Creation and exegesis

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
....It not that toledoth are, vaguely, 'often about family members', the toledoth of people in Genesis is followed by the genealogical list of their descendants or the account of the children.....

Not in Genesis. Let's take a look at what follows the toledoth statements. The account of the heavens and earth, no list of descendants. Adam's, genealogy. Noah's, no list. Noah's son's, table of nations. Shem's, genealogy. Terah's, no list. Isaac's, no list. Jacob's, no list.

Again, case close, at least for me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not in Genesis. Let's take a look at what follows the toledoth statements. The account of the heavens and earth, no list of descendants.
I would have thought the generations of the heavens and the earth was the worse toledoth for Wiseman's claim that that the name on the toledoth said who wrote the account or who owned it. Clearly it is the only toledoth not associated with a person or people, but we see in Psalm 90 the creation being described as a giving birth. Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were born, before you gave birth to the earth and the world, from beginning to end, you are God. The word the NLT translates as gave birth to is chul, and can refer to labour pains, the word for born is yalad, beget, the same word we get toledoth from. So we find the metaphor of creation as a series of things being born in a psalm of Moses.

Adam's, genealogy.
Noah's, no list.
Gen 6:10 And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Noah's son's, table of nations.
Specifically the list children descended from Noah's son and the nations descended from them.

Shem's, genealogy.
Terah's, no list.
Gen 11:27 Now these are the generations of Terah.
Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot.


You missed:
The generations of Ishmael followed by Ishmael' genealogy

Isaac's, no list.
Isaac's age when he married, their difficulty conceiving, his prayer, the conception and birth of Jacob and Esau.

You missed:
The generation of Esau followed by a list of the women he married and his children born in Canaan.
Then:
the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir. Followed by a list of all his descendants born in Seir.

Jacob's, no list.
Followed by what happened his children.

Again, case close, at least for me.
It is pretty conclusive, it fits how toledoth is used throughout the rest of the OT, and it avoids all the problems Wiseman has with first Isaac and Ishmael, then Esau and Jacob, having to swapping toledoth, and having to explain how the heavens and the earth could write an account of their creation.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Gen 6:10 And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Gen 11:27 Now these are the generations of Terah.
Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot.

LOL! Nice genealogies. I think I can rest my case. If this is the best response you have to Wiseman, he's won the debate. I think Wiseman has become a thorn in your side. Your genealogy argument alone exposes this.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I went to a conference a couple of weeks ago on this, and Dr. John Walton did a wonderful talk on the cultural and scientific context that Genesis was written in. More specifically, he spoke about what in the creation story was important to someone from the ancient near east (I'll use ANE for this from here on.)

He's one of those Biologos folks who talk about how we don't understand how the ancients thought about these things. Listening to him is like waiting for the second shoe to drop, they just always leave you hanging.

And this isn't to say that the earth is or isn't a particular age. But it does mean that we can now rely on science to define scientific things, and rely on Scripture to define theological things.

Creation week and the rest of the historical narrative of Genesis is a theological thing.

(Just FYI, I am not an evolutionist or even theistic evolutionists. I am a creationist, although maybe not in the traditional mold, anymore. I do think that the creation of Adam and Eve is important to Christian theology.)

I figured that you were a creationist since you weren't trying to 'reinterpret' anything. I would caution you on the 'Adam and Eve' thing though, the creation of those two has always been a given. It is inextricably linked to original sin and both creation and original sin are essential doctrine.

I don't really mind the Biologos stuff, it's a little vague but not nearly as obnoxious as much of the Theistic Evolutionist rhetoric going around. I just keep waiting for them so say something but it's more like they are talking around an exegesis of the text rather then offering one.

I understand how the ancients thought of the Genesis account of creation. The Hebrews and the Christian communities have always regarded it as being six days. There are those who have taken it figuratively but that would not have occurred to ancients like Moses.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Not in Genesis. Let's take a look at what follows the toledoth statements. The account of the heavens and earth, no list of descendants. Adam's, genealogy. Noah's, no list. Noah's son's, table of nations. Shem's, genealogy. Terah's, no list. Isaac's, no list. Jacob's, no list.

