Moses wrote Genesis working from the oldest writings in the world

[SkyWriting]

Someone told me the other day that they would'nt read the Bible because it was written by men.

Fear not. God has that covered.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[Calminian]

RU saying "Adam & Eve had other son's and daughter's and Cain's wife was one of them?" Or something else. ?

Cain's wife was either Cain's sister, or niece or grand niece. In fact, Cain was likely already married when he murdered Abel. He and Abel were likely over a century old when they had their confrontation. We know this because Seth was Abel's replacement, and Adam was 130 years old when he begat Seth.

Keep in mind that the record never said that Cain found a wife in Nod. It's possible he merely took his current wife to Nod and procreated with her there. It's also possible his current wife left him for killing her brother Abel, and he had to find a new wife. It's also possible that among those he was fleeing from where his own sons, grandsons and great grandsons, all furious about uncle Abel. There were likely cities of people already in existence, from Cain and Abel as well as other direct sons and daughters of Adam. in 130 years, Adam and his sons and daughters would have multiplied like crazy. Can you image how hot Eve must have been? She was the only woman that was a direct creation of God. I highly doubt Adam only got the twinkle in his eye every 65 years.

 

[SkyWriting]

She was the only woman that was a direct creation of God. I highly doubt Adam only got the twinkle in his eye every 65 years.

Her looks are not too relevant. She was a perfect match. When your personalities click you don't see surface features.
Like I don't see my grandmother's wrinkles in my mind. Just the smile.

What is the function of the "rib" story?

 

[Calminian]

Her looks are not too relevant. She was a perfect match. When your personalities click you don't see surface features.
Like I don't see my grandmother's wrinkles in my mind. Just the smile.
..

You don't think Adam looked at Eve for the first time and said, "WOW MAN!!"?

 

[Assyrian]

Unless the writing was passed down to someone less intelligent. I don't consider the Talaban intelligent for example. But they have a written culture.

So you have intelligent cultures and races who came up with writing, some less intelligent cultures who were taught writing, and less intelligent cultures who never learned to write?

It really depends on the starting point. You're liberalism is showing.

So to avoid being liberal I need to start looking down on other cultures and races?

But the story does show him talking. That in and of itself is a miracle.

Which is the point I have been making. It is one thing to propose a miracle to explains what the literal interpretation of the text says. That is quite different from making up things that aren't in the text and claiming miracles to explain those too.

And now we have good textual evidence from archeological evidence that Adam was the owner if this account.

Again some archaeological evidence for this claim would be great.

I'm just going by what all the experts on both sides say. t's not a mystery that early Genesis texts have a lot of babylonian terms and the latter genesis texts have a lot of egyptian words. Do your favorite experts disagree?

I thought you were talking about what was obvious form the text. If you what to go by what most conservative and liberal scholars agree on you would need you would need to drop the colophon idea and that Adam wrote the text of Genesis 2-4.

Yes! That was the main drive. The early developers did not believe that writing existed at Moses time, and therefore they came up with this theory. They were not enlightened by modern archeology. The truth is, their theory would never and gotten off the ground had it not been for ignorance.

Why? Writing existing earlier wouldn't mean Genesis was written earlier. The evidence from the text itself points to it being edited together when the Canaanites no longer lived in the region. It is the text itself that told then that the editor composed it from earlier documents.
As far as I can see you just want to think that the dating of writing was the main reason so you can ignore all the the other evidence that led them to their conclusions.

The problem is, the following was so cult-like that once modern archeology did shed light on the subject, they were too entrenched to give it up.

Speaking of which...

What evidence? Total nonsense. All the evidence points to Moses as the primary compiler translator and redactor. Now if you want to argue that there were post mosaic redactors, I have no problem with this.
But Christ himself referred to him as the writer of the book of the law, and Christ's quotes indicate this to be the first 5 books of the Bible. To ignore this is to admit you don't trust Christ. You can beat around the bush all you want, but you can't deny Mosaic authorship without deny Christ's reliability.

