Moses wrote Genesis working from the oldest writings in the world

[miamited]

Sorry, I should change that next to last sentance to: Did Jesus refer to the writings about Adam and Abraham as Scripture?

 

[miamited]

hi again cal,

Adam's signature appears in Genesis 5:1a

This is the book of the genealogy of Adam.​

Preceding this is the Cain and Abel story ending with the birth of Seth. The entire account starts in Genesis 2:4b.

The next account which is attributed to Noah starts in Genesis 51b which is a genealogy from Adam to Noah. We would conclude this was a genealogy that Noah compiled and wrote down and signed.

Let me know if if that answers that question. You see, the biggest thing that these ancient writings taught us was that rather than titles, these toledoths are actually signatures. Therefore, rather than looking to the text that proceeds from these phrases, we should look to the text the precedes them.

Ok, so lay it out for me. Beginning with Genesis 1:1 Adam wrote through to where?

From wherever Adam leaves off Noah wrote through to where?

Then who took over? Just give me chapter and verse who wrote what up to Moses' day.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Marshall Janzen]

A few comments on this idea of Genesis' composition. I'm going to make these general points rather than quoting the specifics of what statement I'm disagreeing with so hopefully this doesn't come across as adversarial or personal. That is not my intent. I think it's great to have threads like this where we can look deeply at certain ideas about how parts of our Bible came to us.

1. The toledot statements are not restricted to Genesis or to the time before Moses.

In English, toledot statements are often translated as "these are the generations of" or "this is the account of". While only Genesis uses these statements repeatedly, there are two more statements just like the ones in Genesis elsewhere in the Old Testament:

• "These are the generations of Aaron and Moses at the time when the LORD spoke with Moses on Mount Sinai" (Numbers 3:1, ESV).
• "Now these are the generations of Perez: Perez fathered Hezron..." (Ruth 4:18).

If we take the first one as an author's signature at the end of their account, it would mean Aaron and Moses only wrote the first two chapters of Numbers, not what comes after it! After all, why would they sign their names after those chapters if they were not done writing? Also, if this is a signature, it would show that these "colophon" phrases were in use in Moses' time, since this would be Moses and Aaron's colophon.

2. The toledot statements are not necessarily author signatures.

What we actually see from the examples in Numbers and Ruth above is that this phrase is not necessarily a colophon phrase. It is a phrase used to divide an account, but it does not seem to indicate the author of the account. This is also clear from the very first toledot statement in Scripture:

• "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" (Genesis 2:4).

Note that this does not say "these are the generations of a messenger of God" or "these are the generations of God", but rather the generations of "the heavens and the earth". This is not specifying the author of the account, but rather the subject of the account.

3. The toledot statements typically introduce rather than conclude a section.

While Genesis 2:4 is ambiguous, capable of being interpreted either way, in every other case the toledot statement seems linked with what follows, not what came earlier. This is the case in both the Numbers and Ruth passages quoted above, as well as the following:

• "This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man [Adam], he made him in the likeness of God" (Genesis 5:1). The account goes on to summarize Adam's creation and give his genealogy.
• "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God" (Genesis 6:9). Note that the account that follows is about Noah and his family.
• "These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Sons were born to them after the flood" (Genesis 10:1). The account proceeds to list the sons of Japheth, Ham and Shem.
• "These are the generations of Shem. When Shem was 100 years old, he fathered Arpachshad two years after the flood" (Genesis 11:10). The accounts continues with the rest of Shem's descendants.
• "Now these are the generations of Terah. Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot" (Genesis 11:27). The account continues with more of Terah's descendants before zeroing in on Abram (more on this in section 4 below).
• "These are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s servant, bore to Abraham" (Genesis 25:12). The account continues with Ishmael's sons.
• "These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham fathered Isaac" (Genesis 25:19). The account continues to describe Isaac's marriage to Rebekah, her barrenness, and then her conception of twins.
• "These are the generations of Esau (that is, Edom)" (Genesis 36:1). The account continues to describe Esau's wives and sons.
• "These are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir" (Genesis 36:9). The account goes on with Esau's sons. Note that this and the previous section have very similar information.
• "These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was pasturing the flock with his brothers. He was a boy with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father’s wives. And Joseph brought a bad report of them to their father" (Genesis 37:2). The account continues to be about Jacob's sons: mainly Joseph and his interaction with the others, but also accounts of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) and a genealogy of Jacob (Genesis 46:8-27).

