POLL: Which of these elements of the creation story do you believe?

[OzSpen]

Exactly! The plants in Eden were domesticated plants, not you wild plants, trees and grass. It should be pretty obvious but this JEPD nonsense has been creating confusion about this for over a hundred years.

Grace and peace,
Mark

That's why I've written 2 brief articles to deal with this matter that has brought confusion to many Christians. They give only a short discussion of the matter and I'm indebted to others who have written on the topic:

JEDP Documentary Hypothesis refuted

Did Moses write the Pentateuch?

Oz

 

[mark kennedy]

It is talking about Day 4 here:
13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Both Calvin and the source you just cited to me teach that the Bible says that the sun was made on the fourth day. Why do you fight against admitting what the Bible says?

Your premise seems to be that it is 100% impossible for there to be days and nights without the sun, and so you fight against accepting that the Bible says what it says.

Calvin was not an exegetical scholar and God being Creator was not in question. There was day and night because there was a sun, moon and stars, that was modified during creation week that doesn't mean the sun, moon and stars were created on day four. Why do you persist, what is your point?

 

[rakovsky]

Calvin was not an exegetical scholar

Please explain at length.

 

[OzSpen]

I know you like to run down various rabbit trails, but let's stay on track okay.

Stan,

It's a serious question. After all, it was you who stated in #181, 'It's pretty well-established that Calvin, being a humanist lawyer'. Please tell me what you understand by 'humanist' for a 16th century scholar such as Calvin.

Oz

 

[mark kennedy]

Please explain at length.

Why? There isn't that much to explain. Calvin wrote a lot of commentary but he was not one of the scholars that produced the Geneva Bible. As a matter of fact William Tyndal's work was the basis of the Geneva Bible and the King James, close to 85%. What do you want explained? God made the sun, moon and stars visible in the sky, He created them in Genesis 1:1 and it's as simple as that.

 

[OzSpen]

Why? There isn't that much to explain. Calvin wrote a lot of commentary but he was not one of the scholars that produced the Geneva Bible. As a matter of fact William Tyndal's work was the basis of the Geneva Bible and the King James, close to 85%. What do you want explained? God made the sun, moon and stars visible in the sky, He created them in Genesis 1:1 and it's as simple as that.

That seems to be avoiding the issue. It was you who stated, 'Calvin was not an exegetical scholar'. You were asked to explain but you did not. The Geneva Bible had nothing to do with the question.

What makes an exegetical scholar? Why is Calvin not an exegete? What qualifications were missing from Calvin to disqualify him from being an exegete? I'm not a Calvinist, but I think you are dodging this issue.

Oz

 

[rakovsky]

Why? There isn't that much to explain. Calvin wrote a lot of commentary but he was not one of the scholars that produced the Geneva Bible.

An exegete means "an expounder or textual interpreter, especially of scripture."
Please explain at length why you say "Calvin was not an exegetical scholar" if he interpreted the texts in his commentaries.

As a matter of fact William Tyndal's work was the basis of the Geneva Bible and the King James, close to 85%.

Here are Tyndal's words:
16 And God made two great lyghtes A greater lyghte to rule the daye and a lesse lyghte to rule the nyghte and he made sterres also.

Tyndal interprets the word to be "make", not "set" or "install".
Tyndal says God "made" the sun on day 4.

 

[mark kennedy]

That seems to be avoiding the issue. It was you who stated, 'Calvin was not an exegetical scholar'. You were asked to explain but you did not. The Geneva Bible had nothing to do with the question.

What makes an exegetical scholar? Why is Calvin not an exegete? What qualifications were missing from Calvin to disqualify him from being an exegete? I'm not a Calvinist, but I think you are dodging this issue.

Oz

I'm not dodging anything, the text could not be clearer. If Calvin had done exegetical work it would be in his commentaries, it's just not. Do you know anything about Calvin because the Geneva Bible was a very big deal for the early Protestants. It was the work of William Tyndale and I doubt seriously he gave the creation of the sun, moon or stars a lot of thought. He certainly didn't have access to a modern lexicon.

 

[mark kennedy]

An exegete means "an expounder or textual interpreter, especially of scripture."
Please explain at length why you say "Calvin was not an exegetical scholar" if he interpreted the texts in his commentaries.



Here are Tyndal's words:
16 And God made two great lyghtes A greater lyghte to rule the daye and a lesse lyghte to rule the nyghte and he made sterres also.

Tyndal interprets the word to be "make", not "set" or "install".
Tyndal says God "made" the sun on day 4.

Answer the question, do you believe in the miracles of the Bible because I'm not chasing this in circles. Made is different then creation, I don't know how you guys so often avoid the obvious but it's telling.

