Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Speedwell]

Well, it appears that I have gotten what I asked for, but I had no idea that our views of scripture would turn out to be so profoundly different.

Something to keep in mind: Just as I believe that no possible discovery of science can deny God's authorship of the universe, I believe that no conclusion of the "higher critics," even if correct, can undermine the authority of scripture. I know that you have had to contend with people who think higher criticism does just that, but I do not and many, perhaps some millions, of Christians agree with me.

To set aside the vexed question of Genesis for a moment, consider the Book of Daniel as an example: There is a large body of convincing scholarship which attributes the Book of Daniel to an anonymous author writing in the mid second century BC during the tyranny of Antiochus IV rather than the time of Nebuchadnezzar in which it was set. Daniel was a well known folk hero and there are many stories about him in ancient Jewish and Canaanite literature (there are several, for example, to be found in the Apocrypha) so it is not unprecedented that an unknown author writing in the second century should produce another "Daniel" story to convey his message. I think it likely that you will not agree with any of this, but I find it plausible.

Further--and this is the important part--I do not believe that it necessarily constitutes a denial of the divine inspiration or authority of scripture nor, had Jesus happened to have quoted the Book of Daniel, would it amount to "calling Christ a liar."

Comments?

 

[Speedwell]

Try me, I'm serious about this. I use a resource called Blue Letter Bible which includes Lexicons, dictionaries and a pretty respectable concordance. There are ways back to the original for the layman, even the novice. It is not without its challenges but it can be done. Give it a shot, we might both learn something.

No, I don't think it's possible. The story--as a story--possesses great value accessible to the layman. I love it and almost every time I read it I find something new, some new twist to think about. Good religious stories are multifaceted like that. On the other hand, you are starting with the preconceived idea that the story must be historical and are using what I consider to be inadequate resources to investigate that aspect of the problem. It skirts too close to the "private interpretation" St. Paul warned us about for my comfort.

 

[rjs330]

Once again there is no scriptural evidence,that the story in Genesis is not true and only allegorical in nature. Zip, ZERO NADA. In fact there is scriptural evidence,to the contrary.

Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:45‭-‬49 ESV
http://bible.com/59/1co.15.45-49.ESV

Paul uses Adam an,actual,person and reaffirms,the Genesis account. The whole chapter deals with Christ being the second Adam and we all believe Jesus was an actual,person.

Moses wrote that the creation story was real in Exodus.

The genesis story was the,accepted fact in the church until Darwinism reared its,ugly head. Now Christians for whatever reason decided to follow a believe instilled by an ungodly man rather than follow what is clearly written in the word,of God written by Prophets and apostles who were inspired,by God himself. I just don't understand why we would do such a thing. Especially when other scriptures testify of the veracity of the creation account and there are absolutely NO indications in scripture that evolution is even remotely true.

Why take Genesis as an allegory not truth, but accept the rest,of the bible as truth? Except to reconcile holy scripture with a man made,ungodly theory? It makes No sense to me.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Speedwell]

Why take Genesis as an allegory not truth, but accept the rest,of the bible as truth? Except to reconcile holy scripture with a man made,ungodly theory? It makes No sense to me.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

You are not paying attention. Mark and I are not arguing the question at this point. We are trying--gingerly--to clear up misunderstandings about each other's positions so that some kind of civil discussion might emerge.

Here's one for you: I see no reason whatever to regard "allegory" and "truth" as mutually exclusive. And, no, making that statement is not an argument for Genesis as allegory.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, it appears that I have gotten what I asked for, but I had no idea that our views of scripture would turn out to be so profoundly different.

Have a little confidence in the text. The meaning is comprehensive and the rationalizations we all bring to the text are generally negligible.

Something to keep in mind: Just as I believe that no possible discovery of science can deny God's authorship of the universe, I believe that no conclusion of the "higher critics," even if correct, can undermine the authority of scripture. I know that you have had to contend with people who think higher criticism does just that, but I do not and many, perhaps some millions, of Christians agree with me.

What they did is to say that the use of the divine article, the covenant name of God is invoked for the first time in Genesis 2. This led them to conclude that it was a different author. There are some marginal things distinct in the text but not to any substantial degree. God in Genesis 1 is Elohim which means God Almighty. The divine article is God's name declared from the burning bush at Sinai in answer to the question, 'Who shall I say sent me'. The links to the Lexicon are provided in case your interested.