So, in all these cases, the account that follows the toledot statement is about the person mentioned and their family. Often it is much more heavily about their family and descendents than the person themselves, but that is not surprising if the word toledot has a general meaning of "generations".

4. The toledot statements alone do not neatly divide Genesis into sections.

It is odd, for instance, that there is no toledot statement for Abram, even though he is a key character in Genesis. Abram's story is told between the toledot statements of Terah (Genesis 11:27) and Ishmael (Genesis 25:12). Terah's toledot statement seems like a good introduction for the genealogical information in Genesis 11:27-32, and perhaps that is all it should be linked with. The following chapters (12-24) may not have a toledot statement connected to them. It may be a mistake to think that each part of Genesis is associated with a toledot statement.

This is similar to the way we see toledot statements used in Numbers and Ruth, quoted above. They do not indicate that everything following (or everything preceding) is connected to that statement. They are more tightly linked to the genealogical information directly following them. Further, since Genesis neither begins nor ends with a toledot statement, they cannot be used to divide the entire text. (The article in the opening post attempts to make Exodus 1:6 into a toledot statement that concludes the last chapters of Genesis, but it is not written in the same form as the others).

Another way the text itself provides a caution from taking these toledot statements as the key and sole organizing principle of the book is the duplicated toledot for Esau. Why does Esau get two sections? Did he write two tablets? Or, are there simply two accounts of his sons included, similar to other repetitions in Genesis? It seems the latter is more likely.

My point here is that we should not read too much into these statements. They are not chapter headings that identify all the text between them. They are important to understanding the composition of Genesis, but they are not the only factor in assessing how Genesis is structured.

5. The ancient tablet colophons are not toledot statements.

The article did not explicitly claim that ancient tablets used colophon statements that are the same as what we see in Genesis, but it did seem to give that impression. Actually, there are ancient tablets that have colophon phrases at the end, but they do not use toledot statements. In fact, they are dissimilar in many ways. The following is from John Walvoord et al, Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, p. 23:

Wiseman argues that the Genesis ṯôleḏôṯ are like the Babylonian colophons ... (Creation Revealed in Six Days. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1949, p. 46).

This view is unconvincing, however. The colophons on the tablets are not like the ṯôleḏôṯ of Genesis (see, e.g., Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963, pp. 25, 30; A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964, pp. 240-1). In the cuneiform tablets each title is a repetition of that tablet’s first line and not a description of its contents. Also the owner’s name seems to refer to the present owner, not the original owner. Moreover, the Akkadian equivalent of ṯôleḏôṯ is not used in the formula.​

When these dissimilarities are considered, the evidential basis for the tablet theory seems rather weak. What, exactly, is the similarity between the colophon statements on the clay tablets and the Genesis toledot statements? It appears to be only that both types of statements include a person's name (or, in some cases, multiple names, or in one case, the heavens and the earth). That is not enough from which to build such an ambitious theory of Genesis' genesis.

 

[Keachian]

EDIT: Marshall actually refuted the toledots being colophons rather comprehensively imo

 

[Calminian]

....
3. The toledot statements typically introduce rather than conclude a section.

While Genesis 2:4 is ambiguous, capable of being interpreted either way, in every other case the toledot statement seems linked with what follows, not what came earlier. This is the case in both the Numbers and Ruth passages quoted above, as well as the following:

• "This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man [Adam], he made him in the likeness of God" (Genesis 5:1). The account goes on to summarize Adam's creation and give his genealogy.
• "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God" (Genesis 6:9). Note that the account that follows is about Noah and his family.
• "These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Sons were born to them after the flood" (Genesis 10:1). The account proceeds to list the sons of Japheth, Ham and Shem.
• "These are the generations of Shem. When Shem was 100 years old, he fathered Arpachshad two years after the flood" (Genesis 11:10). The accounts continues with the rest of Shem's descendants.
• "Now these are the generations of Terah. Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot" (Genesis 11:27). The account continues with more of Terah's descendants before zeroing in on Abram (more on this in section 4 below).
• "These are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s servant, bore to Abraham" (Genesis 25:12). The account continues with Ishmael's sons.
• "These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham fathered Isaac" (Genesis 25:19). The account continues to describe Isaac's marriage to Rebekah, her barrenness, and then her conception of twins.
• "These are the generations of Esau (that is, Edom)" (Genesis 36:1). The account continues to describe Esau's wives and sons.
• "These are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir" (Genesis 36:9). The account goes on with Esau's sons. Note that this and the previous section have very similar information.
• "These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was pasturing the flock with his brothers. He was a boy with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father’s wives. And Joseph brought a bad report of them to their father" (Genesis 37:2). The account continues to be about Jacob's sons: mainly Joseph and his interaction with the others, but also accounts of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) and a genealogy of Jacob (Genesis 46:8-27).

So, in all these cases, the account that follows the toledot statement is about the person mentioned and their family. Often it is much more heavily about their family and descendents than the person themselves, but that is not surprising if the word toledot has a general meaning of "generations".
...

Marshall, thanks for the response. It's very difficult for me to respond to this information you posted as it doesn't actually make any arguments it merely states a view opposite to the tablet theory view. IOW, the tablet theory makes the case that all the colophon phrases of Genesis are concluding remarks. It offers textual evidence and contextual evidence. It's shows how the author would actually have been an eyewitness if they are concluding remarks.

The remarks posted merely state the opposite but don't give any reasons. Now having studied the context, I completely disagree with the statements above. In fact, I would argue that putting these as titles rather than conclusions makes the text very confusing and creates the issue of 2 creation accounts, etc. And nothing is mentioned about ancient writing structures that have been discovered giving new light to this issue.

But again, no argument or justification is offered. It just states a conclusion as fact. There's not much to work with there. I can only say, they have this and all their other points wrong.

What I'd like to know is, how and why you've come to these conclusions? Do you agree with the information you posted? Also, state where you're coming from in this debate. Are you a JEDP proponent? Do you believe Moses wrote Genesis?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

It's very difficult for me to respond to this information you posted as it doesn't actually make any arguments it merely states a view opposite to the tablet theory view. IOW, the tablet theory makes the case that all the colophon phrases of Genesis are concluding remarks. It offers textual evidence and contextual evidence. It's shows how the author would actually have been an eyewitness if they are concluding remarks.

The remarks posted merely state the opposite but don't give any reasons. Now having studied the context, I completely disagree with the statements above.

The reason I detailed every toledot statement in Scripture, both within Genesis and elsewhere, was to show that they do make sense as introductions (not titles) rather than conclusions. With the exception of Genesis 2:4, which I said could be taken either way, I showed how each toledot fit as an introduction to the family genealogy or story that follows.

In fact, I would argue that putting these as titles rather than conclusions makes the text very confusing and creates the issue of 2 creation accounts, etc.

Even the article you linked to suggests that some of the statements are introductions, not conclusions (for Ishmael and Esau). And, in order to make their tablets work, they also remove one of them (Genesis 36:9) and add one from Exodus that doesn't even use the word toledot and has a completely different construction than the other statements (Exodus 1:6). They also have the problem that the first one doesn't include a name, even though they claim these statements are signatures. When a theory needs to make this many adjustments to make it work, I think it's likely it's on the wrong track. Conversely, the traditional interpretation of the toledot statements, reading them as introductions, works in every case without exception (including Genesis 2:4).

It does not bother me that there are two creation accounts any more than that there are two accounts of Esau's descendents back-to-back in Genesis 36:1-8 and 36:9-19 (to give just the most obvious of many similar doublets). This is the way God inspired Genesis to be written and compiled. I'm fine with the multiple accounts and do not consider them a problem to be solved.

And nothing is mentioned about ancient writing structures that have been discovered giving new light to this issue.

My fifth point focused on the attempt to connect Genesis' toledot statements with colophon statements on ancient tablets.

What I'd like to know is, how and why you've come to these conclusions? Do you agree with the information you posted? Also, state where you're coming from in this debate. Are you a JEDP proponent? Do you believe Moses wrote Genesis?

I'd rather you focus on the points I made instead of on me, but I'll quickly answer your questions. I came to my conclusions through study. Yes, I agree with what I wrote. When I quote someone else, I will make that clear; otherwise, the words I post are my own. I don't agree with all the particulars of the documentary hypothesis (and I think some of them do go beyond what we can know), but like you I do believe there were multiple sources behind Genesis. I expect that Moses' involvement had more to do with authoring particular sections of the Pentateuch (whether orally or in writing), and in being the central character of Exodus-Deuteronomy. As for Genesis, I have no idea how or even if he was involved, but I doubt his role was to edit together other people's accounts.

 

[Calminian]

hi again cal,

Adam's signature appears in Genesis 5:1a

This is the book of the genealogy of Adam.​

Preceding this is the Cain and Abel story ending with the birth of Seth. The entire account starts in Genesis 2:4b.

The next account which is attributed to Noah starts in Genesis 51b which is a genealogy from Adam to Noah. We would conclude this was a genealogy that Noah compiled and wrote down and signed.

Let me know if if that answers that question. You see, the biggest thing that these ancient writings taught us was that rather than titles, these toledoths are actually signatures. Therefore, rather than looking to the text that proceeds from these phrases, we should look to the text the precedes them.

Ok, so lay it out for me. Beginning with Genesis 1:1 Adam wrote through to where?

From wherever Adam leaves off Noah wrote through to where?

Then who took over? Just give me chapter and verse who wrote what up to Moses' day.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I'm going to answer this last question first, because this will get into the nuts and bolts of the Tablet theory, and may answer previous questions.

First, let's deal with the toledoth in question.

NASB Gen. 5:1a This is the book of the generations of Adam.​

The NIV says this is the "account" of Adam's line.

This is a typical colophon phrase found in multiple archeological discoveries. Now there's a genealogy that follows this phrase, and it would be natural for modern readers to apply those to this phrase, especially considering the verse breaks. But actually it's referring to the creation of Eve, to Adam's placement into the Garden, to the Fall, the story of Cain and Able and the birth of Seth. That would be the way the ancients would have read it.

In essence the phrase merely says, this is the account of Adam and his family. This is Adam's sacred family history. Something to that effect.

Now I realize that in the same verse, there begins an account with genealogies that start with Adam and go down to Noah. But you have to understand (and I know you do) that verses and chapter breaks were not in the original text. These are manmade and were placed in there based on modern understanding of writing structures. And most think they didn't do a great job in the early chapter breaks of Genesis. I would imagine you aren't a big fan of the chapter 2 break.

But what's cool about this is, when viewed in light of ancient textual evidence that was contemporary to Genesis, Adam would have been an eyewitness to all these events that preceded his signature. He was there when Eve was made, he was there when God put them in the Garden to plant plants in the field, before there were any plants in the Garden, he was there when he and Eve fell, he was there when Cain murdered Able, he was there when Seth was born. Everything from Genesis 2:4b to Genesis 5:1a is considered his account. And he's the perfect candidate to record these events. And this is the pattern that we see continue from here on.

Noah's account is from Gen. 5:1b to 6:9a. In includes a genealogy which I think it's safe to say Noah would have known about. In fact, since he is the last mentioned in the genealogy, and his death is not mentioned, he would be the likely author. It then concludes with Noah speaking of the evil nature of the world at that time, of the Sons of God event and of him finding favor with God. These are events Noah would be contemporary to. He would have known about them, and been a perfect candidate to write about them.

in 6:9b a new section begins starting with the phrase, "Noah was a righteous man." Did Noah write this about himself? How arrogant!! Well, actually, according to he Tablet theory, his sons recored this! Their writings extend from Gen. 6:9b to 10:1a. Now I can see how they would have called Noah a righteous man. And again, they would have been the perfect witnesses to all that went on during that time. They recorded Noah's building of the ark, the flood, the events on the ark, where the ark landed, the sin and cursing of Ham and the death of Noah. Makes perfect sense!

The events at Babel were recored by Shem in the Tablet model. This also makes sense as he certainly was still alive at the time of Babel and would have been one of the elders there at the time prior to the dispersement. It makes sense, he recorded this. Who better?

I could keep going, but you get the idea. It fits beautifully. It corresponds with other discovered ancient writings that were contemporary. It just works.

 

[Calminian]

The reason I detailed every toledot statement in Scripture, both within Genesis and elsewhere, was to show that they do make sense as introductions (not titles) rather than conclusions. With the exception of Genesis 2:4, which I said could be taken either way, I showed how each toledot fit as an introduction to the family genealogy or story that follows.

Marshall, you're again stating a conclusion. My conclusion is, they don't work well at all, and the Tablet theory organization works beautifully. I'm going to be touching on this issue in other replies and show many problems the tablet theory clears up. I'll try to revisit this post as well, hopefully soon, and respond to some of your other comments. Please be patient.

 

[miamited]

Well guys, I'll leave you all to figure all this out. I'll be on my way continuing to believe that God told Moses what to write to begin the Scriptures that Jesus, Paul and other writers of the Scriptures proclaimed as Scripture.

I will however repeat that carefully studying Scriptures has led me to understand that God set in motion a very, very great plan of salvation on the day that he first spoke to Abram of Ur. He intended to bless him with as many descendents as their are stars in the sky because they were being commissioned to do a job. To be a part of His great plan of salvation. They were the first soldiers of God's plan to write down for all generations to come all that God wanted us to know. So, with that understanding I know that Moses didn't write down some stuff that had been around for centuries. He didn't rewrite or copy someone else's work. He was the first man who took control of the nation of Israel and began to complete the plan for which God blessed Abram with so many, many descendents. That plan was to have them write down all about God; all about the creation; all of the prophecies that would prove that only the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knew and foretold to us the end from the beginning. The writings begun by Moses were going to be the complete history of all that God had done, all that He was doing, and all that He was going to do in bringing about the way of salvation unto man. That way of salvation was foretold in the Scriptures and God had His Holy Spirit to cause the prophets to write to us all about how we would know the Messiah. That Messiah, my Lord and Savior, Jesus, was foretold along with all the other prophecies of things to come so that today, I and all those who really want to know the truth and to establish the truth of God and who He is would one day, when God calls all men to judgment, be saved from His wrath and destruction upon the wicked.

That, friends, is the purpose of the Scriptures and just as Paul writes to us, every word of it is God breathed. As Jesus told us, not one jot or tittle will in no wise perish before the plan of God's salvation is consummated upon the earth.

That, friend, is the God I serve! He loves me and I love Him. He is God!! He created this realm of existence just as He created the angelic realm of existence from nothing. NOTHING!!! He created this realm about 6,000 years ago. He created all that is seen and unseen in this universe about 6,000 years ago as a place for man to live eternally, but sin ruined it. However, here's the short version of the plan.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Man sinned.

Jesus came.

Now the dwelling of God is with men and He will be their God and they will be His people!!

Friends, loved ones, it is the parable of the wheat and the weeds. We are now living in those days which Jesus told us in the parable are the days that the wheat and the weeds are allowed to grow together, but the day is coming when God is going to call for His harvest. All the weeds will be pulled up and cast into the pit. All the wheat that fed of the good fertilizer, the word of God and believed and loved God back with all their heart, mind and strength, will be gathered and stored in His storehouse where we will be safe and loved and protected and fed and nurtured forever and ever and ever and ever and ever... All those who are of the wheat will one day hear those glorious words that will mark the end of this life of struggle and toil, "Now the dwelling of God is with men and He will be their God and they will be His people."

God knew when He first caused to be written, 'In the beginning...' that the end would be, 'now the dwelling of God...'.

Now, I know that some of you are in agreement with this part of the plan, but I ask you to go back starting with Abraham and understand that God didn't begin the work of writing the Scriptures until Moses. It wasn't until Israel was a strong people; a nation that could stand on its own that God began to work out the next step of His plan. The days from Abraham to Moses were only the days in which God worked out His blessing to Abram that he would have many descendents. It was after Israel came out of Egypt as a nation, and it was a part of God's plan that Israel went to Egypt because it was there that they were cordoned off within Egypt and were 'forced' to stay together as a people until they were numbered enough to go to the next step which was to begin writing the Scriptures. Then there was the next step where God gave to them their own land and promised to guard and protect them there if they would be faithful. But, alas, they weren't. But still, even through all of their faithlessness, God continued to work out the greater plan through them. He continued to use them to write the Scriptures and when that part of the plan was complete, Jesus came. Praise God!!!! Then we have a quick 50-60 year period where God, still through the Jews, had the final words of Scripture written telling us how we should now live and where all of this is going to end.

Praise God for His mercy. His love. His Son. His Spirit and His word.
I love you Father.
God bless you all.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

Now, I know that some of you are in agreement with this part of the plan, but I ask you to go back starting with Abraham and understand that God didn't begin the work of writing the Scriptures until Moses....

And I will just say briefly, that I agree, and nothing in the tablet theory contradicts this. Genesis is a book of Moses. Moses is its only author. Genesis is only a book of Moses.

Ted, I'll will hopefully be able to explain all of this to you when I go back and reply to your other comments. But rest assured no one saying the scriptures did not begin with Moses' 5 books (at least no one on my side of the debate). I do intend to address your objections along with all the other objections from those on the TE side, Lord willing.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

The NIV says this is the "account" of Adam's line.

This is a typical colophon phrase found in multiple archeological discoveries.

I'd be interested in the specifics you are referring to here. What other documents are you referring to, and how specifically are they similar to the toledot statements?

This was the main flaw that John Walvoord's critique zeroed in on (see the quote at the end of this post). He said that those similarities, at least at the time of Wiseman Sr.'s research, were not very compelling. In the other ancient documents, the colophon repeats a phrase from the beginning of the account at the end, it gives the owner of the tablet rather than the author, and it doesn't even use the word toledot or its translation.

If there is now better evidence of a similarity, could you share some of that with us here?

But what's cool about this is, when viewed in light of ancient textual evidence that was contemporary to Genesis, Adam would have been an eyewitness to all these events that preceded his signature. He was there when Eve was made, he was there when God put them in the Garden to plant plants in the field, before there were any plants in the Garden, he was there when he and Eve fell, he was there when Cain murdered Able, he was there when Seth was born. Everything from Genesis 2:4b to Genesis 5:1a is considered his account. And he's the perfect candidate to record these events.

Adam was unconscious when Eve was created. God planted the garden away from Adam and only later placed Adam (and only Adam) in it. Genesis 3:22 is a speech by God with no human witnesses. There is no indication that anyone else was present at Abel's murder or the events leading up to it, and in fact it seems to indicate that Cain purposely waited until the two of them were alone in a field. There is no indication that Adam was present when God spoke to Cain before and after his murder, nor that Cain told his father his whole story before he left for the land of Nod. Indeed, he appeared to be quite afraid of meeting anyone, and this was the reason he left.

Further, in addition to these chapters including things Adam could not have been an eyewitness to (and reporting those things in the same style as the things Adam would have been able to witness), Adam is referred to in the third person, no differently than any other character in these chapters (not as "I" or "me" or "the human God loved", etc.). Compare Genesis 2:4-5:1 with Nehemiah 1. I suggest that only one of these passages reads like an eyewitness report.

 

[Calminian]

Okay, time to tackle this puppy. Oy! (not a knock on the content, BTW, just the length)

....
Ok, fair enough, and as you have already said, there isn't really any 'direct' evidence for either position,

No, I said there is no directly scriptural evidence that Moses worked with earlier writings. There is direct evidence and there is indirect scriptural evidence. Just want to be clear about that.

but I think that there is just as much 'circumstantial' evidence. As I asked before, and now I would ask you to stop for a bit and really consider how long 40 days is. .....

40 days is a long time, and my objection to the direct revelation theory is not based on a too limited timeframe. This objection never occurred to me. But thinking about it, why is it not also plausible that God used this time to speak to Moses about which writings he was to use to put Genesis together? I don't see how the 40 days argument helps either position.

So, friend, there is just as much circumstantial evidence that somehow Moses 'found' the writings of Adam or they had been handed down since before Abraham as there is to support the theory that in the long span of 40 days God may well have told Moses all that he learned about the beginning of all things and then went down to the camp and at some point had it all written down. Again, the greatest part about this theory is that we can then be assured that it's all true because it came from the very mouth of God and not handed down and copied and recopied for some 2,000 years.

Eek. I actually think this is a bit of an assault on the doctrine of inspiration, particularly on the rest of the canon that were not formed via direct revelation from God. God has worked through men in many ways, and I trust the Bible regardless of whether it is direct revelation to the author or not. Luke and Mark never actually met Jesus. Should we trust those accounts less? This is a very dangerous road to travel.

