A SCIENTIFIC REACTION (Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 6 )

       We have known from the seventh essay, about the author ,that "H.Hubfeld" and some critics, at the end of the nineteenth century, like "W.Vatke" have adopted the title "P", for a suggested origin, later than the suggested origin "J", which was a reference [due to their opinion ], to some contents ,recorded the name "YAHOAH", like the older origin "J" ,but these new contents [due to their opinion ] ,were used in a later time ..                                                                                                                                                                                                                             The letter "P" is the first  letter of the word "priests" ,so,they suggested that, in a later time the records of the the priests, have played a part in correcting , or adding some data ,to the "TORAH" .What was their profs ? They said that, their were a conflict between the story of the creation, which recorded in the first chapter, of the book of Genesis, and the another story of the third and the fourth chapter, this last story,related to the history of the ancestors, which was recorded in the forth chapter ,but from the beginning of chapter five he referred to the origin of the chapter one again   !!!!                                                                                                                                                                                      Their profs were (1) the differences between some accidents recorded in the two stories .!!!but in spit of their description [ Differences ], they could not succeed, to give us one example, to these differences, in concern of any individual fact.                                                                                                                                 (2)the popular style of chapter two, three and four ,was a style which comments on the accidents, [the story of falling after the new story of the creation,and the sentence "and dead "after the brief history of the fathers] .                                                                                                                     (3)The returning  of the title "ELOHEEM" ,which was in the first chapter ,to return in the fifth chapter .                                                                        But who made this suggested quotation between chapter one and chapter five ? ,are there really any changes? ,or differences between the Two[due to their suggestion] stories?,we have not observed any double recording !!,we observed only the story ,and the comment on the  private briefs,which was not mentioned in details, in the past general outline of the story,!! it was the style of one writer ,who spoke about one purpose, which he wanted to make it clear, before the most simple people ,of that age, at the first story he recorded the creation in general, at the second story he spoke about the man as a member in this creation, and his story of his dealing with god ,The man failed for the second time, in the test of dealing with God ,also the category of the ancestors at the end of chapter four ,were not a double category of chapter five , In chapter four was the category of "Cain" but in the fifth chapter was the category of "Seth" .                           What's urge us to astonish !! is what they have said, in concern of the fifth chapter ,they suggested that its body referred to"J" ,the first suggested origin of the first chapter[due to the name "ELOHEEM"] , but the writer added the word and dead after the brief history of every father,  just a brief comment ,from "P" !!! if the same story of "J" was recorded in "P", what was the reason to transmit the story from "J" ,and recorded only " and dead " from "P" did the only reason was the title of God ?? did the writer was less intelligent to observe any differences inside his story ??? did the return of the name "ELOHEEM" when he began to speak about a new work,of the same God of the creation "ELOHEEM" ,during the flood ,is the reason of their suggestion ??                                                                                                                          Any develop of the story, from the first chapter to the seventh,but, to the end of the book, had its suitable reasonable changing,due to the changing of the accidents , and the changing of the old ancestors' [ the subject of the story ] ,in their aims, no differences at all  .     They had not any example of differences ,all what they had is ,the comparison between a general brief story, and some details later for the same story ,without conflict .                                                                                The style is united together, to reflect a style of an intelligent teacher, who wants to educate his people ,what is sufficient to urge them ,to be loyal to the one God ,who is "ELOHEEM" and his function in concern of his people as "YAHOAH",and again, Where is their "J" ? and Where is their "P" ?  The different suggested origins ,are in fact, their different personal respect ,to the scriptures .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       And follow.                          Rev.Joseph