Again, case close, at least for me.

I really don't know what you mean by 'no list'. If you mean the genealogies are not lists of lineal descendants you are wrong. If you mean something else I totally missed it. Genesis is obviously based on lists of lineal descendants, aka genealogies, the historical narratives following:

1) Descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies
1a) account of men and their descendants
1a1) genealogical list of one's descendants
1a2) one's contemporaries
1a3) course of history (of creation etc)​
1b) Begetting or account of heaven (metaph)​

—Brown-Driver-Briggs (Old Testament Hebrew-English Lexicon)

These [are] the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations (H8435 - towlĕdah), in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood. (Gen 10:32)

These [are] the generations (H8435 - towlĕdah) of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: (Gen 11:10)

Now these [are] the generations (H8435 - towlĕdah) of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. (Gen 11:27)

Now these [are] the generations (H8435 - towlĕdah) of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham: (Gen 25:12)

And these [are] the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations (H8435 - towlĕdah): the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam, (Gen 25:13)

And these [are] the generations (H8435 - towlĕdah) of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham begat Isaac: (Gen 25:19)

Now these [are] the generations (H8435 - towlĕdah) of Esau, who [is] Edom. (Gen 36:1)

And these [are] the generations (H8435 - towlĕdah) of Esau the father of the Edomites in mount Seir: (Gen 36:9)

These [are] the generations (H8435 - towlĕdah) of Jacob. Joseph, (Gen 37:2)​
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I really don't know what you mean by 'no list'.

Mark I think you missed a lot of context.

IOW's often toledoth (accounts - plural) are not followed by genealogies (lists of descendants), such as you have in Gen. 5, for instance Gen. 2:4, Gen. 6:9, Gen. 11:27, Gen. 25:19, Gen. 37:2. None of those are followed by genealogies. And then sometimes they are.

I'm not arguing there are no genealogies in Genesis, or that a genealogy never follows a toledoth statement.

My point was 1) toledoth are not merely genealogies, but accounts or histories of individuals that can contain genealogies. 2) toledoth are generally subscripts in Genesis, and not titles, meaning they refer back to what they follow.

For instance, toledoth of the heavens and earth in Gen. 2:4s is a concluding remark of the creation account starting in Gen. 1:1. What follows it is not a creation account of the heavens and earth at all, but rather an account of the garden of Eden, and other events that followed it. That's because Gen. 2:4a is a subscript not a title, therefore it doesn't apply to what follows it. The events that follow are a completely different account. Those are concluded with Adam's toledoth in Gen. 5:1a. Literally "This [is] the book of the accounts of Adam." Both book (sayfar) and accounts (toledoth) are constructs of the absolute proper name Adam. This is an account that starts in Gen. 2:4b and covers the creation of the Garden, the Fall, Cain and Abel, Cain's genealogy and Seth's birth and ends in Gen. 5:1a.

Then a new account follows starting with Noah's genealogy (linking Adam to Noah) and then a brief account of some events that took place during Noah's life, and God's call for him to build an ark. But I would submit that genealogy is not of the book of Adam's accounts, but rather part of Noah's account. His entire account is followed by the subscript, literally "these [are] the accounts of Noah." Once again, accounts (toledoth - always in the plural) is in the construct for the absolute proper name Noah.

There are some exceptions, such as Ismael's and Esau's accounts which do use toledoth as titles. But those seem to be embedded in Isaac's and Jacob's accounts, which end with their subscripts. For instance after the entire genealogy of Esau, we have the toledoth statement, literally, "these [are] the accounts (toledoth) of Jacob." What follows that is neither a genealogy nor even account account about Jacob, but an account featuring Joseph. IOW's it's a completely different account. Thus, we can conclude this toledoth is actually the subscript signature of Jacob referring back to what was previously written, which included narratives of his life, as well as the embedded genealogies of his brother Esau, whom he reconciled with later in his life. It would seem logical that Esau and he would have exchanged toledoth.

