Originally Posted by Saramago

Edited to add: And Genesis 2:4 is the bridge, added by a later editor who was presumably trying to come up with as seamless a transition as he could.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Moses is credited with being the general editor of Genesis, and the addition of the language in 2:4 follows the use of similar language throughout Genesis to begin or end accounts of other events in history.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

There is currently no consensus on the process by which Genesis came to be written. The documentary hypothesis (which sees Genesis the product of the editorial weaving of a number of originally independent and complete accounts of the same material), which did enjoy the status of a consensus among many Western scholars for most of the 20th century, no longer enjoys the support it once did, and rival theories have been advanced using fragmentary models (composition by an author from various "fragments") or supplementary models (an original text later expanded and edited), or combinations of these.[10] The many anachronisms in the text point to a date in the 1st millennium BC, and current proposals place it in the 5th century when the post-Exilic Jewish community was trying to adapt itself to life under the Persian empire.[11]

Originally Posted by schriverja

From wiki

Originally Posted by schriverja

[emphasis mine]

I think you will have a hard time with the assertion that Moses was the primary composer of Genesis, and even if you had support for a partial Moses editorship, how would you propose to exact which parts he wrote versus someone else?

Originally Posted by rhutchin

There is no reason to assume that a second account begins at 2:4. Although there are differing views about this, the account beginning at 1:1 seems to end at 2:7.

There may be a split between 2:4 and 2:5. 2:8 can be the beginning of a new account (but this could begin at 2:7) describing how God created a garden and placed the man there. From there to the end of the chapter are described the activities in the garden and all this would be on day 6.

In another view, the verses, 2:5-6, create perspective for the reader who would be unfamiliar with events of that time. They transition between the account of the creation (1:1-2:4) and details relating to Adam and the creation of Eve (2:8-25). NIV sets the verses off as if they were a parenthetical addition.

I think you have to make a case for the position that the second account begins at 2:5. Do you just want to make that an assumption from which you will build your argument? If so, your argument fails if the assumption fails.

Given that Davka has some expertise in the Hebrew language, perhaps he can shed some light on what is happening.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. Liberal theologians don't buy into it. Regardless, that language is used throughout the book of Genesis, so someone seems to have overseen the writing of the book.



What are the anachronisms? Anything other that that cited here:

Alleged Anachronisms in Genesis

So, where are you going with this in reference to the Gen 1-2 issue?

Originally Posted by schriverja

Since you didn't bother actually listing any from the link you posted, I'll repay you in kind.

Try this (it's background material study group, btw, but maybe that makes it too "liberal" for you).

Originally Posted by rhutchin

<snipped>
The source of the events in the garden is thought to be Adam since he was there, so the term for God is that which Adam used in reference to God.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

At least my citation actually dealt with the issue of anachronisms in Genesis. Your citation has this one sentence, "Many anachronisms are evident (e.g. the account of Moses' death at the end of a text which he is supposed to have written; the fact that some place names are mentioned when it is only in later texts that the name is given, like the name of the place Dan in Gen 14:4 and Judges 18).

The first example is a joke. How does a guy who is a Professor of Old Testament even say this? The updating of locations is not unusual. So, is that your only quibble?