(H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym),
(H3068 יְהֹוָה Yĕhovah),

Higher criticism doesn't really make much of an argument. There is no real indication that Genesis 2 was somehow added since it fits a logical literary pattern. There is little reason to see the two chapters as anything other then a natural progression of the narrative. The view of the opening verses is panoramic over the whole of creation. Then the view is the Spirit hovering over the face of the deep which follows the progression from something of a closer but lets say, aerial view. Then the narrator moves in closer and in more detailed fashion further explains the details of the creation of man and the planting of the Garden of Eden. It's not a difficult exposition as long as you let the narrator tell the story and take some time to be sensitive to the literary features.

To set aside the vexed question of Genesis for a moment, consider the Book of Daniel as an example: There is a large body of convincing scholarship which attributes the Book of Daniel to an anonymous author writing in the mid second century BC during the tyranny of Antiochus IV rather than the time of Nebuchadnezzar in which it was set. Daniel was a well known folk hero and there are many stories about him in ancient Jewish and Canaanite literature (there are several, for example, to be found in the Apocrypha) so it is not unprecedented that an unknown author writing in the second century should produce another "Daniel" story to convey his message. I think it likely that you will not agree with any of this, but I find it plausible.

The book of Danial was written by Danial:

Several verses indicate that the writer is Daniel (8:15,27; 9:2; 10:2,7; 12:4,5), whose name means “God is my Judge.” He wrote in the autobiographical first person from 7:2 on, and is to be distinguished from the other 3 Daniel’s of the OT (cf. 1 Chr. 3:1; Ezra 8:2; Neh. 10:6). Danial
​

There is also from the same period Esther that tells a very similar story about the fulfillment of God's promise to preserve the nation of Israel. Nehemiah and Ezra are a continuation of the narrative as the setting moves from the court of Gentile rulers to Israel back in the land, fulfilling the promises made during the 8th century, Amos, Micah, Isaiah Hosea and others. The predictive prophecies of the 2nd and 7th chapter were meticulously fulfilled and this one predicted the coming of the Messiah to the day:

Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. (Danial 9: 25,26)
​

That gives a specific time line for the coming of the Messiah and his crucifixion, literally fulfilled hundreds of years later. It further predicts the destruction of the Temple before the new one is even built.

Further--and this is the important part--I do not believe that it necessarily constitutes a denial of the divine inspiration or authority of scripture nor, had Jesus happened to have quoted the Book of Daniel, would it amount to "calling Christ a liar."

Comments?

Jesus quotes Danial at the Olivette Discourse where he discusses the events leading up to his return. The last of the seventy sevens remains unfulfilled until the commencement of the Tribulation. Half way through the Antichrist commits the Abomination that causes devastation.

Now, lets see if we can make it back to Genesis 2, there are some important details that need to be examined.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

What they did is to say that the use of the divine article, the covenant name of God is invoked for the first time in Genesis 2. This led them to conclude that it was a different author. There are some marginal things distinct in the text but not to any substantial degree. God in Genesis 1 is Elohim which means God Almighty. The divine article is God's name declared from the burning bush at Sinai in answer to the question, 'Who shall I say sent me'. The links to the Lexicon are provided in case your interested.

(H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym),
(H3068 יְהֹוָה Yĕhovah),

Higher criticism doesn't really make much of an argument. There is no real indication that Genesis 2 was somehow added since it fits a logical literary pattern. There is little reason to see the two chapters as anything other then a natural progression of the narrative. The view of the opening verses is panoramic over the whole of creation. Then the view is the Spirit hovering over the face of the deep which follows the progression from something of a closer but lets say, aerial view. Then the narrator moves in closer and in more detailed fashion further explains the details of the creation of man and the planting of the Garden of Eden. It's not a difficult exposition as long as you let the narrator tell the story and take some time to be sensitive to the literary features.

I am often at a loss as how to respond to your posts. It's like listening to someone trying to convince you that grass is blue and sky is green, someone who is absolutely convinced of it and can cite sources which seem initially to support it. I'm not suggesting that your position is as ridiculous as that, but it is just as strange to me and as hard to reconcile with my own perceptions. Even just reading those two stories in English, they seem to be too different, and the insistence that they are a single continuous narrative strikes me as forced.

