...The WRITING of Genesis is a product of ANE culture, and I'm sure Moses had a variety of sources from which to draw in order to write. But Moses wasn't a compiler. He wrote Genesis. And, in case you weren't aware, no one was around until day 6 to write anything down.
Okay so let me agree that Moses wrote Genesis. He compiled it, edited it, translate it, redacted it, etc. He would have been very qualified to do so given his background.
I nor Henry Morris, nor ICR nor AiG disagrees Moses wrote Genesis and the rest of the Torah, save the sections he couldn't have. I'm merely proposing he worked with prior documents that bear the names of their owners.
Now you admit Moses drew on a variety of sources, prior writings etc.
Let me use that as an opportunity to show you some of the internal evidence that Moses compiled from previous writings. Look at some of the tenses used in Genesis, for instance. In describing the land of Havilah,
11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.)
Now if there was a Flood as Moses believed, this land was destroyed. Yet Genesis says there is currently gold there. Who is speaking? Did Moses believe this land still existed and was still rich in gold?
Of course not. This had to have been originally written by an antediluvian who existed at that time. Interestingly we find this toledoth signature in Gen. 5:1.
This is the written account of Adam’s line.
To get a little technical here, both
seypher (book),
toledoth (accounts) are in construct chain of the absolute proper name,
Adam. IOW's the book and the toledoth were both properties of Adam. Literally,
"This [is] [the] book of [the] accounts of Adam."
That alone should convince you writing existed before the flood, and that Adam wrote this section spanning Gen. 2:5 to 5:1a.
In fact Adam, living over 900 years, would have been a contemporary to all those events, from the creation of the Garden, to the birth of Seth (and of Cain's descendants down to the sons of Lamech).
That's also a consistency we see in all the toledoth of Genesis. Whenever we come across one, the person named never dies prior to the accounts being recorded. Just another fascinating component of the theory.
And no one here believes this, either. However, you've created a false dichotomy in assuming that either Moses got direct revelation from God, or he MUST be compiling other writings which come from the times in which these things happen. These are not the only possibilities. Especially with Genesis 1 and 2. What is most likely from the time period we're talking about is that Moses is writing a narrative history from a variety of sources under God's guidance that is written such that someone in an ANE culture will comprehend it. Thus, we have a reflection of ANE culture and understanding (including cosmic geography) about events that occurred previous to that time.
Okay, fair enough. But this is in essence all the tablet theory and others suggest. But you're throwing in that Moses must have then reinterpreted these accounts with a contemporary ANE spin. But why do you think this was necessary? What's so hard to understand about a 6 day creation? It's really a simple concept that even the youngest of children can understand.
Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth,a the sea, and all that is in them,
That's pretty straightforward, and agrees with a very straightforward reading of Gen. 1.
BTW, Luke does the same thing. He takes what happened in a Jewish context and writes a narrative for a Gentile/Greek mind.
Yes, but he didn't couch it in Greek mythology or greek understandings of origins. Luke explained hebrew concepts (from his jewish sources) to the Greeks and others with no problems whatsoever. Why couldn't Moses do the same and explain a six day creation to the Israelites? They understood the concept of days, and understood the concept of creation and miracles. In fact, if it's true what you say, that he drew on other sources, his audience would have already understood these ancient concepts.
Deut. 32:7 Remember the days of old;
consider the generations long past.
Ask your father and he will tell you,
your elders, and they will explain to you.
(credit to Chet on that passage)
The Israelites already were familiar with their history. They already were at odds with mythological cosmologies. Do you not realize the Godly patriarch Joseph was barely a couple generations removed from them? The elders at that time, had parents that likely knew Joseph.
Wow.. your ability to nit pick is legendary. The ANE didn't know how the water got into the sky except to say that it was made of water. Yes, they knew that when clouds formed the rains may be coming. But the source of the water from the clouds was the sky.
Oh I agree, and believe their understanding was even beyond that! I think they understood the hydrological cycle to a great degree.
Job 36:27 For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
28 Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Eccl. 1:6 The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
7 All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.
But again, the waters of Gen. 1 and according to the Psalmist were above the sky (shamayim) the heavens. There's no escaping this.
What I'm saying is, the waters of Gen. 1 were never associated with rain and clouds. They were rather associated with the creation and formation of the land and sea.
Genesis calls the heavens "water."
No, I'm sorry, you have never read this in the Bible. The heavens divided the waters. This is precisely why ANE can't be the source of scripture. In ANE cosmology, there is a barrier that divides heaven and earth. In the Bible, heaven is an expanse dividing the waters above from the waters below which eventually were used to form the earth. In ANE a barrier a firmament divides earth from heaven. In Genesis the firmament is the same as the heavens—the heavens which hosts the clouds and the birds and the sun moon and stars.
This is why the Psalmist had to be speaking of the creation waters of Gen. 1. Only those are above the heavens. Clouds are in the heavens.
ANE solid dome cosmology simply can't be forced upon Scripture. JP Holding wrote a good article on this in response to Paul Seely.
Is the Raqiya‘ (‘Firmament’
a Solid Dome?
He refutes Seely on the specific point above. Again, I can only lead you to water (yeah, a bit of a pun).
What I'm hoping is, you'll actually learn some good YEC teachings. It appears you were steeped in straw men and therefore rejected it. Sounds like you have actually never heard of any good reputable creationists prior to this. I mean if you had never heard of Henry Morris, you never were a YEC in any serious sense (some may dispute that, but I've never actually meet a YEC that didn't know who he was). Hopefully you at least have enough here now to make an informed decision.
