Knowing good and evil

[granpa]

Originally Posted by nateswift

Seriously? Try to remember that there were NO chapters and verses in the manuscripts, and the very next passage talks about the encounter with the serpent and "the woman." It takes some convoluted rationalizing to claim that it was a different woman. The only real question is why you would do that.

Uh...no.

All it takes is that it was originally 2 different books which were later put together by the redactor.

that is hardly unreasonable since the two sections deal with very different subject matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiseman_hypothesis

[granpa]

And to the man He said, `Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and dost eat of the tree concerning which I have charged thee, saying,

"Thou dost not eat of it, cursed [to] the Adamah in your crossing"

in sorrow thou dost eat of it (the tree of life) all days of thy life,
and thorn and bramble it doth bring forth to thee, and thou hast eaten the herb of the field;
by the sweat of thy face thou dost eat bread until thy turning to the Adamah,
for from it you take (after) for a cast out you [are], and unto the cast out you shall turn.'

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by granpa

Uh...no.

All it takes is that it was originally 2 different books which were later put together by the redactor.

that is hardly unreasonable since the two sections deal with very different subject matters.

Wiseman hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, tablet 2 is the story we are talking about and it is a continuous narrative. YOUR hypothesis, on the other hand is that shuffling two accounts together happened to make a continuous narrative that made sense, but does not fit whatever fanciful explanation you have devised.

[granpa]

The point is simply that Genesis originally consisted of many short books.

I get the impression that you are more interested in shooting holes in my theories than in actually discussing this
so with that I will let it go.

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by granpa

The point is simply that Genesis originally consisted of many short books.

I get the impression that you are more interested in shooting holes in my theories than in actually discussing this
so with that I will let it go.

"Discussing this" involves testing the bases for your theories and I come up with nada.