tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588016437086497122.post1468155564140955697..comments2023-10-15T02:05:39.935-06:00Comments on As it is Written: structure of genesis 2‒3Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14412247474926594732noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588016437086497122.post-63497702635067198122010-02-27T01:57:20.155-06:002010-02-27T01:57:20.155-06:00You can't say that "different purposes&qu...You can't say that "different purposes" for the two accounts explain all the discrepancies between them. Yes, they serve different purposes. But they also have different chronologies. It's hardly tenable that one author wrote the same account twice for two different purposes, but did not think to make sure the same events in his own two different accounts harmonized with each other. <br /><br />Just pointing out that they obviously have different purposes isn't enough. <br /><br />But that said, acknowledging that they are clearly two different traditions doesn't ruin anything for you. You can still say, "The point isn't the chronology, but the theology of the narratives. The details are background to the point, vis-a-vis other creation myths from other nations. <br /><br />The truth you're looking for is in the general thrust, not in the chronological details, and admitting that it is very implausible that the same author wrote both accounts is not going to undermine the case you've made here. <br /><br />All that said, I would really like to see you wrestle with the other creation myths, acknowledge common motifs, see the influences, and discuss the implications of all that. <br /><br />This post doesn't tell me much about you, and I'm way more interested in you than in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.Thom Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18436448315505182664noreply@blogger.com