But was I right before? Is an accurate and complete history of the world from creation to the end times really the main point of the Bible for you?

Maybe that would help me see the need for the stories to be a single continuous narrative.

Who knows? In the end you may be right about the literary genre of the Genesis stories, but I am going to have to challenge you for your source of information on the "Higher Criticism" position. I believe there is a good deal more to it than that.

The book of Danial was written by Danial:

So it may be. I was merely making the point that if the Higher Criticism position was the correct one, it would not necessarily deny the divine inspiration and authority of scripture.

​

 

[mark kennedy]

Once again there is no scriptural evidence,that the story in Genesis is not true and only allegorical in nature. Zip, ZERO NADA. In fact there is scriptural evidence,to the contrary.

Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:45‭-‬49 ESV
http://bible.com/59/1co.15.45-49.ESV

There are extensive references to Adam and Genesis, notably Paul in Romans five does an extensive discussion comparing our first parent to Christ.

Paul uses Adam an,actual,person and reaffirms,the Genesis account. The whole chapter deals with Christ being the second Adam and we all believe Jesus was an actual,person.

A theme throughout the New Testament. Luke ends his genealogy saying Adam the son of God. That is due to the fact that Adam had no human parents.

Moses wrote that the creation story was real in Exodus.

There was really No question that Adam was the first parent of mankind until modern times. The early church fathers wrote extensively on the subject of original sin, not one suggested he was somehow allegorical. The Old Testament refers to humanity by Adams name over four hundred times the way it refers to Israel by the Jews father's name.

Your preaching to the choir.

The genesis story was the,accepted fact in the church until Darwinism reared its,ugly head. Now Christians for whatever reason decided to follow a believe instilled by an ungodly man rather than follow what is clearly written in the word,of God written by Prophets and apostles who were inspired,by God himself. I just don't understand why we would do such a thing. Especially when other scriptures testify of the veracity of the creation account and there are absolutely NO indications in scripture that evolution is even remotely true.

The Pew Institute has tracted Creationism in the US since the eighties. The belief that God made man pretty much like he is today about six thousand years ago has held steady about forty four percent the entire time. We are winning the culture was but don't tell Darwinians they will freak out.

[quote uote]Why take Genesis as an allegory not truth, but accept the rest,of the bible as truth? Except to reconcile holy scripture with a man made,ungodly theory? It makes No sense to me.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Darwinians rarely discuss the rest of the Bible and avoid the New Testament like the plague, especially theistic evolutionists.Two thousand years of apologetics has discouraged them I think. Darwinism is just the latest thing and it's crumbling.

 

[Speedwell]

Darwinians rarely discuss the rest of the Bible and avoid the New Testament like the plague, especially theistic evolutionists.Two thousand years of apologetics has discouraged them I think. Darwinism is just the latest thing and it's crumbling.

Here I thought we were starting to get along and then you go and make a slanderous remark like that. I'm disappointed.

 

[mark kennedy]

I am often at a loss as how to respond to your posts. It's like listening to someone trying to convince you that grass is blue and sky is green, someone who is absolutely convinced of it and can cite sources which seem initially to support it. I'm not suggesting that your position is as ridiculous as that, but it is just as strange to me and as hard to reconcile with my own perceptions. Even just reading those two stories in English, they seem to be too different, and the insistence that they are a single continuous narrative strikes me as forced.

The two narratives are very different because of the subject matter. The first chapter describes how God created, made and set The features of the earth to make them suitable for life. There is no discussion of the heaven's, the expanse, the seas or So many of the creatures created in all their vast array. The focus of the second chapter is the planting of domesticated plants in a garden designed specifically for man. The gardens of The ancient world are often featured throughout the Bible. Of course they seem different, the content is different.

But was I right before? Is an accurate and complete history of the world from creation to the end times really the main point of the Bible for you?

Is the point of Holy Scripture the unfolding of human and redemptive history as it develops in all its vast array? The good news of the Gospel are true and reasonable reports of God's interaction with humanity culminating in the death, burial, resurrection and soon return of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ coming in power and glory.

That's the point of historicity, we are involved in this narrative personally and forever.

Somehow the fact that I believe this puzzles you. I honestly have no idea why.

