Scripture and origins ~ [open] thread for all. Bring snacks as we're running low...

[stumpjumper]

Why is it so absurd to think God could give Adam a written tablet?

Because God is not a person with the noted exception of Jesus' earthly ministry when God became flesh and dwelt among us...

The argument that God wrote parts of the Torah and handed it to Adam has absolutely no Biblical or scriptural evidence whatsoever...

Also, the Bible states that "no man hath seen God". Would not Adam have had to experience the fullness of God's presence to accept a physical tablet of law?

[bible]1 John 4:12[/bible]

 

[Scotishfury09]

Humor me. Let's assume that Adam is in fact the first man. He was created in the first week of the Earth's existence. God gives him the creation story. He passes the story down to all of his descendants. By the time it gets to Moses and he writes it down there are a multitude of different cultures. The story has been passed down to all of these cultures. It would seem a little strange if none of them had this story. The end result is a bunch of cultures with varying creation accounts. They match up so similarly because they are the same thing just passed down from generation to generation!

You claim that because they are so similar is reason to believe they were trying to conform to the religions of the day, but I see this as showing the exact opposite.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Because God is not a person with the noted exception of Jesus' earthly ministry when God became flesh and dwelt among us...

The argument that God wrote parts of the Torah and handed it to Adam has absolutely no Biblical or scriptural evidence whatsoever...

Also, the Bible states that "no man hath seen God". Would not Adam have had to experience the fullness of God's presence to accept a physical tablet of law?

[bible]1 John 4:12[/bible]

Maybe you should read the 10 commandments again. It says "And God spoke all these words..." Clearly Moses wrote down what he heard. I don't see how these two are conflicting.

 

[stumpjumper]

Maybe you should read the 10 commandments again. It says "And God spoke all these words..." Clearly Moses wrote down what he heard. I don't see how these two are conflicting.

And not everything written in the Bible is to be interpreted as if it literally happened.

To the ancient Jews, it was believed that God gave order to the world through language (among other things) and that is why you see passages that talk about "And God said" or "and God spoke"...

It is simply a manner of speaking not a historical account.

Anyway, I wanted to get into the actual text of Genesis in this thread not talk about the Tablet theory. I have no interest in discussing something that is so obvioulsy ad-hoc and contrived as God physically handing tablets to Adam which then passed through generations to take a free boat ride with Noah....

 

[Scotishfury09]

You seem pretty set in your ways. Even to the point of completely dismissing any argument given. What's the point of talking to you?

 

[stumpjumper]

You seem pretty set in your ways. Even to the point of completely dismissing any argument given. What's the point of talking to you?

It's not that I'm set in my ways so much as I honestly just don't feel the tablet theory can be discussed seriously and it makes no sense.

Those who posit the view are sola scripturists who believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

Where within scripture is there any reference whatsoever to the "Tablet theory"?

Why is the Torah popularly called the five books of Moses?

 

[Scotishfury09]

There's just as much of a reference to the "Tablet theory" as there is to the "Evolution theory." People have given their evidence, you just don't want to see it.

It's called the five books of Moses because Moses took all of the different passages of Genesis and put them all into one coherent book.

 

[stumpjumper]

There's just as much of a reference to the "Tablet theory" as there is to the "Evolution theory."

Which means "there is no reference" of course.

I don't believe there is a reference to evolution in the Bible but that's because the ToE is a scientific rather than a religious perspective.

People have given their evidence, you just don't want to see it.

What evidence?

Give me one little piece of evidence for this tablet theory?

I don't care where it comes from but I can assure you no-one in this thread has presented any evidence that God wrote the tablets of the Torah and handed them to Adam...

It's called the five books of Moses because Moses took all of the different passages of Genesis and put them all into one coherent book.

I can go with that but that doesn't mean that any of the oral traditions before being redacted was written by God...

 

[busterdog]

I think I agree with parts of what you said, but I'm not really sure I completely understand what you're saying. No offense intended.

I prefer to see the formation of Israel in this way: it's like preparing a field for the harvest. You till the ground, remove rocks, weeds and other obstacles, fertilize it, and one day it's prepared for planting. In this case, the perfect seed was Christ and His church.

To facilitate this, and to keep it as pure as possible, the nation needed to somehow set itself apart. God did this through the Law, and through the stories of shared history that illustrated God's place in the world and theirs as well. You see stories, like the creation story, that set them apart from Mesopotamians. You see stories like Lot with his daughters that set them apart from the Canaanites. You see stories like Joseph's that set them apart from the Egyptians. Do these stories need to be 100% true? I have no doubt that most came from actual events and people, but I also have no doubt that those stories were shaped to make the point God wanted in ways that weren't 100% accurate.