 

[rakovsky]

I'm not dodging anything, the text could not be clearer. If Calvin had done exegetical work it would be in his commentaries, it's just not. Do you know anything about Calvin because the Geneva Bible was a very big deal for the early Protestants. It was the work of William Tyndale and I doubt seriously he gave the creation of the sun, moon or stars a lot of thought. He certainly didn't have access to a modern lexicon.

Please keep writing about this. You are on a roll. It is so refreshing to hear. This is one of the best messages so far.

 

[Hoghead1]

It's pretty well-established that Calvin, being a humanist lawyer, was not very accurate when he came to understanding/exegeting the Bible.



Is it your intention to ignore every answer you're given and continue to ask the same questions all the time? It would appear your agenda is not really to learn anything but to try to propagate your own propaganda?

Woah! What is your basis for making that claim about Calvin? It appears way, way off base. However, I am curious what your source is here. I am the translator of two published volumes of his sermons, and I sure didn't find him ignorant about Scripture. Matter of fact, he generally reads from the or9iginal text.

 

[mark kennedy]

Please keep writing about this. You are on a roll. It is so refreshing to hear. This is one of the best messages so far.

Sure, just answer the question, do you believe in the miracles of the Bible? Is this a hard question? I'm a Calvinist, I agree with him on much if not most of his theology. He was wrong on this point as are most creationists, so what?

 

[rakovsky]

Woah! What is your basis for making that claim about Calvin? It appears way, way off base. However, I am curious what your source is here. I am the translator of two published volumes of his sermons, and I sure didn't find him ignorant about Scripture. Matter of fact, he generally reads from the or9iginal text.

Shhhhhhh.....
Let's hear StanJ and Mark write more about this.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't think you can be so certain that you can say, 'I know we are dealing with two different creation stories from two different time periods' in Gen 1 and 2. Why? You weren't there to know that. We can only judge on the material we have before us.

Let's look at a couple factors from Gen 2:

What does Gen 2:1 mean?

• 'Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them' (ESV);
  
• 'Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array' (NIV);
• 'Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts' (NASB);
• 'So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them.' (Douay-Rheims).

There are a few different translations that are very similar, but it indicates that the heavens and the earth are finished and it looks back at that finished product.

Then we move to Gen 2:4 (ESV), which states: 'These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens'.

If you read my article, Alleged discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2, you will read Gleason Archer's assessment. He was a Hebrew scholar who spoke approx 30 Oriental languages. He wrote: 'Verse 4 [of Gen 2] then sums up the whole sequence that has just been surveyed by saying, "These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made heaven and earth. Having finished the overall survey of the subject, the author then develops in detail one important feature that has already been mentioned: the creation of man. Kenneth Kitchen says,

"Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism" (Ancient Orient, p. 117)…."​

To what is the phrase, 'these are the generations' (Gen 2:4 ESV) referring with the word 'these'? The author is referring to the information described that precedes Gen 2:4, realising that what is in Gen ch. 2 (from 2:4 onwards) is not in chronological order but has a primary emphasis on human beings.

Gen 2:4 onwards is dealing with primary information on human beings. Ch 2:4ff is an exposition of Gen 1:1-2:3.

'In the day that Yahweh God made heaven and earth' (Gen 2:4) is an excellent example of where 'day' does not mean a 24-hour period. Proponents of 2 different accounts of creation in Gen 1 and 2 often point to an alleged contradiction that revolves around the order in which plants were created, plants coming on the third day (Gen 1:11) but Gen 2:9 has plants appearing after the creation of Adam. The information is otherwise than this because the plants as a general category have been declared in Gen 1:11, but specific plants that needed someone (Adam) to till the ground are in Gen 2:5-7 and 3:17-19. Why are these specific plants that need cultivation and support added in 2:8-9? They needed Adam to till the ground for them to grow and flourish.

From the biblical evidence of Gen 1 & 2, I consider that an excellent case can be made of one creation account and not 2 different creation stories from 2 different time periods.

Oz

The chronologies of the accounts are contradictory. The linguistic styles are very different. Gen. 2 is narrative style, which existed before the liturgical (Gen. 1). And then there would be the matter of spelling, punctuation, word usage, etc. I hate to repost something I already said, but below, is my account of the Gernesis situation, just in case you missed it.

1. 
   
   
   
   
   
   When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
   
   
   
   Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
   
   “The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from two different time periods.
   
   
   
   Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
   
   
   
   There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
   
   
   
   There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
   
   
   
   There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
   
   
   
   Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
   
   
   
   Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

 

[rakovsky]

Sure, just answer the question, do you believe in the miracles of the Bible?

