Christians, why would God write Genesis in parataxis?
Parataxis, for those who are unaware, is a writing style in which there are no subordinate clauses: every sentence expresses one idea, or if it expresses more than one, they are linked by "and." This means there can be no explanation of causal relationships, no "this happened because such-and-such."
The Book of Genesis is written entirely in this style. This often leaves the reader baffled, especially about character motivations. We hear that a character does something, but we are never, ever told why, leaving the text largely open to interpretation.
I mostly want to hear from Christians who believe that the Bible is perfect (or at least that God had a hand in its writing). I don't want to hear "that was just how they wrote back then," and I certainly don't want to hear from anyone who just wants to bash the Bible.
Ten points to whoever has the most interesting thing to say.
This is a pretty boring crop of answers.
@William: So God couldn't have waited until Hebrew developed hypotaxis to write (or commission the writing of) one of the most important texts in all of human history?
@the fox: Let's give God some credit. Surely he is at least as discerning as a human author and can figure out where detail is needed and where it's not. We don't need to hear every detail of Isaac's journey to Aram-Naharaim with Abraham's servants, but don't you think it would be pretty important to know, say, exactly why Eve decided to eat the forbidden fruit?
@wushuboy001: I'm not criticizing Genesis here. I regard it as being among the most important texts ever written. But even a poem can explain why its characters do the things they do (for an example, check out the Ramayana, a Hindu text which is about the same age as Genesis).
I was looking for an answer that tried to get into God's head and think about WHY he would have wanted Genes
So despite the update, Yahoo still displays a completely incorrect character limit for the additional details. As I was saying:
I was looking for an answer that tried to get into God's head and think about WHY he would have wanted Genesis to be so ambiguously written. Alan Watts told a story of an exchange he had with one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The JW asked him why he didn't believe that a loving God would leave his creations an infallible guide to life and the mysteries of the universe, and Watts replied "I don't think God would do anything for his creations that would rot their brains." Which point of view do you think God would have agreed with?
I'm leaving the question open in case I get a more interesting answer, but otherwise I'm going to let it go to vote.