Now just so you know, I didn't come up with this theory on my own. If it's something you're not familiar with, I suggest taking in some articles from some very good men discussing some very interesting archeological discovers about ancient writing structures.


The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship
True Origin
Curt Sewell © 1998-2001 by Curt Sewell

CreationWiki: Tablet theory

Did Moses Write Genesis?
Answers in Genesis
by Dr. Terry Mortenson and Bodie Hodge AiG–U.S. June 28, 2011

Who Wrote Genesis? Are the Toledoth Colophons?
Creation Ministries International
by Charles V Taylor, M.A., Ph.D., PGCE, LRAM, FIL, Cert. Theol.

The First Book of Moses and The 'Toledoth' of Genesis
By Damien F. Mackey

Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis
By Damien F. Mackeys

Who Wrote Genesis?
Excerpted from Henry M. Morris, the Genesis Record, pp. 25-30

Who Wrote Genesis?
A Third Theory
by Paul A. Hughes

New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis (pdf)
By Air Commodor E P. J. Wiseman, C.B.E.​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
LOL! Nice genealogies. I think I can rest my case. If this is the best response you have to Wiseman, he's won the debate.
Interesting how you have to ignore that toledoth can mean both a person's genealogy, his children and grandchildren, or the story of his children. Both these meanings flow easily from the root of the word meaning beget, both meanings are telling us about their children. Both meaning are taught in good lexicons.

Wiseman lost the debate for me when I saw there was absolutely nothing in the text to suggest Adam or Noah wrote part of the book of Genesis.

I think Wiseman has become a thorn in your side. Your genealogy argument alone exposes this.
Nah, I am interested in the debate because I was a fan of Wiseman, in fact I have him to thank for opening me up to interpretations of Genesis other than YEC, with his days of revelation rather than literal days of creation. He also introduced me to the whole idea of Genesis being composed of documents brought together by an editor, I had heard of the documentary hypothesis, but that was 'liberal'. I love the book of Genesis and I am really interested in its composition. I don't think the question of whether the toledoth are colophons or titles is that critical, but it is an interesting question that I want to than you for the opportunity of digging into. Apart from Gen 2:4 These are the generation of the heavens and the earth, all the other ‘these are the generations…’ are clearly titles to the text that follows after them.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
...Wiseman lost the debate for me when I saw there was absolutely nothing in the text to suggest Adam or Noah wrote part of the book of Genesis. ....

I course as that would be a problem for JEDP. We're repeating the same arguments over and over. I think Wiseman takes this one. Trying to say a mention of one son followed by a narrative is a genealogy is just desperate. Wiseman's theory effectively refute JEDP and that's at the heart of your resistance to it.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I course as that would be a problem for JEDP. We're repeating the same arguments over and over. I think Wiseman takes this one... Wiseman's theory effectively refute JEDP and that's at the heart of your resistance to it.
Sounds like you are trying an appeal to motive fallacy there. A particularly bad miss at that ^_^ I came from a Wiseman POV not a JEDP one. It was Wiseman's identification of the texts in Genesis that got me to realise that the texts identified by JEDP had a point, as for their dating of the editorial work and their analysis of the motivations of the JEDP writers, if find that pretty speculative.

However there is evidence that the bible underwent editorial work during or after the exile, just look at the book of Psalms combining psalms of David alongside psalms written during the exile. There is evidence in the book of Genesis that it was edited during or after the time the Israelites had a kingdom Gen 36:31 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites. Another indication of the time Genesis was edited is Gen 12:6 and the Canaanite was then in the land Also Gen 13:7. When were the last Canaanites in the land? So for all their speculation about who edited Genesis when and why the various texts were written, at least JEDP fits what we read in scripture.

If Wiseman had a case for the texts of Genesis being written by Adam and Noah, he would have refuted JEDP, or at least their identification of who the JEDP writers were, not the JEDP identification of the main documents that make up Genesis. Wiseman confirmed that. But the rest he failed at. I don't reject Wiseman's theory because it 'effectively refutes JEDP' I reject it because it has no scriptural basis.