Let me give you part of the answer, hoping you will tell me more about how Calvin is not an exegete...
I voted for #4 because I accept a geocentric system, which is what the Bible writers say many times, eg. when it says many times that the earth is "immobile", "firm", "established", "will never be moved", has "foundations", and that the sun goes around it, except for that time when it "stood still" for Joshua.

Now pretty please tell me more of how Calvin is not an exegete and didn't have a lexicon, and what you were saying about this.

 

[rakovsky]

The chronologies of the accounts are contradictory. The linguistic styles are very different. Gen. 2 is narrative style, which existed before the liturgical (Gen. 1). And then there would be the matter of spelling, punctuation, word usage, etc. I hate to repost something I already said, but below, is my account of the Gernesis situation, just in case you missed it.

1. 
   
   
   
   
   
   When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
   
   
   
   Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
   
   “The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from two different time periods.
   
   
   
   Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
   
   
   
   There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
   
   
   
   There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
   
   
   
   There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
   
   
   
   Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
   
   
   
   Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

This is the third or fourth time you've quoted this bloated largesse with no tags around it, and we have already replied to it.
Please stop now.

 

[mark kennedy]

Let me give you part of the answer, hoping you will tell me more about how Calvin is not an exegete...
I voted for #4 because I accept a geocentric system, which is what the Bible writers say many times, eg. when it says that many times that the earth is "immobile", "firm", "established", "will never be moved", has "foundations", and that the sun goes around it, except for that time when it stopped for Joshua.

Now pretty please tell me more of how Calvin is not an exegete and didn't have a lexicon, and what you were saying about this.

What? You believe in a geocentric solar system? By the way, the sun didn't really have to stop in Joshua even though the author obviously thought so, the day light just had to be prolonged. Calvin knew a good deal about the Scriptures, even in the original, but was was not an exegetical scholar. It was a very new approach and diametrically opposed to Rome. They had Texus Recepticus but they certainly didn't have modern lexicons and the issue of God creating the heavens and the earth was not a real question. So now we are looking at Calvin saying he thought the sun, moon and stars on day four. What we don't have is a question in the mind of Calvin whether or not God created the heavens the earth or life. Unlike today.

 

[Hoghead1]

Consider the actual meaning of the words, you are equivocating bara with asah. There is no reasonable basis for this. Why don't you take a good look at the actual definition and realize there is a progression of thought here.

1 Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound thological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...all other verbs for “creating” allow a much broader range of meaning. a carefull study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses, primarily in Genesis, the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistant material. Things created, made and set by God: the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; 65:17); man (Gen. 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; Ps. 89:47; Isa. 43:7; 45:12); Israel (Isa. 43:1; Mal. 2:10); a new thing (Jer. 31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa. 4:5); north and south (Ps. 89:12); lsalvation and righteousness (Isa. 45:8); speech (Isa. 57:19); darkness (Isa. 45:7); wind (Amos 4:13); and a new heart (Ps. 51:10).' (Vine 51)

2 Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52). Used once of how God ’made’, the ‘firmament’ (Gen. 1:7), aka, ‘sky’ or ‘atmosphere’. It is, 'analogous to the sky being hammered out like a silver or gold overlay. Used once for plants ’yielding’ fruit (Gen. 1:11, 12), aka, procreation. Then three times used used in parallel with bara, saying that God ‘made’ the sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1:16), then later ‘made’ the beast of the earth (Gen 1:25) and finally God says, Let us ‘make’ H6213 man (Gen. 1:26).
​

Answer the question, do you believe in the miracles of the Bible?

Have a nice day
Mark

Genesis does not use anywhere near what we would term as "scientific language." Also, miracles aren't the issue here. The issue is what is the natural order and how does God work in and through that. Miracles and the supernatural belong in a separate thread.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't want to interfere but Papias almost has a point here. Moses was a Levite, the Pentateuch was put together by the Levites, Moses was just the chief scribe. There is a point late in Genesis where it says Moses died, we don't really believe Moses wrote that. Mosaic authorship is not in question, even if he did not write every single word. The Pentateuch was complete before the children of Israel crossed Jordon, Moses overseen the compilation. There can be no serious question about that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Yes, there is very serious question about that. Modern biblical scholarship would seriously challenge just about everything you have to say here.

 

[mark kennedy]

Genesis does not use anywhere near what we would term as "scientific language." Also, miracles aren't the issue here. The issue is what is the natural order and how does God work in and through that. Miracles and the supernatural belong in a separate thread.

Number one, miracles are what we are talking about and I have reminded you repeatedly, nonnicene posters are not welcome here. Creation is a miracle. As far as the meaning of 'science' the word means knowledge and it's never been more then an epistemology, a methodology and an investigation of natural phenomenon. So why don't you think about the words you throw around as if you had seriously thought about their meaning.