You agree there is evidence for Genesis being composed of earlier texts and that there could have been post exilic redactors. Apart from your groundless claim Adam had clay tablets with the first parts of Genesis on it, your only evidence for Moses bring the main editor is not the text of Genesis, or any archaeological evidence, but your interpretation of Jesus' statements, which so far you haven't been able to defend. Like Is said before, it is not enough that Jesus' statements fit your idea of Moses as the editor, you need to show that they contradict mine. It is possible you will answer this further down your post if so I will address it there.

Now to be fair, some liberal scholars on your side do do this. They cling to a kenosis type explanation claiming that Christ was only aware of the tradition of his day. You see, even the liberal scholars on your side agree with me about what Christ's testimony in the N.T. implies. But they are more logically consistent, and deny Christ's reliability.

Claiming liberal scholars agree with you is not the same as backing up you argument from the text. Of course kenosis would be one possible answer if you could show Jesus thought Moses wrote the Pentateuch as is, but even the most conservative scholars understand Jesus used idiomatic language.

I may have missed it, if so please point me to the post, but I am not aware of anywhere that you showed the NT references to Moses mean Moses had to be the writer of our present Pentateuch, and that he could not have just written documents of laws and histories like the ones ascribed to him in Genesis to Deuteronomy, with the current form of the Pentateuch being the work of a later editor, as well as the Torah which contains the Mosaic laws and much of his writings being known by the title 'Moses'.

I think you're backpeddling here, and for good reason. Conservative scholars have no problem with inspired post-mosaic redactors. I certainly don't. There is evidence they may have inserted modern geographic names for their contemporary readers. But that doesn't make them authors. Moses was the author of the book (which has now been separated in to 5 books). Even the division of the 5 books is likely the work of a post mosaic redactor. The original probably all ran together. It's obvious that without Genesis Exodus just sort of starts in the middle and it's obvious that Lev. and Num. flow as a continuous story from Ex.

See? You are still not answering my point. It is not enough to say how much post exilic editing you (and conservative scholars) are willing to accept, what you need to show is that a more thorough work of compilation and editing would be contradicted by NT references to Moses.

What is interesting is how much of the discoveries of liberal scholarship over the past few centuries conservative scholars have come to accept, including Wiseman's realisation the Genesis really was composed of different documents. My point here is not to push liberal bible scholarship or to cling to tradition of Mosaic authorship, but to look at the text and see what we it shows us.

You need to be more specific. It is not about the names of the books, but the books we call by those names. We need specific statements by Jesus that say Moses wrote the books of the Pentateuch and wrote them in that form.

That's silly. Why?

Because you keep making the claim that what Jesus said about Moses means Moses must have been the editor of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch.

You kinda lost me. Seem to be getting upset, maybe not expressing yourself correctly.

It helps to look back over a few post to follow the line of our discussion. You switched between talking about Paul's use of the Septuagint to suggesting "so you don't believe Jesus read the Septuagint?" which made no sense in the context. Meanwhile you hadn't addressed my point about Paul's use of the Greek phrase.

Like I said, if you want to cling to this and to the obsolete JEDP theory, be my guest. It's so obvious, I think it's actually self evident that Adam's tablet is not speaking about the creation of heaven or earth. But I can only lead a horse to water.

If you want to try to make an argument that Adam's tablet is talking about the creation of heaven and earth, and the plants are not cultivated plants, I'd be happy to address it. Until this, I'll have to just disagree with your unsupported claims.

I have shown you what the text says. Call them unsupported if you like, they are still there. You can point to other things in the text but the acts of creation in the text are still there too. You can point to things the text does not describe being created, but the things it does describe are all still there.

That's an argument? Okay!

Ok.

Er, huh?

