User talk:Rednblu/tempMinorityOpinionPage

This TalkPage and the associated MainPage were created as a "work-around" to avoid an edit war on the ParentPage at Creation according to Genesis.

After developing a good NPOV page here, we intend to put it to a vote of the Wikipedia community whether or not to move this /tempMinorityOpinionPage to replace the current Creation according to Genesis page. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do not put links to rival pages into other articles CheeseDreams 22:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I RE-Emphasise this section

In addition, please address the concerns I have raised on the talk page for the real article. CheeseDreams 22:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

deletion

If there is a consensus to delete this page, do so through the proper channels. Slrubenstein

Sorry, when I read the article page I used the "difference" format and didn't see the sign. Slrubenstein

a small note

There is ABSOLUTELY NO policy WHATSOEVER that allows certain users to be prevented from editing articles without the decision of the arbitration committee. CheeseDreams 23:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair warning announcement

Please see full text of the announcement at this link. I will be using the History file and TalkPage of this /temp page to illustrate a need in Wikipedia generally for some formalized means of providing a similar protected environment specifically for collaborative editors who wish to construct quality Wikipedia pages without debilitating interference from editors who make destructive changes, frivolous proposals, and unreasonable demands. :) Know what I mean? ---Rednblu | Talk 11:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The dual perspective theory of Reis

Although I appreciate Reis' explanation of how both accounts can be seen to be compatible, I'm still having problems with understanding how it qualifies as a separate theory.

On the one hand there is the Single Account theory. On the other is the Dual Account theory. Doesn't Reis' view amount to either (a) they are two harmonious accounts, or (b) you can understand the accounts as either single or dual?
Philip J. Rayment 15:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't know. Maybe Ms. Reis's duality perspective is just one or the other? Which perspective is it the same as then? It seems to me that duality in physics is different from 1) wave or 2) particle. In the case of physics, the duality perspective would say that whether the electron is wave or particle is a property only of the observer's apparatus. That is, whether the electron is a wave or a particle has nothing to do with the electron--only the observer. From my secular perspective, I rather liked Ms. Reis's implication that it would not matter that Michelangelo as the painter of the version on the Sistine ceiling copied the paintings brush-stroke for brush-stroke of two earlier painters that never saw each other, had totally different contexts in mind, and hence never thought of the two paintings as being part of the same work. Still, you can in present time look at the Sistine ceiling as one painting or two paintings--depending on how you want to see it. Similarly, as I read Ms. Reis's essay, it would not matter that the first version of the Creation was written in a totally different time by an author who never heard of author of the second version. Still, some author, namely the author of the original from which the manuscript that the KJV translators used was copied, saw the potential of putting the two versions back to back. And no matter how the two versions got to be put in sequence, still whether there is one account or two contradictory accounts is a property of the observer--not a property of the manuscript that is observed or translated. Hence, it seems to me that the duality perspective is different from the one account conclusion--because the one account conclusion, it seems to me, asserts that it is not two accounts. And simililarly, the duality perspective is different from the two account conclusion--because the two account conclusion asserts that it is not one account. How would you make the page clearer and better? ---Rednblu | Talk 22:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Accounts"

I also have a problem with the classification of the narrative into "one account" or "two accounts". I believe that it is clear that there are two accounts. The questions are whether they are both from the same author or not, and whether they are complementary or contradictory. To illustrate, I will explain that I go for the idea that Moses compiled Genesis from pre-existing written documents, that were themselves written by the people that witnessed those events. The divisions between these separate documents are marked by the wording "these are the generations of" or "this is the account of" or similar, and that these "colophons" mark the end of each section. The first (which doesn't name anyone) is Genesis 2:4A: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.", and the second is is Genesis 5:1: "This is the written account of Adam's line." (NIV). Adam would have been a witness to essentially all the events between these two statements. By this theory, Genesis 1:1 to 2:4A were likely written by God Himself, the only witness to those events. So on this basis, they are two separate accounts by two separate individuals, written in two separate styles, but without any reason to think that the two are in any way inconsistent or contradictory. By the way, this theory is, as I understand it (because I haven't read these authors), basically the ideas put by P.J. Wiseman (already listed in the references) and Donovan A. Courville.

