There's a 30% chance of actual scholarship in the forcast...

Thoughts from Theology class the other day...

Take these statements:
"And these two accounts in Genesis are definitely by two different authors."
"It will rain tomorrow"

Then consider the following:
A) Principles of science (laws of pressure, temperature, evaporation, etc)
B) Litterary principles (tendencies, styles, penmanship, word choice, etc)

Which of those two focus on constants, unchanging, predictable and repeatable? Which is more certain? (tell me you made it through 7th grade science and said A)

Now consider this...
If the results of measurable constants like pressure and temperature lead to eratic outcomes... like, i dunno, weather? How much more unpredictable are theories of penmanship and editing and how much less likely to be correct are those conclusions?

Maybe there were different authors and editors of Genesis. Maybe the two chapters our professor reffered to casually were indeed by different sources. i do not doubt this is possible, but when well informed and knowledgable scholars talk about theories on a regular basis as scientific and verifiable fact, there's a problem (hope you're listening NIB).

Besides... maybe it will rain tomorrow, but do you always trust the weatherman?