...Trying to say a mention of one son followed by a narrative is a genealogy is just desperate...
You see, you still can't handle what the Hebrew lexicons say. The meaning of person's toledoth covers both their genealogy, the list of their children and grandchildren, and the story of a their children. I don't know any toledoth in the bible that is about one son, even if there were, it could still be a toledoth. Maybe you just don't understand how languages work, how a word in Hebrew or Greek can have more than one English word when we translated it. There is no use say English word A is not the same as English word B. The Hebrew or Greek word can cover both.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sounds like you are trying an appeal to motive fallacy there. A particularly bad miss at that ^_^ I came from a Wiseman POV not a JEDP one. It was Wiseman's identification of the texts in Genesis that got me to realise that the texts identified by JEDP had a point, as for their dating of the editorial work and their analysis of the motivations of the JEDP writers, if find that pretty speculative.

And yet he came up with a system with archeological support that completely obliterated JEDP. I would think the fact that Wiseman was not a YEC would at least encourage you to listen as he had no YEC motive whatsoever. But you have righty realized that his system undermines your lack of faith in the reliability of Genesis. Thus desperate attempts to call anything and everything a genealogy. Wiseman hit you hard (not just you but all JEDP advocates). You've never recovered.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And yet he came up with a system with archeological support that completely obliterated JEDP. I would think the fact that Wiseman was not a YEC would at least encourage you to listen as he had no YEC motive whatsoever. But you have righty realized that his system undermines your lack of faith in the reliability of Genesis. Thus desperate attempts to call anything and everything a genealogy. Wiseman hit you hard (not just you but all JEDP advocates). You've never recovered.
Sorry? How is he supposed to have 'completely obliterated JEDP'? There is archaeological evidence that tablets sometimes ended in a colophon, there is no evidence that the texts of Genesis were originally written on tablets or that the toledoth are colophons to the text above them.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sorry? How is he supposed to have 'completely obliterated JEDP'? There is archaeological evidence that tablets sometimes ended in a colophon, ....

Yeah, then compare that to the evidence for JEDP....... oh yeah there isn't any. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, then compare that to the evidence for JEDP....... oh yeah there isn't any. ;)
I thought Wiseman confirmed their claims about the textual composition of Genesis :)

Are you going to try to support your claim that Wiseman 'completely obliterated JEDP'? I showed you just how badly he fell short. How are you going to span the gap from finding colophon subscripts in some cuneiform tablets, to showing that the source texts of Genesis were originally written on clay tablets and followed the same colophon format.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I thought Wiseman confirmed most of their claims about the textual composition of Genesis :)

Are you going to try to support your claim that Wiseman 'completely obliterated JEDP'? I showed you just how badly he fell short. How are you going to span the gap from finding colophon subscripts in some cuneiform tablets, to showing that the source texts of Genesis were originally written on clay tablets and followed the same colophon format.

You're subject hopping now. Are you admitting there is absolutely no evidence for JEDP? Just curious if you'd be willing to admit that?

To your question, yes he obliterated JEDP. It's an obsolete theory that only the religious now adhere to.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You're subject hopping now.
Not sure how I am supposed to be subject hopping. I showed you the gap in evidence Wiseman needed to show the toledoth in Genesis were colophons. You couldn't address it and switched to asking for evidence for JEDP.

Are you admitting there is absolutely no evidence for JEDP? Just curious if you'd be willing to admit that?
No sorry. The main evidence for JEDP is the difference in styles and vocabulary that show the different texts that make up Genesis. You can hardly disagree with that evidence as the texts identified by JEDP are pretty much the same ones Wiseman found by looking at the toledoth. I have also pointed out the evidence in the text of Genesis that it was edited much later than the time of Moses, during or after the time when kings reigned over the Israelites Gen 36:31 and at a time where there were no longer any Canaanites in the land Gen 12:6 and Gen 13:7. It was evidence like that from the text of Genesis that started the whole study of the composition of the Pentateuch and JEDP. Those verses are still there in the text, giving evidence for later composition of the text, where Wiseman has absolutely none for his claim Adam and Noah wrote part of Genesis.