Maybe that would help me see the need for the stories to be a single continuous narrative.

Who knows? In the end you may be right about the literary genre of the Genesis stories, but I am going to have to challenge you for your source of information on the "Higher Criticism" position. I believe there is a good deal more to it than that.

The whole JEPD higher criticism fiasco has a hundred years of scholarship focused almost exclusively on semantics. I would challenge you to seek out those theories as they pertain to the text before I do an extensive annotated bibliography.

So it may be. I was merely making the point that if the Higher Criticism position was the correct one, it would not necessarily deny the divine inspiration and authority of scripture.

I would suggest you learn more about the profoundly secular treatment of Scripture by unbelievers before jumping to any conclusions. Then there is always the text itself, why not try an exposition?

 

[mark kennedy]

Here I thought we were starting to get along and then you go and make a slanderous remark like that. I'm disappointed.

Its a fact, most theistic evolutionist aren't interested in discussing the rest of Scripture and rarely even mention miracles. That's been my experience, if something New comes along I'd love to see it.

 

[Speedwell]

Its a fact, most theistic evolutionist aren't interested in discussing the rest of Scripture and rarely even mention miracles. That's been my experience, if something New comes along I'd love to see it.

The reason I don't much, in forums like this, is because of general agreement with Fundamentalists about the Gospels.

 

[mark kennedy]

The reason I don't much, in forums like this, is because of general agreement with Fundamentalists about the Gospels.

I wasn't referring to you but a lot is confirmed in the New Testament. Creationism is actually a New Testament doctrine. You will never see this kind of debate among rabbis.

 

[Papias]

We are winning the culture was but don't tell Darwinians they will freak out.

Um, mark, remember discussing this before? Or did you "forget" again? It's abundantly clear that conservatives aren't winning the culture wars, as you've already been shown multiple times.

You can tell non-conservatives that they lost the culture wars all you want. We won't freak out, but some may laugh at you.

T
The Pew Institute has tracted Creationism in the US since the eighties. The belief that God made man pretty much like he is today about six thousand years ago has held steady about forty four percent the entire time.

Don't you mean Gallup? If so, here's the data:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

I agree that in this poll series, creationism seems to be roughly holding steady. Creationism might be dropping off (the two lowest points since 1982 are recent), but I don't think the data supports a claim that it's dropping off. However, the other two lines do show a trend (theistic evolution decreasing and atheistic evolution increasing). Based on the Gallup data, one can't reasonably claim that conservatives are "winning the culture wars".

Plus, creationism is decreasing when looked at with other poll data (Gallup is known to be conservative). Pew data puts creationism at just 33%.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

Plus, as you can see, it's even lower among the fastest growing group, the unaffiliated, so the creationist view is likely shrinking. It's telling that Gallup hasn't updated their poll in over two years - it could show lower data for creationists based on the trend shown by the Pew data.

OK, so the conservative view here is losing. What about the other culture wars you claim conservatives are winning?
Pat Buchanan listed several in his famous 1992 RNC speech. They included:

Abortion
Women in the military (not allowed then)
gays in the military (not allowed then)
Gay marriage (not allowed then)
Biblical instruction in public schools
Prayer in public schools
Legalization of marijuana

So, where are we after 24 years?

Abortion - no change
Women in the military - (allowed now)
gays in the military - (allowed now)
Gay marriage - (allowed now)
Biblical instruction in public schools - No change
Prayer in public schools - No change
Legalization of marijuana - (Legal in some states, more in a year)

It's pretty clear that conservatives aren't "winning the culture wars". One could debate whether they are slowly losing the culture wars or losing them so fast that it's a full scale retreat. Which would you choose?

It's also worth noting that just a couple years ago, we discussed this, and you then dropped the "winning the culture wars" line, and instead (after others pointed out that evolution wasn't losing ground) moved to a "stalemate" position. See post #39, here:http://www.christianforums.com/thre...intelligent-design-gallup-poll.7780050/page-2

T
Darwinians rarely discuss the rest of the Bible and avoid the New Testament like the plague, especially theistic evolutionists.Two thousand years of apologetics has discouraged them I think. Darwinism is just the latest thing and it's crumbling.

Sounds like more trash talk. Hey, you forgot to talk about shooting ghosts in a foggy barrel. And, newsflash - the tired old "Darwinism is crumbling" line only looks silly.

The two narratives are very different because of the subject matter.

I thought you were well aware of the fact that scholars know they look different because they were written by different people, at different times, with different beliefs. Those are scholars who have studied the texts their whole lives, who know how to speak Hebrew (instead of "hey, I'll look up this Hebrew word in a lexicon and pretend I understand Hebrew...").

Danial was written by Danial

Scholars agree that Daniel was written hundreds of years after the traditional date in many ways. First of all, no one mentions the book existing until then. Also, the "prophecies" are clearly written in hindsight (like you or I writing "prophecy" about the Clinton family in politics today), because they are exactly accurate up to a year ~165 BC, then are no longer accurate. There are other clear reasons too, which we could get into, but hey, we both know we aren't scholars, and have the humility not to pretend to be experts in things we are not experts in, right?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Speedwell]

Is the point of Holy Scripture the unfolding of human and redemptive history as it develops in all its vast array? The good news of the Gospel are true and reasonable reports of God's interaction with humanity culminating in the death, burial, resurrection and soon return of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ coming in power and glory.

That's the point of historicity, we are involved in this narrative personally and forever.

Somehow the fact that I believe this puzzles you. I honestly have no idea why.

What puzzles me is the spin you put on it. It is all but universally believed by Christians that the point of our existence is the unfolding of human and redemptive history as it develops in all its vast array, as you put it. Whether the purpose of the Bible is to give us a complete and 100% factually accurate account of that panorama is another question. Even so, I cannot for the life of me see how the proposition that the first two Genesis stories may have had two different (human) authors is any threat to it at all.

 

[mark kennedy]

What puzzles me is the spin you put on it. It is all but universally believed by Christians that the point of our existence is the unfolding of human and redemptive history as it develops in all its vast array, as you put it. Whether the purpose of the Bible is to give us a complete and 100% factually accurate account of that panorama is another question. Even so, I cannot for the life of me see how the proposition that the first two Genesis stories may have had two different (human) authors is any threat to it at all.

Who said anything about authorship? Moses didn't write the entire Pentetauch, Moses was from the tribe of Levi, the Law was entrusted yo the priests. The opening chapters are clearly special direct revelation which could have only been written by Moses. Some random scribe just adding a passage is absurd, in fact the skeptics often say it was added after the return from Babylon. Its a lot like Darwinianism; suppositional, pedantic, rhetoric.

 

[Speedwell]

Who said anything about authorship? Moses didn't write the entire Pentetauch, Moses was from the tribe of Levi, the Law was entrusted yo the priests. The opening chapters are clearly special direct revelation which could have only been written by Moses. Some random scribe just adding a passage is absurd, in fact the skeptics often say it was added after the return from Babylon. Its a lot like it's Darwinianism; suppositional, pedantic, rhetoric.

And some Creationists claim that the creation accounts were written by Adam and redacted by Moses. So what?

 

[mark kennedy]

Um, mark, remember discussing this before? Or did you "forget" again? It's abundantly clear that conservatives aren't winning the culture wars, as you've already been shown multiple times.

If you can call begging the question of proof on your hands and knees maybe. The issues involved have never reached resolution and who ever said I was cheering for the conservatives, they only joined in the Culture wars to court evangelicals.

You can tell non-conservatives that they lost the culture wars all you want. We won't freak out, but some may laugh at you.

This isn't the first time cultural issues have clashed between secular and spiritual movements. What the secular and academic elites don't see peering down from their ivory towers is that they are few and we are many. They get to rule like Medieval aristrocates but they don't get to dictate moral and religious conviction.

Don't you mean Gallup? If so, here's the data:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

I agree that in this poll series, creationism seems to be roughly holding steady. Creationism might be dropping off (the two lowest points since 1982 are recent), but I don't think the data supports a claim that it's dropping off. However, the other two lines do show a trend (theistic evolution decreasing and atheistic evolution increasing). Based on the Gallup data, one can't reasonably claim that conservatives are "winning the culture wars".

That's right Gallop, doing this from s phone today.

Plus, creationism is decreasing when looked at with other poll data (Gallup is known to be conservative). Pew data puts creationism at just 33%.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

Plus, as you can see, it's even lower among the fastest growing group, the unaffiliated, so the creationist view is likely shrinking. It's telling that Gallup hasn't updated their poll in over two years - it could show lower data for creationists based on the trend shown by the Pew data.

