YOUR TYPICAL BIBLICAL DUMBFUCKERY: I'm perpetually amused by anyone who tries to read Genesis chronologically, given that there are two separate Creation accounts, and they blatantly disagree with one another.
I could explain this in detail but I'll just give you a hint and you can take it from there. The first account begins, of course, at Genesis 1:1 and ends at Genesis 2:3, while an inexplicable second account (perhaps God saying, "Hang on, let me rephrase that") starts up again at Genesis 2:4.
Feel free to read the two accounts yourself (perhaps here) and see if you can spot the chronological inconsistencies.
WELL, YOU KNEW THAT WAS COMING. And who but Jinx/Jason would show up to demonstrate his appalling theological ignorance by refusing to accept the well-known proposition of two different creation accounts in Genesis, even when I give him the exact fucking chapter and verse so he can see for himself.
I believe Jason's insipid comment proves that, when it comes to the two of us, only one of us has actually taken the time to read the Bible. And it's not him.
OH, YAWN. It's almost like there's no fun in watching Jinx/Jason prove what kind of theological ignoramus he is anymore. Regarding my claim of two separate creation accounts in Genesis, Jinx writes (in a stupefying demonstration of ill-informed ignorance):
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
"Well-known proposition!" Good one, CC! You're pretty funny when you're being dead serious.
No, it's actually not well-known and if you were to ask the average person on the street about it, they'd give you a richly deserved "what the fudge are you talking about" look.
Now, by "average person on the street," I'm assuming Jinx really means "average idiot in his immediate circle of friends," since one is free to Google on the words "two separate creation accounts Genesis" to get this -- over two million hits. Obviously, not all of those deal directly with the two creation stories but, just as obviously, it shows that the idea of two stories is not some incredibly obscure notion, and that, yes, Jinx really is an ignorant dimwit.
Perhaps this whole discussion is best summed up here:
Scholars categorize these two stories into two separate time frames. The first is known as the Priestly (P) account because it is associated with the priestly caste of ancient Israel, while the second is known as the Jahwist (J) account because the J writer always calls the Creator, Yahweh.
The P account is dated much earlier than the J account because it is mythological in nature. Scholars believe that it was based on the Enuma Alish, an ancient Babylonian myth. The P account also tends to try to "de-mythologize the cosmological myths" (Buchner, Frank. Ph.D. "Genesis 1-3") in the final analysis. The emphasis here is on the Sabbath (the seventh day when God rested) and also on the image of mankind as being in the image of God so that man is perceived as being superior to all other of God's creations.
On the other hand, the J account is less concerned with trying to historicalize the act of creation and more interested in explaining why mankind differs from both the LORD God and the LORD God's other creations. It shows how man and woman try to become like the LORD God by means of eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil and so are inferior to the LORD God, but also how they are separated from the LORD God's other creations because they marry, they are ashamed of their sexuality and nakedness, they must work hard for their food, and why women experience pain during childbirth.
Note that first sentence: "Scholars categorize ..." "Scholars," who have actually taken the time to study the text, as opposed to ignorant, wingnut fundamentalists like Jinx who get their theology from badly-drawn cartoon tracts. There's your difference.
12 comments:
thanks for the tip of the hat CC, I knew you'd want that article front and center
lol! "Two seperate Creation accounts!" You've been hanging around skeptics and their websites too much, CC.
Ignore Jinx (I know I do). But skimming through the on-line bible ref, it looks like the only material difference between the accounts is that the first runs God-creates-garden then God-creates-man, while the second runs God-creates-man, God-creates-garden, God-puts-man-in-garden.
Is that all? I mean, I'm no biblical literalist - or even a Christian - but even if I were I have to think this wouldn't blow my mind. God creates the garden and puts man in it. The later books on genocide are much more disturbing.
adam:
There's more to it than that. If you want to see what I'm talking about, sit down and carefully draw out the chronology of each object's creation.
You'll see the blatant discrepancy pretty quickly.
the article on the rev's site doesnt suprise me. I read a journal article on the growing homeschooling movement in the US recently, which underlined just how extreme the education actually is.
There's a college in Virginia which specifically caters to homeschooled teens:
http://www.phc.edu/about/default.asp
simply insane. I'm scared for my country.
I like John's creation story best.
refusing to accept the well-known proposition of two different creation accounts in Genesis
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
"Well-known proposition!" Good one, CC! You're pretty funny when you're being dead serious.
No, it's actually not well-known and if you were to ask the average person on the street about it, they'd give you a richly deserved "what the fudge are you talking about" look.
even when I give him the exact fucking chapter and verse so he can see for himself.
I believe Jason's insipid comment proves that, when it comes to the two of us, only one of us has actually taken the time to read the Bible. And it's not him.
I read the Bible, CC. What you do is not reading. I've yet to meet a skeptic who actually reads the Bible.
There's more to it than that. If you want to see what I'm talking about, sit down and carefully draw out the chronology of each object's creation.
You'll see the blatant discrepancy pretty quickly.
Gee, CC. Why don't you do that yourself so that intelligent people can understand what the heck you're babbling about (and laugh at your incompetence).
Actually, I do remember this from bible study at a large Quaker gathering last summer. There was a scholar up from a religious college in the southern U.S. who led some very interesting study sessions.
One of the things she pointed out was that the older parts tend to be in poetry, with the newer parts in prose. That's the case with the two creation stories. It's not an uncommon situation throughout Genesis and other parts of the Old Testament, where it seems a number of oral traditions were gathered and recorded.
I believe you can get annotated bibles, which indicate which verses came from which source, and it can get well up from two.
The consensus among actual Christian scholars these days (and by "scholars," I mean those who actually study Scripture) is that the first five books of the Bible were written by a combination of authors.
It's perfectly reasonable to get into a debate with someone about whether or not to accept this. It's not reasonable to get into a debate with anyone who has never even heard of this.
See the difference?
P.S. The ignorant wingnut perspective on the Pentateuch is that it was written entirely by Moses, as inspired by God, which is kind of odd since the final chapter of Deuteronomy is "The Death of Moses," which describes, toward the end, what happened after his death.
I'm guessing that this would be kind of hard for Moses to have written personally.
Sorry, C.C.; did I leave the impression I was disagreeing with you? On the contrary.
Personally I had absolutely no use whatsoever for the bible until I fell amongst people who regard it as a source of metaphorical wisdom, neither inerrant nor the only such source.
What gets up my nose so much about religious fundamentalists is that they are so insistent on stuffing Godde into a box smaller than the average persons conscience.
This comes from the L.A. Times article linked through "More Christian, anti-science stupidity."
"Ham considers that treason. When pastors dismiss the creation account as a fable, he says, they give their flock license to disregard the Bible's moral teachings as well. He shows his audiences a graphic that places the theory of evolution at the root of all social ills: abortion, divorce, racism, gay marriage, store clerks who say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."
I think that is an incredibly telling quote, on all kinds of levels.
But the level I want to emphasize here, is how it's all about control. He wants to control what people believe - I almost said "think", but thinking obviously doesn't enter into it - and that means people have to accept the whole package. The moment you start picking at individual threads, the whole thing collapses in a pile of lint. But a lot of people don't want to pick at those threads, because then they would be back to having to think for themselves.
Heaven forbid. /irony>
Ferdzy:
No, no, that last comment wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at Jinx. Sorry for the confusion.
since one is free to Google on the words "two separate creation accounts Genesis" to get this -- over two million hits.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
You never cease to amaze and amuse with your delusional incompetence, CC. "Well, if it gets 2 million Google hits, it must be well-known!" Hilarious!
Post a Comment