I'd hope we all agree on this: whether or not the stories are true, the messages that God wants us to take from them are identical for everybody. I seriously doubt that God inspired the creation story to tell us exactly how creation occurred; he wanted to specify both His and our place in it.

Whether or nor you accept the inerrant view of literal view, certainly that other content is there. On that we all agree.

I will try to clear up the other stuff.

The unique nature of the nation makes it very difficult I think to show that the OT idioms show exaggerations common to ME culture at the time, such as inflating ages. THat is, proving that Genesis is myth based on similarities to Gilgamesh is a really tough argument, given the nature of Israel and the explicit intentions of the BIble to be something unique as well.

The unique nature of Israel supports the idea of inerrancy, but that would be more of an inference than something for which there is an absolute proof text, at least I am not aware of one.

But, it is awfully curious that the largely metaphorical view is associated with beliefs that mostly dismiss the thought of an eternal throne of David and a millenial kingdom. I supposed we YECs also have a curious affinity for the obverse.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[Scotishfury09]

What evidence?

Give me one little piece of evidence for this tablet theory?

I don't care where it comes from but I can assure you no-one in this thread has presented any evidence that God wrote the tablets of the Torah and handed them to Adam...

First, I had already told you that God didn't hand the tablet to him. It could have been exactly like how Moses received the 10 commandments

I guess you just completely ignored Xian's post earlier? Here's the link

 

[crawfish]

The unique nature of the nation makes it very difficult I think to show that the OT idioms show exaggerations common to ME culture at the time, such as inflating ages. THat is, proving that Genesis is myth based on similarities to Gilgamesh is a really tough argument, given the nature of Israel and the explicit intentions of the BIble to be something unique as well.

The unique nature of Israel supports the idea of inerrancy, but that would be more of an inference than something for which there is an absolute proof text, at least I am not aware of one.

But, it is awfully curious that the largely metaphorical view is associated with beliefs that mostly dismiss the thought of an eternal throne of David and a millenial kingdom. I supposed we YECs also have a curious affinity for the obverse.

Hope that clears it up.

I see now.

I don't have the sources with me, but I remember reading there are "normal" discrepancies between many of the ancient Hebrew documents that have been found - normal in the sense that they make the usual errors that one would expect from handwritten documents derived from oral sources. There is also some simple proof that Israel was heavily affected over the years by the nations around them - it's called the "Old Testament". There is no doubt that at various times the Israelites worshiped foreign gods, performed foreign rites and ceremonies, and were intimately familiar with foreign customs and terminology. It was a constant fight to keep them pure.

There is no doubt that the Israelites were intimately familiar with the Babylonian pantheon and mythologies; there is ample evidence that the stories in Genesis were written not to adopt those stories for their own purposes, but to counter them, deny them. Just as we need to hear scripture applied contextually to our lives today, ancient Israel needed it even more. Also, at the time Genesis was written (2000-1500BC), there was really no CONCEPT of "accurate history" - there were simply stories passed down orally from generation to generation.

My view is not a metaphorical one. The stories are actually quite literal, in that they mean to tell what they tell. They are just told from the a cultural context of their times, and we misinterpret them when we apply our own context to it.

 

[HypnoToad]

The problem with that is that there is absolutely no evidence (internal or external)

Well, that's just completely false. You might not find any of the evidence convincing, but it exists regardless.

How did God write Genesis 1? Does He have hands?

God wrote commandments on stone tablets for Moses, this would be no different.

Let alone the fact that there is no evidence for the tablet theory there is a great deal of evidence (again internal to the Torah and external) that the Torah had four authors as well as a northern and southern source for the redaction.

The Four Author hypothesis is still the dominant scholarly view.

You mean dominant liberal view. The problem is that no evidence of the "documents" that the Documentary Hypothesis is based on have any evidence of existing, plus the theory starts with the assumption that people began writing much later than archeology has already shown they have.

 

[HypnoToad]

Because God is not a person with the noted exception of Jesus' earthly ministry when God became flesh and dwelt among us...

The argument that God wrote parts of the Torah and handed it to Adam has absolutely no Biblical or scriptural evidence whatsoever...

Only if you completely ignore the Scripture that clearly states God wrote commandments on stone tablets for Moses. Why do just ignore that?

Also, the Bible states that "no man hath seen God". Would not Adam have had to experience the fullness of God's presence to accept a physical tablet of law?