I'm not sure how the different views should instead be labelled, but I will think more about it.
Philip J. Rayment 15:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

that sounds good ... i get the feeling you're more of an expert than i. i do think, tho, that there are many scholars who DO believe it is just a single account, and that the text "Chapters" itself -- it is, "Now for the story of the heavens and the earth." "Now for the story of the creation of man" "now for the story of the generations of abraham." I've chaptered in texts of my own just like that from time to time -- just to say, "and now i'm gonna tell you about THIS." i can definitely see your point of view ... and i think it's equally valid ... but i don't think it should REPLACE the "single account" theory, since it's out there and particularly widespread among evangelicals in the states. what do you think? Ungtss 15:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's two issues here; one is the number of accounts of creation, and the other is the "divisions" in the text. For the latter, I accept that the view I espoused is a minority view. For the former, however, as I said, I really can't see that there could be any dispute that there are two accounts. Imagine that a novelist writes a book on, for example, the creation of the world. In the first chapter, he gives an overview of the creation. In the second chapter, he concentrates on one aspect of the creation. Is this one account or two? What I am arguing is that even in this case of a single author writing the two chapters at the same time, it is still two accounts. Back to Genesis, does anyone disagree that it is two accounts in that sense? Now maybe all I am arguing is semantics, and feel free to disagree with me on this, but what I am suggesting is that we should be able to find better labels that indicate that it is two accounts, but the dispute is over authorship (single or dual) and agreement (complementary or contradictory). Philip J. Rayment 01:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i really, honestly, see only one account. i see the first segment as being the creation of the heavens + earth, and the second segment as being the creation of the garden, with a brief summary of the first section in the middle. but i'm not a literal creationist, so i'm no expert -- change it however you see fit and we'll go from there:). Ungtss 05:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, so I am talking semantics. One "account" with two "segments" vs. two "accounts". I wondered if "account" meant something like a complete story, but from my brief dictionary search, I can't see that. Does anyone disagree that the one "account" has two "segments"? Philip J. Rayment 13:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

THAT'S the ticket -- semantics as usual -- excellent insight, and i could definitely see how "account" could have been read how you read it. i absolutely agree with you that there are two distinct segments to the story -- but what the "two-account" theory is proposing is that TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE WROTE ABOUT THE SAME THING IN CONTRADICTORY WAYS -- and that is the pov i was counteracting with the "single account" -- because to me (and nearly everybody i know who takes the bible at all seriously), the two segments/accounts are entirely consistent with each other. i see the whole of genesis as starting with the general, and moving to the specific, with each "segment" having a summary and introduction -- a very rational and consistent organization approach when STRONGLY indicates a single author to me. biblical criticism just makes me laugh:). Ungtss 15:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I glad you now see what I was getting at. :-)   This is why I wrote at the start of this section, "I believe that it is clear that there are two accounts. The questions are whether they are both from the same author or not, and whether they are complementary or contradictory."

So should we change the article to refer to The single author theory and The dual author theory instead? No, because...

<<...what the "two-account" theory is proposing is that TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE WROTE ABOUT THE SAME THING IN CONTRADICTORY WAYS>>

Yes, and my point is that some people (including me) think that TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE WROTE ABOUT THE SAME THING IN COMPATIBLE (AND COMPLEMENTARY) WAYS.

So should we change the article to refer to The complementary accounts theory and The contradictory accounts theory? Or is that too awkward, or is there better wording? (Surely not The single author/complementary accounts theory, The dual author/complementary accounts theory, and The dual author/contradictory accounts theory!)

Philip J. Rayment 15:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

okay good to go:). what are our options here? we've got:

1. one author, one account (my view);
2. one author, purposely contradictory account (as a literary device),
3. two authors, two complementary accounts (your view);
4. two authors, two contradictory accounts (biblical criticism).

perhaps the best way is to split it into 2 sections by issue? first address authorship (1 v 2), then address consistency (yes v no)? what do you think? Ungtss 21:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, splitting it into two sections as you suggest is probably best.

Two points of clarification though, one by means of a question:

1. The Two authors, two complementary accounts view is two original authors (plus others for the remainder of Genesis), compiled into one book by Moses.
2. I hadn't really thought about the One author, purposely contradictory account view. Who proposes that and what was the author's supposed motive in making it contradictory (given that you surely don't need contradiction in order to have a literary device)?

Philip J. Rayment 11:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

that's how i interpreted the Pamela Tamarkin Reis theory at the end -- she analogizes it to a story-telling technique of telling the same story from two different perspectives with minor contradictions -- so it makes sense either as one story purposefully inconsistent, or two independent stories whose inconsistencies give perspective. from what i can tell, this is rednblue's take on the issue -- he sees the bible as the "most popular fairy tale ever written," and that fairy-tales don't have contradictions, they just have catchy hooks (lemme know if i'm misrepresenting your opinion, red:). i think that reis can slice for or against creationism -- for us in the sense that it provides support for YOUR view -- that two people wrote about complementary details, as well as mr. rednblue's rational evolutionist view -- that genesis is just a fairy-tale like any other. but either way, it works against biblical criticism -- that's why cheesedreams hates it so much -- and that's why i think it needs its own space in the article. does that make sense? Ungtss 14:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you are saying, although I'll have to think about it a bit to see if I really agree. Philip J. Rayment 15:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)