Dual Creation Stories in Genesis

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So what you're saying is that the Moses Chapter 2 and the endowment ceremony are simply derivative accounts that solely rely upon the biblical texts available circa 1830?

I would be more interested in knowing who claims otherwise? Moses comes from the KJV and an interpretive imagination (leaving aside the inspiration question). Just look at recent JST scholarship, esp the ones publishing manuscripts where Joseph accidentally translated the same biblical text twice. The results are radically different translations. Scholars like Kent Jackson have used these examples, as well as all other evidence we know of to try and understand what the JST was all about, including the possibility that often the JST was about amplifying references to the gathering of Israel and other 19th century concerns. In some places he just seems to be having fun with the text, exploring his theological world. Jackson published a semirecent article on this in BYU studies. It it rarely if ever about restoring historical traditions or original texts. Of course if it were this would go against your idea of a god who not only doesn't care about evidence...he in fact despises it. Why then would he care about OTHER enlightenment concerns, like reconstructing accurate history, or correcting false assumptions about Genesis' sources?

[MikeWaters]

I see JST as more of an inspired commentary than any sort of restoration.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

I would be more interested in knowing who claims otherwise? Moses comes from the KJV and an interpretive imagination (leaving aside the inspiration question). Just look at recent JST scholarship, esp the ones publishing manuscripts where Joseph accidentally translated the same biblical text twice. The results are radically different translations. Scholars like Kent Jackson have used these examples, as well as all other evidence we know of to try and understand what the JST was all about, including the possibility that often the JST was about amplifying references to the gathering of Israel and other 19th century concerns. In some places he just seems to be having fun with the text, exploring his theological world. Jackson published a semirecent article on this in BYU studies. It it rarely if ever about restoring historical traditions or original texts. Of course if it were this would go against your idea of a god who not only doesn't care about evidence...he in fact despises it. Why then would he care about OTHER enlightenment concerns, like reconstructing accurate history, or correcting false assumptions about Genesis' sources?

Who was the driving force behind the Books of Abraham and Moses in the Pearl of Great Price?

If it was God, why did He find it necessary to do so?

If it was God, then the origins of the texts, papyri, etc. that are purported to be the source documents for the PofGP are rendered at most intellectual curiosities.

If it was God, why should God care about what misconceptions academia have about Genesis' sources?


If it was Joseph Smith, why would God allow the prophet to essentially conjure up additional scripture from what academia seems to by and large consider to be source material that is questionable in origin, and 40+ years after Joseph Smith's death allow the membership to canonize the scripture?

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Who was the driving force behind the Books of Abraham and Moses in the Pearl of Great Price?

If it was God, why did He find it necessary to do so?

If it was God, then the origins of the texts, papyri, etc. that are purported to be the source documents for the PofGP are rendered at most intellectual curiosities.

If it was God, why should God care about what misconceptions academia have about Genesis' sources?


If it was Joseph Smith, why would God allow the prophet to essentially conjure up additional scripture from what academia seems to by and large consider to be source material that is questionable in origin, and 40+ years after Joseph Smith's death allow the membership to canonize the scripture?

If it was God.... yes, that's the question. You can answer yes or no to that question and still acknowledge the truth about the pentateuch. If you'd like to know how, start talking to LDS Hebrew Bible scholars. You keep bringing up an issue that is irrelevant to what I'm saying. You seem even more interested in preserving Mosaic authorship than most people I know who really DO care about the bible.

I'm talking about the Pentateuch, namely the fact that it utilized multiple sources. For example, parts of deuteronomy were written in the exile. How you ask? Because it talks about the exile and what is going to happen if the people shape up IN exile. This is like banging my head against a brick wall, because you don't care to study this issue and yet you proclaim academia's misconceptions about the sources of the Pentateuch. This is intellectually dishonest and lazy. If you can look up at the sun and say it isn't there, then fine, LOOK at the Pentateuch and tell me the sources are not there. Good luck with that.

[Indy Coug]

I could care less about the Mosaic authorship. I simply responded that the dual creation stories could be reconciled against Moses 2 and the endowment ceremony, both of which I consider to be derived from sources independent from what was used to assemble the Pentateuch.

I would further suggest that the main motivation for God giving us in the latter days the revelations contained in the PofGP is because of some of the issues we have with the Pentateuch.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I could care less about the Mosaic authorship. I simply responded that the dual creation stories could be reconciled against Moses 2 and the endowment ceremony, both of which I consider to be derived from sources independent from what was used to assemble the Pentateuch.

I would further suggest that the main motivation for God giving us in the latter days the revelations contained in the PofGP is because of some of the issues we have with the Pentateuch.

"I could care less about Mosaic authorship..."

Sorry for the misunderstanding. In this thread we are talking about Mosaic authorship. See you in another thread.

PS - If you ever care, start with Moses describing his own death. Once that sinks in, keep looking, it won't take long.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I could care less about the Mosaic authorship. I simply responded that the dual creation stories could be reconciled against Moses 2 and the endowment ceremony, both of which I consider to be derived from sources independent from what was used to assemble the Pentateuch.

I would further suggest that the main motivation for God giving us in the latter days the revelations contained in the PofGP is because of some of the issues we have with the Pentateuch.

By the way, Moses 2-3 follow basically the same dual-account format that is evident in Genesis 1-2. Only very minor changes from Genesis.

[Indy Coug]

Moses Chapters 2 and 3 constitute dual creation stories? How do you come to that conclusion from those chapters?

[pelagius]

Just a quick recommendation to anyone who is interested in modern scholarly views of Pentateuch and its intersection with Mormon thought. I think Kevin's Barney's article on the Documentary Hypothesis is really quite good:

Kevin L. Barney, “Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis,” Dialogue: a Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2000: 57-99

Link:

http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/B/doc_hyp.htm

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Just a quick recommendation to anyone who is interested in modern scholarly views of Pentateuch and its intersection with Mormon thought. I think Kevin's Barney's article on the Documentary Hypothesis is really quite good:

Kevin L. Barney, “Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis,” Dialogue: a Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2000: 57-99

Link:

http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/B/doc_hyp.htm

That's a very interesting article. Thanks.