Compare the creation of plants in Genesis chapters one and two. In chapter one, the earth had just emerged from under water and God commanded the earth to produce grass and herbs and trees bearing fruit. This was three days before God created man. In Genesis two the earth is a dry and barren wilderness. Plants were unable to grow because there was no rain to water the ground and no farmer to till it. God moistened the earth with a mist, he then created man then we see him creating every kind of fruit tree.

Gen 1: wet earth emerges from the waters, God creates plants and trees, 3 day later, man.
Gen 2: dry barren earth without plants or trees, God created man, then created plants and trees.
​

You claim it was only cultivated plants the weren't there. But how could any plants have grown in the dry barren wilderness described in Genesis 2? Why were fruit tree created before man in Genesis 1 and after man in Genesis 2?

All animals in a sense were domesticated at that time, that that they were not hostile to man. You see, if you believe the text (which at that point you don't) it's not a problem. Animals at that time were very different than they are now. They were not a threat to man, and also were under the care of God, and apparently quite easy to care for. Plants would grow very easy at that time and animals could graze and never run out of food. It was like paradise! There were apparently beasts of the field which God had Adam name. And there were plants of the field with God had Adam grow. I doubt every single animal God created was there, probably just those useful to the Garden. The same with the plants.

But if you believe the text, none of this is a problem. It's only when you come in as a skeptic, that this stuff gets confusing.

The text distinguishes between beasts of the earth and livestock so claiming 'all animals in a sense were domesticated", is not following the text. You think 'believing the text' means finding a way to read it that gets rid of contradictions between the literal meaning Genesis 1 and Genesis two, but maybe those contradictions are really there and it is the text itself that is showing you your literal interpretation is wrong. Finding ways out of the plain meaning of the text may be how you try to believe the text but it is not being faithful to it.

I can see where you'd get confused like that not realizing this was a separate tablet not dealing with creation. Though context should have straightened things out for you, now that you know this was the story of the creation of a garden, it should just jump out at you. To me this text is so obvious a child couldn't get it wrong, if you get the titles right.

So you keep telling yourself. But the title you have for the tablet doesn't tell you whether Genesis 2 is a creation account or not. If it doessn't, why not look at the text as I have been showing you, and perhaps even address my point

Now, the context actually starts in Gen. 2:15:

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.​

I thought the tablet was supposed to start in Gen 2:5?

So again, this is all about the Garden. Take that awkward title away, and no one gets confused, even the most stubborn adults.

Again you pick and choose parts of the creation account and ignore the rest. Even if you call them 'context' the text still describe God creating man and plants animals birds and the woman.

Then comes the warning in vs. 16-17. Now at this point you would have us believe that God then shifts away from the Garden and starts speaking about the entire earth (land) and is giving us a new creation account. Yet, were it not for the ostensible title of this section, no one would make that jump. It's awkward and illogical.

18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”​

Alone where? The Garden. Context context.

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.​

Remember we're still in the Garden. As you know, even flying animals are land animals as well, and dwell in specific areas. Being that the context here is the Garden, why would you assume he was naming birds thousands of miles away? I think these were limited to the Garden as well. So there were cattle, and field beasts.

It doesn't say where God created them, or how far he had to bring them to Adam, it just says that God formed all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air and brought them to Adam to name. God created Adam outside the garden and brought him there, why would you think God was limited to creating animals and birds in the garden just because that is where Adam was?

And notice no sea animals are mentioned! Why do you think that is? How about the fact that the Garden wasn't in the middle of the ocean!!

What about the four rivers? The second creation account concentrates on different things to the first creation account. We read about the birds of the heavens, but not the sun, moon and stars. Creation accounts don't have to mention everything.

You're not following what I'm saying. The text doesn't say God formed the animals in the Garden. It also doesn't say He formed the animals after man. That's an argument from silence. There's nothing in the hebrew grammar to indicate this, and the context completely precludes it.