Are you going to try to support your claim that Wiseman 'completely obliterated JEDP'?
To your question, yes he obliterated JEDP. It's an obsolete theory that only the religious now adhere to.
Sorry Cal, simply claiming he obliterated JEDP is not the same as supporting your claim.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not sure how I am supposed to be subject hopping. I showed you the gap in evidence Wiseman needed to show the toledoth in Genesis were colophons. You couldn't address it and switched to asking for evidence for JEDP.

You asked for my opinion. JEDP had one sliver they could cling to, and that was the idea that multiple authors contributed to Genesis. Wiseman took that one source of pride, and turned it against JEDP. Why do you think JEDP theorists so desperately try to refute Wiseman?

So again, Wiseman, almost single-handedly obliterated JEDP (or at least what was left of it). That's probably why they hate talking to me. I grant their one wish, and then rip them to pieces (IMHO).

No sorry. The main evidence for JEDP is the difference in styles and vocabulary that show the different texts that make up Genesis. ...

Nice try.
 
Upvote 0

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
The archeological evidence is that Hebrew script had not developed yet as late as of the time of King Solomon. Recently the oldest Hebrew words ever found, from 1000 BC, are in Canaanite script. So the latest evidence bolsters the Bible in terms of validating the existence of King Solomon's mines, that he had vast wealth and that Isreal at that time was not a small village as many critics claimed, but a major power house with the first industrial scale mine in the world.

But it makes the prospect of the Pentateuch being a contemporaneous record of events prior to 1000 BC seem quite remote.

Here is an excerpt from a NOVA special on the subject:

NARRATOR: The letters are Canaanite, the first alphabetic writing system that would give rise to many others, including Hebrew and our own. But deciphering what the script says is a challenge.

To the ancient writing experts working with Yossi in Jerusalem, they seem to be written in a haphazard way, sometimes upside down, sometimes standing up, sometimes on their sides.

HAGGAI MISGAV (Hebrew University of Jerusalem): The 'a', the aleph, which is the same as the 'a', stands here three times: one on the, one on the legs, the other time on the head, which is the original one, and then on the side.

NARRATOR: Struggling to piece together the words which the letters form, the experts can hardly contain their excitement.

EXPERT: This is definitely a Hebrew word.
Don't do.

NARRATOR: They can make out other Hebrew words too: "eved," worship; "shafat," judge; "nakam," revenge; and "melekh," king.
The writing is Canaanite, but the words are Hebrew.

BILL SCHNIEDEWIND: So it's not quite Hebrew script yet, um, but, eventually, this script will develop into Hebrew.

NARRATOR: It makes the ostracon a historic find, a remarkable testament to the birth of Hebrew writing in the process of being systematized.

HAGGAI MISGAV: I only can say that I hold in my hands the most ancient Hebrew text so far found.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You asked for my opinion. JEDP had one sliver they could cling to, and that was the idea that multiple authors contributed to Genesis. Wiseman took that one source of pride, and turned it against JEDP.
And it would have been a deathblow, at least to their idea of who wrote the texts of Genesis, if only Wiseman could have shown it was Adam who really wrote Genesis 2-4 and that Noah wrote Genesis 5. But Wiseman couldn't, it was just wild speculation.

Why do you think JEDP theorists so desperately try to refute Wiseman?
Disagreeing with you isn't evidence they feel threatened.

So again, Wiseman, almost single-handedly obliterated JEDP (or at least what was left of it). That's probably why they hate talking to me. I grant their one wish, and then rip them to pieces (IMHO).
You still haven't show how Wiseman obliterated JEDP, I showed you the gaping void in his claim and you just changed the subject.

Nice try.
Interesting how you can't deal with the evidence for JEDP either.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums