>RH
>There is only one creation story, not two. Genesis 2:5 presents a
>difficulty to some and to a lesser extent, so does Genesis 2:19. Aside
>from these two verses, there are no signifciant difficulties between
>Genesis 1 and 2.
>
>Is this correct from your perspective?
>
>DON
>No, not at all. There are many significant differences between the two
>stories (GE 1:1-2:3 vs. GE 2:4-3:24). Here are some:
[big snip]
>RH
>Whether there were two authors is not a concern.
For me, it is a concern. One of the reasons is that you said, "There is only one creation story, not two." Now, when faced with good evidence that there are, in fact, two stories, you say: "whether there were two authors in not a concern." You can't have it both ways.
In addition, it is a concern because it explains the many different and conflicting details in the two stories.
RH
>The Genesis account and the book of Genesis are normally attributed to
>Moses meaning that they were not written until the time of Moses.
This is not what people mean when they say "... are normally attributed to Moses."
American Heritage Dictionary: attribute, tr.v., attributed, 1. To relate to a particular cause or source; ascribe. 2. To regard as the work of a specified agent or creator.
You are redefining the word to suit your argument; this is known as the fallacy of definition.
RH
>However, two authors do not explain the use of terms.
Perhaps not in your opinion, but certainly in my opinion, and the opinion of many scholars, it does.
[snip]
RH
>Who knows?
Many knowledgeable persons other than yourself "know" in the sense that they are convinced.
RH
>You said that there are many significant differences between the two
>chapters.
That is not quite what I said. I said: "There are many significant differences between the two STORIES" [emphasis to delineate the correction]. You do see the difference, I trust.
>Do you have the rest of your list?
Yes. But I am not at all interested in seeing your "how it could have been" explanations that a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God could have, should have, and would have gotten right in the first place. Instead, I refer you to the references which I gave before:
"The Two Creation Stories in Genesis" James S. Forrester-Brown "The Historical Approach to the Bible" Howard Teeple "Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis" Robert Graves & Raphael Patai
Don