You have changed the subject again. However the Hebrew grammar does tell us God created the animals after he created man. The construction of the verbs do give the sequence of creation. It is not just the flow of the narrative you have to ignore, the Hebrew grammar tells you the order of creation.

I've not just refuted it, I've obliterated it (IMHO, of course). You're stuck in the glory daze of the JEDP theory, and you can't get out of it (as Bono says). Again, my opinion, but that's all anyone has anyway.

Perhaps instead of telling yourself, humbly that you have obliterated it, you could try dealing with my argument.

It's the most pathetic attempt I've ever seen, though. I have no illusions you're going to stick to this utterly bankrupt view of the Genesis chapter 2. Hey, 12% of the population believe Elvis is still alive. All we can do is agree to disagree. We have strongly differing opinions. One of us is very wrong.

Indeed, however I am the one with the arguments you can't address. I could still be wrong, but you haven't shown it, while I have taken your arguments apart and you haven't been able to respond.

 

[Calminian]

So you have intelligent cultures and races who came up with writing, some less intelligent cultures who were taught writing, and less intelligent cultures who never learned to write?

So to avoid being liberal I need to start looking down on other cultures and races?

You mean you don't look down on Nazi culture? You don't look down on jihadist cultures? I do. Yes, I do feel you need to acknowledge that some cultures are better than others.

And I don't think any cultures have actually come up with writing. I tend to believe that was a gift from God, that is passed down.

But yeah, if you say all cultures are morally equal you are morally deficient yourself. You should look down on bad cultures like nazi's etc.

Which is the point I have been making. It is one thing to propose a miracle to explains what the literal interpretation of the text says. That is quite different from making up things that aren't in the text and claiming miracles to explain those too.

But you're equally guilty of this claiming that God did not give Adam written language. Just because the text is silent about something doesn't mean it didn't happen. If God did give the gift of spoken language to Adam, then written language is a reasonable speculation. Doesn't mean I believe this dogmatically, but it makes sense.

Again some archaeological evidence for this claim would be great.

Wow, you really are not familiar with this debate. No problem, that's what I'm here for. Here is a link to JP Wiseman's first book, totally free on line. He mentions more archeologists then you'll care to hear about.

http://www.biblemaths.com/pdf_wiseman.pdf

Why? Writing existing earlier wouldn't mean Genesis was written earlier. The evidence from the text itself points to it being edited together when the Canaanites no longer lived in the region. It is the text itself that told then that the editor composed it from earlier documents.

I believe Moses is the editor and redactor of this text and have no problem with post mosaic redactors editing the text further and explaining things to contemporary readers. I don't see why you see this as an issue. No conservatives do. Redactors will often cite city name changes, or demographic facts that may confuse modern readers. It's a point everyone agrees on.

You agree there is evidence for Genesis being composed of earlier texts and that there could have been post exilic redactors. Apart from your groundless claim Adam had clay tablets with the first parts of Genesis on it, your only evidence for Moses bring the main editor is not the text of Genesis, or any archaeological evidence, but your interpretation of Jesus' statements, which so far you haven't been able to defend. Like Is said before, it is not enough that Jesus' statements fit your idea of Moses as the editor, you need to show that they contradict mine. It is possible you will answer this further down your post if so I will address it there.

You're giving me very good insight into how liberals think, and how far they'll go to deny the Bible and Christ. You present a theory (JEDP) which claims that Moses didn't write the torah, originally based on the fact that writings didn't exist in Moses' time. Then you claim it was written by a post exile priest, which has never been verified. I give archeological evidence which proves that writings existed long before Moses, which shows writing was extant in Moses' time, and I show that writing styles of these ancient discoveries match the Genesis writings, and you say I'm not giving you enough evidence? I can see this is going to go nowhere fast. Do you ever plan on posting post mosaic textual evidence for authorship of the Torah?

Claiming liberal scholars agree with you is not the same as backing up you argument from the text. Of course kenosis would be one possible answer if you could show Jesus thought Moses wrote the Pentateuch as is, but even the most conservative scholars understand Jesus used idiomatic language.