No, Adam would not have to experience the "fullness" of God's presence to receive tablets. There's no reason to think that. Moses saw God's "backside", so there is in fact precedent of people meeting God in a not-full-glory form.

 

[HypnoToad]

Why is the Torah popularly called the five books of Moses?

Genesis was still compiled by Moses, so there's no reason not to call it a "book of Moses" along with the other 4.

 

[stumpjumper]

I guess you just completely ignored Xian's post earlier? Here's the link

I didn't ignore it but there's no evidence for this Tablet theory presented either in Xian-Jedi's post or that link.

You were the one talking about evidence. No?

The link is circular since it takes the position that since some modern views of the Torah is that it is historical it must be historical.

Toledoth means generations and therefore, obviously, since Genesis contains generations those generations must be historical, Gensesis is historical.

That's not evidence.

 

[stumpjumper]

The unique nature of the nation makes it very difficult I think to show that the OT idioms show exaggerations common to ME culture at the time, such as inflating ages. THat is, proving that Genesis is myth based on similarities to Gilgamesh is a really tough argument, given the nature of Israel and the explicit intentions of the BIble to be something unique as well.

Look at the similarities between the length of some of the life-spans in Genesis and Sumerian legends for great kings.

Great Kings in certain sumerian and baylonian legends were given very long life-spans to demonstrate. well, how great they were. You see this similarity in the Genesis geneologies of Chapter 11 and there are some clues in the names as some are of Armenian, Babylonian, and Syrian etymologies.

Look up the source of the Elam or Asshur in Genesis 10

 

[stumpjumper]

Well, that's just completely false. You might not find any of the evidence convincing, but it exists regardless.

Show me some actual evidence for the "tablet theory".

I don't care if it's archaeological or literary but I have not seen anything yet.

I read the link and it simply makes a circular argument. No evidence was provided..

God wrote commandments on stone tablets for Moses, this would be no different.

I don't even believe that happened. This posits a far too simplistic view of God and turns God into an idol.

Christian theology has always posited God as incomprehensible in His totality and beyond complete human understanding.

You guys want to tell me that this incomprehensible and mysterious God physically wrote on tablets and handed them to Adam, Noah, and Moses?

I honestly can't even take this seriously...

You mean dominant liberal view. The problem is that no evidence of the "documents" that the Documentary Hypothesis is based on have any evidence of existing, plus the theory starts with the assumption that people began writing much later than archeology has already shown they have.

That's the thing, though. There is a lot of internal and external evidence that Moses did not himself write the Torah and that it had at least more than one author.

Obvioulsy, Moses did not wrte the portions that depict events that transpired after his death so at the very least someone finished it but even then there are problems.

Are there holes in the four-author hypothesis? Yes. But there is at least evidence for positing multiple authors and a later date for the completion of the Torah.

That does not mean that it did not exist in sections before being compiled into a coherent whole. I don't believe that the JPED POV requires that there was no deeper writing and roots.

In fact, it would posit the opposite and therefore argue that writing originated earlier than the Torah was completed...

 

[stumpjumper]

Only if you completely ignore the Scripture that clearly states God wrote commandments on stone tablets for Moses. Why do just ignore that?

Taking portions of the Bible as less than literal does not mean that you "ignore" them.

Why do you ignore the parables of Jesus?

They are not all meant to be read literally but since you obviously don't believe that the Kingdom of Heaven is both a wheat-field, a merchant, a net cast into the sea, and a treasure hidden in a field (among other things), you must disbelieve these sayings of Jesus.

Why?

Are Christians literally sheep?

 

[HypnoToad]

I didn't ignore it but there's no evidence for this Tablet theory presented either in Xian-Jedi's post or that link.

You were the one talking about evidence. No?

The link is circular since it takes the position that since some modern views of the Torah is that it is historical it must be historical.

Toledoth means generations and therefore, obviously, since Genesis contains generations those generations must be historical, Gensesis is historical.

That's not evidence.

Ok, you've apparently been making a huge error this whole time.

The introduction of the tablet theory to the discussion was not to prove Genesis to be historical. But only that it could predate the Babylonian account and, therefore, isn't based on it.

 

[HypnoToad]

Taking portions of the Bible as less than literal does not mean that you "ignore" them.

Why do you ignore the parables of Jesus?

Of course I don't ignore Jesus' parables. But there is nothing indicating the inscription of commandments on to stone is a "parable". How much of Israel's history is a parable? Do you have an actual systematic way of eliminating fables from fact, or is it just whatever you feel? Or, is all the OT just a fable?