the text through that lens. When you’ve been around scholars of all types and fields like I have, you realize that scholarship is not done in a vacuum. Every scholar has a perspective they are pushing. It’s how scholarship is done. It’s how you get published. A paper without an argument doesn’t get you anywhere. This young fellow just pretends that his perspective is more academic or scholarly than those he disagrees with. You will find plenty of Bible scholars that disagree with his position. But I must admit that he does a good job of bringing out a particular perspective on scripture that is often ignored or overlooked by Christians.
I gotta give this dude credit. He has an extensive vocabulary to spew a word salad that says absolutely nothing, other than the bible is bs.
Try a dictionary.
@@juanausensi499 try logic
@@Drums-ve8on One of those answers doesn't address what the other said at all.
Disagree. After years of studying Genesis 1-3, I am not convinced they were written as two separate contradictory accounts. The account of Genesis 1:1-2:4 is focused on the “whole world” and Elohim bringing order to a non-ordered system. Genesis 2:4 and following is Yahweh, the covenant name of the God of Israel, creating a people for himself. Adam & Eve were the first priests, and this account is focused on the history and the land of Israel. John Walton’s work on this is very informative. Genesis 1 is a creation account but not one of ex nihilo, but one of God bringing order. Naming and separating were acts of creation in the ancient world.