Why do some Christians reject a literal Genesis

[shernren]

Critias: Different Bible translations will translate it differently. AFAIK the KJV has "The Lord God formed out of the ground ... " how does the original Greek convey the past perfect tense / past participle form? Or are both past and past perfect possible when looking at the verse alone without taking into account the apparent contradiction?

And did the Church Fathers have anything to say about the "discrepancy"?

 

[justified]

I find the evidence for JEDP compelling. There are not only two accounts, but the second one was written first, by a century or more.

Actually, JEDP was abandoned a long time ago. It was just a start of a long mess that has led down an even messier road in First Testament studies. Basically, JEDP does not exist; however it's a useful tool to observing the differences in books.

Critias: Different Bible translations will translate it differently. AFAIK the KJV has "The Lord God formed out of the ground ... " how does the original Greek convey the past perfect tense / past participle form? Or are both past and past perfect possible when looking at the verse alone without taking into account the apparent contradiction?

It's Hebrew there buddy.

Hebrew doesn't have tense, it has aspect, and only two: perfective and imperfective. The former conveys anything in the past tense (and sometimes the future and present!) and the latter coneys the present and future (and sometimes the past!).

Participles are an entirely different animal.

Please don't base your theology on a verb tense, anyone. The verb as parsed there is imperfect 3 masc singular from יצר w/ ו consecutive. But it's also possible to translate, perfectively. Nevertheless, I woul translate the way the KJV does (rather than the NIV) because of the consecutive.

 

[shernren]

Yeah, my blur. So basically in Hebrew there wouldn't be a distinction between, say, "I slept at 3", "I had slept at 3" and "I had been sleeping at 3"? Am very curious.

 

[gluadys]

[/font]
Actually, JEDP was abandoned a long time ago. It was just a start of a long mess that has led down an even messier road in First Testament studies. Basically, JEDP does not exist; however it's a useful tool to observing the differences in books.

Abandoned or revised? What is the basis for saying it was abandoned when it is still taught (though not necessarily in its original form) in the majority of theological schools? And is the subject of recent books explaining it in layman's terms?

I don't see any evidence of it being abandoned. Every theologian I know (and because I work with theology profs I do know a few) takes it for granted, even though they will argue the finer points at great lengths.