A non-creationist interpretation of Genesis

could it be that instead of added is was re-added?

 

Thoroughly implausible.

 

and...why?

 

There is zero evidence that the story previously existed.
Interestingly, you are now arguing the side that holds that the bible was edited and things were cut.

 

so when was it inserted, and by whom?

 

We don't know who wrote half the bible let alone a added story. There is nothing to "back up". The story doesn't exist in the earliest manuscripts and then appears later. It was added. Who did that may be interesting, but what does it change?
Another irrelevancy that doesn't address the issue being discussed.
Can you show where I claimed to know the author of the added story?
If you can't, then you are asking me to back up something I never said.

 

You said that it was added and it was implausible that it was re-added, so I just figured since you state it was "added", surely you must know by whom or when it was added. If not then its simply an unfounded claim.

 

Not at all. You aren't this stupid.
The fact that it was added is a simply observed reality. We KNOW this to be true.
Who added it is a different issue.

 

so its not implausible that it was re-added?

 

I'd love to answer the question, alas, you accidenally left out the verb, so I don'tquite know what the question is.

I share your wish and highlighted an important aspect of your statement: The left behind series and stuff like it does not represent what the Book of Revelation says. The whole rapture-idea for example is based on a very wild interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 that is not shared by most Christians outside the US. For more: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2600

 

Sounds fair.

In order to save time reading the whole thread, can you express your non-creationist interpretation of Genesis in a sole message?

I would like to know your point of view.

 

I'm not here to reduce your reading load.

 

what happens when they disagree? the verb was "disagree", I was probably a bit hasty.

 

You want to know if this story was both cut from the bible AND added?
All I can tell you is there is no evidence of this.
None.

 

Oh, I see, you have non(e) either.

 

Genesis is a re-tread of other ancient myths. Nothing original about it.
Happy now?

 

The usual thing that happens when scholars disagree: they'll exchange arguments for their respective viewpoints. Then either one convinces the other, they find a compromise or they keep disagreeing. Sometimes new arguments and evidence come up and the whole process begins anew.
While coming to a consensus is nice, you should not be afraid of disagreement. Christians and Christian scholars disagree all the time. The ensuing discussions further sound theological thought rather than hindering it. Back in the day I could have disagreed with my Professor all I wanted. As long as my argumentation was reasonable he would not have failed me. And students with an argumentation so good that they convinced him to change his views would have gotten a "summa com laude".

To get back to topic. virtually all scholars agree that a creationist literal reading of Genesis 1+2 is highly unreasonable and can't be sustained by either scientific nor scriptural evidence.

 

I'd have to disagree here. What's original about Genesis is that it took these old myths and turned them into a new story promoting monotheism.

 

True, but the same stories are reused and simply attributed to a single entity as opposed to a committee.
But your point is accurate.

 

but not implausible, correct?

 

Ok, first, agreement among ALL scholars wouldn't even make it true or false, and second the fact there are scholars who disagree, lends validity to the argument.

 

Highly implausible.
Why fight for this? It makes it worse for you, suggesting even more human interference with the text.

 

Why Is it not plausible?

 

Because there is absolutely no data to support it. None.
One thing is true in your signature. You are persevered. Do you get why this is funny?

 

That is not the point here, please stay on the topic: a non-creationist interpretation of Genesis. The other "ancient myths" also imply creationist narrations.