Conservative Bible scholars deny Mosaic authorship? I don't think that's what you meant to say.

This from Theopedia

Jesus divided the Old Testament into three sections in Luke 24:27, 44: Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Also, in Mark 10:4-8, Jesus quoted Gen. 2:24 as coming from Moses. In Mark 7:10, Jesus quoted the Ten Commandments as coming from Moses. In Mark 10:3 Jesus refers to Deut. 24:1f as being from Moses, and in Matt. 8:4 Jesus quoted Lev. 14 as coming from Moses. [5]
​

Again you're not fighting with me on this, but your own liberal allies. I'm not sure why.

See? You are still not answering my point. It is not enough to say how much post exilic editing you (and conservative scholars) are willing to accept, what you need to show is that a more thorough work of compilation and editing would be contradicted by NT references to Moses.

I have no idea what you're saying here. Post mosaic editing is not an issue for me. You need to show why you're refuse to accept that Moses wrote the Torah, in the face of so much evidence he did. You're basing this is JEDP which has been disproven. You refuse to accept the NT and Jesus' writings. You refuse to accept jewish tradition. You refuse to accept numerous references in the Torah itself.

I don't think this is an evidential issue for you.

What is interesting is how much of the discoveries of liberal scholarship over the past few centuries conservative scholars have come to accept, including Wiseman's realisation the Genesis really was composed of different documents. My point here is not to push liberal bible scholarship or to cling to tradition of Mosaic authorship, but to look at the text and see what we it shows us.

What's funny is, it isn't liberal scholars who discovered this. Liberals merely jumped on it what it was suggested. You really should read JP Wiseman's work. He goes through the history of JEDP thoroughly.

Because you keep making the claim that what Jesus said about Moses means Moses must have been the editor of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch.

Which I still stand by. You cannot deny Moses as the author of the Torah, without denying Jesus reliability. Your liberal friends have accepted this fact. But you want to have your cake and eat it.

I have shown you what the text says. Call them unsupported if you like, they are still there.

But there are so weak even your own liberal allies don't agree with you. If you can't convince them.....?

Compare the creation of plants in Genesis chapters one and two. In chapter one, the earth had just emerged from under water and God commanded the earth to produce grass and herbs and trees bearing fruit. This was three days before God created man. In Genesis two the earth is a dry and barren wilderness.

The text says nothing of the kind. Nothing about barrenness. Nothing about emerging from water and being wet. "let dry ground appear...." You see, what usually happens is, skeptics get their arguments from books, rather than from studying the text itself. You didn't read the 2 accounts and make that argument, you heard it somewhere and repeated it. That's never a good tactic, and a good way to get yourself embarrassed.

One of the first principles about defending the Bible is understanding what it says first. No need to defend what it does not say.

Plants were unable to grow because there was no rain to water the ground and no farmer to till it.

You just defeated your own argument. You probably wish this verse wasn't in the text, but it is. Farmers aren't needed for wild plants and trees.

I've been brining up this point for several posts now, but you don't seem to want to address it.

Again, this is another example of how the tablet theory discredits the 2 creation account theory. One may be tempted to see this as a creation account if the creation title is in front of it. But once you see this is not the intention, and you see the obvious statements in the second account like saying that no field plants existed because there was not farmer, it becomes impossible to rationally stick with the argument. Perhaps you want to argue that Adam thought there was no such thing as wild plants, but this would be desperate at best.

I can't make you drop an obsolete theory, not more than I can make you abandon a sinking ship. I'm a believer in free will, and freedom to be irrational.

Gen 1: wet earth emerges from the waters, God creates plants and trees, 3 day later, man.​

Totally made up. The first account even goes so far as to say "dry ground" yet you still won't believe it.

Gen 2: dry barren earth without plants or trees, God created man, then created plants and trees.

