trh

Greetings. I am an avid reader of The Secular Web, a frequent reader of the forums, and a first time poster.
My interest has focused especially on natural religion (as well as philosophy of mind and metaphysics), but I recently decided to read the Bible – or, for now at least, the more significant parts of the Old Testament. I have a couple of intro-type books to help me along the way, but they tend to be less than satisfying.

I thought this would be an appropriate forum for me to pose the simple questions that I have; I am of course aware that there is a lot of literature on just about any question i might ask, but so much of the time I either can’t deal with the evangelical tone of what I manage to find, or I don’t know where to begin with the more scholarly work. The little bit of basic literature I’ve looked into deals with the issues I raise here by glossing over them.

So, here goes:
I’m at the beginning of Genesis, and I’ve hit two potential problems that I’ve seen mentioned in a few different books or essays. The first deals with a possible contradiction between the two creation accounts, and the second deals with an apparent discrepancy between two accounts of God’s instructions to Noah regarding his ‘ark’ venture.
Both examples appear (prima facie, to this amateur) to pose an insurmountable problem for the Biblical literalist. Yet certainly the debate with fundamentalists goes a bit deeper than what my first week of Bible reading yields.

So my question is this: What plausible explanations have been offered towards explaining away these inconsistencies?

Both examples deal with a discrepancy between the ‘P’ and ‘J’ authors described by the Documentary Hypothesis. In this first one, P tells of God creating plant life on the third day, and humanity on the sixth day, while J describes God making the first man before there were any plants on the earth, and subsequently planting a garden in Eden. Here are the relevant excerpts, taken from the NRSV:

(P Author)

“Then God said ‘Let the Earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind’…And it was so…and there was evening and there was morning, the third day.� Gen. 1:11-13
“…Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image…And it was so…And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.� Gen. 1:26-31

(J Author)

“In the day when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up…then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life…And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden…� Gen. 2:4 - 8


In the second example, P describes God instructing Noah to bring one pair of each creature into the ark, (specifically) including birds, while J describes God instructing Noah to take seven pair of all the ‘clean’ animals, and one pair of the ‘not clean’ animals, and seven pairs of the birds.


(P Author)

“And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female…Of the birds…and of the animals…of every creeping thing…two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive.� Gen. 6:19 – 20

(J Author)

“Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female…� Gen 7:1 – 7:3


So how do the more reasonable literalists (I suppose I have in mind here someone more like William Craig, as opposed to a nutcase like Ravi Zacharias) go about explaining away these problems? Anyone know?

Thanks so much,

-Tom

ImmortalTechnique

and furthermore, what were clean animals before the commandments on diet were given to moses?

Jack the Bodiless

The usual apologetic excuse for the two creation stories is that the second one refers only to the creation of the Garden of Eden (even though it doesn't specifically say so), after the main creation sequence was finished.

spin

Those which showered at least once a week. (Some have argued the frequency though.)


spin

Dryhad

Alot of the laws of Moses seem to safety issues and not even slightly related to religion. "Unclean" animals were probably those more likely to have disease in those days. Before that, I shouldn't doubt that people realised that those who ate certain meats tended to die alot more than those who didn't without requiring divine inspiration.

spin

Unclean animals, as ImmortalTechnique understands correctly, are defined by the dietary laws found in the pentateuch. This should tell you a little about the construction of the texts involved. It shouldn't suggest that you redefine terms for your convenience.


spin

Dryhad

Sorry, what do you mean by this? If you think I'm redefining something, please tell me specifically what and how. I'm just speculating on the origins of these laws, as God doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who makes up silly and pointless laws just for the hell of it.

spin

The text is clearly referring to an institutionalised understanding of "clean animals" as the term needed no explanation whatsoever.

You may be right about where the notion came from originally, or maybe not, but we have to deal with the text and its implied understanding, and that seems to be in reference to already established dietary laws.


spin

Dryhad

If I were to point to an animal and say "That's unclean, you probably shouldn't eat it" would you need much more explaination? I've been looking through Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 (the bits about diet I could find off the bat) and neither of them seem to be implying a previous code of "clean" and "unclean" animals to me. Are you refering to a different section?

John A. Broussard

Sorry. That's an oxymoron. No reasonable person would try to interpret black as being white. No reasonable person would try explaining away the claim that the sun stood still during some riot in an obscure spot in the land of Canaan.

The two different stories in Genesis are exactly that. Two different stories.