I doubt seriously Creationism is shrinking but you know what is? Theistic 'guided' evolution is being absorbed into the ranks of the materialistic exclusively naturalistic crowd. It was never that far to go.

OK, so the conservative view here is losing. What about the other culture wars you claim conservatives are winning?
Pat Buchanan listed several in his famous 1992 RNC speech. They included:

Abortion
Women in the military (not allowed then)
gays in the military (not allowed then)
Gay marriage (not allowed then)
Biblical instruction in public schools
Prayer in public schools
Legalization of marijuana

So, where are we after 24 years?

Abortion - no change
Women in the military - (allowed now)
gays in the military - (allowed now)
Gay marriage - (allowed now)
Biblical instruction in public schools - No change
Prayer in public schools - No change
Legalization of marijuana - (Legal in some states, more in a year)

It's pretty clear that conservatives aren't "winning the culture wars". One could debate whether they are slowly losing the culture wars or losing them so fast that it's a full scale retreat. Which would you choose?

Dude seriously I'm. a Democrat I can't stand conservati e pandering on cultural issues. I think the problem here is you think you know science, religion and even my political views better then I do, that's highly presumptive and usually wrong.

It's also worth noting that just a couple years ago, we discussed this, and you then dropped the "winning the culture wars" line, and instead (after others pointed out that evolution wasn't losing ground) moved to a "stalemate" position. See post #39, here:http://www.christianforums.com/thre...intelligent-design-gallup-poll.7780050/page-2

You know I don't go rummaging through old threads, although I'm found of recurring themes.

Sounds like more trash talk. Hey, you forgot to talk about shooting ghosts in a foggy barrel. And, newsflash - the tired old "Darwinism is crumbling" line only looks silly.




I thought you were well aware of the fact that scholars know they look different because they were written by different people, at different times, with different beliefs. Those are scholars who have studied the texts their whole lives, who know how to speak Hebrew (instead of "hey, I'll look up this Hebrew word in a lexicon and pretend I understand Hebrew...").

Wow resorting to ad hominem early, and after you started with so much energy to. You should learn to pace yourself.

Scholars agree that Daniel was written hundreds of years after the traditional date in many ways. First of all, no one mentions the book existing until then. Also, the "prophecies" are clearly written in hindsight (like you or I writing "prophecy" about the Clinton family in politics today), because they are exactly accurate up to a year ~165 BC, then are no longer accurate. There are other clear reasons too, which we could get into, but hey, we both know we aren't scholars, and have the humility not to pretend to be experts in things we are not experts in, right?

You mean unbelieving modernists who shun anything miraculous or even theistic pontificate a history to fit their worldview instead of the other way around. I've done the reading and I hold to tradition even if it's unpopular with worldly people.

 

[mark kennedy]

And some Creationists claim that the creation accounts were written by Adam and redacted by Moses. So what?

There are some odd speculation about tablets and such and they are baseless supposition. Oral tradition in the few cultures who still use it is more accurate then written records. The genealogists were establish and recorded. it is unlikely in the extreme that they were delivered by means of special reevaluation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There are some odd speculation about tablets and such and they are baseless supposition. Oral tradition in the few cultures who still use it is more accurate then written records. The genealogists were establish and recorded.

(enjoy this, that's all it's for):

HOW could ADAM write???
(he couldn't - HE didn't have a public grade school education nor a high school DIMPLOMA!)

for real: remember he remembered easily and created the names for all the different animals as Yhwh brought them to him.
Yhwh did not tell him what to call them(unless in some instances He wanted to).

 

[mark kennedy]

(enjoy this, that's all it's for):

HOW could ADAM write???
(he couldn't - HE didn't have a public grade school education nor a high school DIMPLOMA!)

for real: remember he remembered easily and created the names for all the different animals as Yhwh brought them to him.
Yhwh did not tell him what to call them(unless in some instances He wanted to).

You know people could have just remembered, like I said oral tradition is better then written records and the ancients were smarter then us. There is a similar theory called the Q document. Without a shred of proof Euorepean scholars made this fictitious common course up out of no where. I don't know where these ideas come from but I keep my tin foil hat close just in case the start making sense to me .

nt