Again, you leave out the farmer part. you've been tied into a textual pretzel.

​

You claim it was only cultivated plants the weren't there. But how could any plants have grown in the dry barren wilderness described in Genesis 2? ....

And now your appealing to naturalism. This is getting worse by the moment.

The text distinguishes between beasts of the earth and livestock so claiming 'all animals in a sense were domesticated", is not following the text.

Of course it is. The first account says that animals were vegetarians. They were not wild in the sense they are now, preying on one another and us too. That Adam mentions beasts and cattle, merely tells us there was a variety of of each kind. There's nothing in the text to support you. You once had a title. That's it!

I thought the tablet was supposed to start in Gen 2:5?

Nope 2:4b.

It doesn't say where God created them, or how far he had to bring them to Adam, it just says that God formed all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air and brought them to Adam to name. God created Adam outside the garden and brought him there, why would you think God was limited to creating animals and birds in the garden just because that is where Adam was?

You just defeated your own argument. Where in the text does it say God formed animals in the Garden and where does it say God made them after Adam? You're making an argument from nothing that contradicts the rest of the narrative. Again you pick and choose parts of the creation account and ignore the rest.

What about the four rivers? The second creation account concentrates on different things to the first creation account. We read about the birds of the heavens, but not the sun, moon and stars. Creation accounts don't have to mention everything.

But you're insisting the colophon phrase be a title. Why then no mention of the heavenly things listed in the title?

You have changed the subject again. However the Hebrew grammar does tell us God created the animals after he created man. The construction of the verbs do give the sequence of creation. It is not just the flow of the narrative you have to ignore, the Hebrew grammar tells you the order of creation.

Okay, so absent of any other argument you now claim hebrew scholars are on your side. Do you see what a mess you've gotten yourself in? Sorry, it's just not the case. I don't know any hebrew scholars who back you on this. The hebrew construction is silent on the order of events in this passage. The NIV was translated by 100 scholars. I will believe them over you.

Perhaps instead of telling yourself, humbly that you have obliterated it, you could try dealing with my argument.

I would but your arguments ended up defeating themselves.

[my gosh, did I just write all that?]

 

[YeshaYaHu]

Fear not. God has that covered.

"God's invisible qualities"


And here they are for anyone interesting in knowing and understanding...since i can't post the link yet, it's in the thread: Origin and Creation explored and explained.

Looking forward to your perspectives!

 

[shernren]

Conservative Bible scholars deny Mosaic authorship? I don't think that's what you meant to say.

This from Theopedia

Jesus divided the Old Testament into three sections in Luke 24:27, 44: Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Also, in Mark 10:4-8, Jesus quoted Gen. 2:24 as coming from Moses. In Mark 7:10, Jesus quoted the Ten Commandments as coming from Moses. In Mark 10:3 Jesus refers to Deut. 24:1f as being from Moses, and in Matt. 8:4 Jesus quoted Lev. 14 as coming from Moses. [5]
​

Again you're not fighting with me on this, but your own liberal allies. I'm not sure why.

In case there's any confusion, Theopedia requires all articles to conform to a fairly conservative view of Scripture:

We affirm that the sole authority for the Church is the Bible, verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible, and totally sufficient and trustworthy.

We deny that the Bible is a mere witness to the divine revelation, or that any portion of Scripture is marked by error or the effects of human sinfulness.​

You will not find it reflecting liberal views.

 

[shernren]

And I don't think any cultures have actually come up with writing. I tend to believe that was a gift from God, that is passed down.

But yeah, if you say all cultures are morally equal you are morally deficient yourself. You should look down on bad cultures like nazi's etc.

Huh, I didn't know Adam was Chinese and lived in Jiahu.

That last one there is recognized to this day by Chinese writers as the pictogram for "day", with no graphical analogs in any non-East Asian languages (the letter B has completely different typographical origins, seen in the Greek "beta").