Is there any 'proof' of that? No! But there is as much circumstantial evidence as your theory and again, I will repeat, it does absolutely assure us that what Moses wrote down was, in fact, the truth.

You seem to be saying that somehow the only way you can really be sure if something is true, is if it comes directly from God to the author. I hope your not implying there are some books of the Bible we cannot trust 100%.

Part of the reason that so many deny the truth of God's word today as regards the creation account and the miracles is that so many deny that what each writer wrote down was really revealed to them through God's Holy Spirit what to write down. Everyone wants to believe that it's just some fables handed down over generations about how people in those days thought to relate to a god. The theory you espouse leaves open that same wedge of doubt. Mine doesnt'!

Well this would probably then go back to your assertion that only Bible authors that took direct revelation from God can be fully trusted. This is not an orthodox doctrine of inspiration. This would mean we'd have to dump half of the canon, including half of the Torah. I can only hope you'll backtrack on this.

Ironically, if you espouse this idea, wouldn't that actually cause people to doubt the portions of the Bible that don't fit your direct revelation criterion?

Then you wrote: The portions of Enoch that are quoted in scripture are true, and were always true, even before being quoted.

Tell me, what portions of Enoch are in the Scriptures?

Jude is believed by many to quote the Book of Enoch, but that is disputed, so let's back up and bit to my original point. The Bible quotes non-biblical books in various passages. Here's a Wiki article on Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible. Does this mean those books were also inspired? Of course not. Nor does it mean God endorsed those writings as a whole.

I want to again quote Dr. Terry Mortenson and Bodie Hodge from Answers in Genesis as they handled this issue so concisely. I think all discerning christians will agree with the below, whether they are on board with the Tablet theory or not.

The biblical doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture does not require us to conclude that all the books of the Bible were written by God dictating to the human authors. Dictation was one means employed, very often in the prophetic books (e.g., the prophet says, "The Word of the Lord came to me saying"). But much of the Bible was written from the eyewitness experience of the authors (e.g. 2 Peter 1:16) or as a result of research by the author (e.g., Luke 1:1–4). And just as Christian authors today can quote truthful statements from non-Christian sources without thereby endorsing their wrong ideas, so the Biblical authors could quote non-believers or non-biblical sources without introducing false statements into their divine writings (e.g., Joshua 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18, Acts 17:28, Titus 1:12, Jude 14–15). So it is perfectly reasonable to think that Moses wrote Genesis from pre-existing, well-preserved oral tradition and/or written documents from the patriarchs.

Unlike those who affirm Mosaic authorship of Genesis and divide the text by the toledoths, JEDP adherents divide the text on the basis of the names of God that were used and say that, at best, Moses simply wove these texts together, often in contradictory ways. However, most JEDP advocates would say that Moses had nothing to do with writing Genesis or the rest of the Pentateuch, which were written much later by many authors and editors.​

Then you wrote: You've admitted that these ancient writing styles that pre-date Abraham were contemporary to Genesis. You do realize that Abraham and Moses are hundreds of years apart.

Well, let's really think this through. I didn't admit such a thing. I just don't see the wonder in that that you seem to. I said, that based on what the article had written about these pre-Abrahamic writings being similar in structure to the Genesis account, that I didn't think that was much of a supporting argument. I don't know, for a fact, that these writings that are being alluded to are much earlier than Abraham. I'm just taking that at face value because the article said so. But, let's stop a minute and investigate the claim.

Ok, Abraham was born about year 1850 from the creation. By the way, after the big change in how the generations of Noah's immediate children spread out, the Scriptures go back to account the generations from Shem to Abraham in EXACTLY the same way as the generations from Adam to Noah, HMMMMMM? So-and-so begat so-and-so and lived so many years and then so-and-so begat so-and-so and lived so many years. What explanation does your theory give for this anomaly? Sorry, but I digress because in counting off these generations I just noticed that.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. You completely lost me. I haven't even the slight idea, or even the most general idea what point your making. I've read the above several times, and unfortunately, I'm blanking. If you don't mind, please break it down a little further.

You'll forgive me for skipping that part. It just didn't register with me. Its very possible it was over my head.

So, to end all of this, until someone can offer some better verification that Moses didn't pretty much start from scratch as the first author of the Scriptures and that all he wrote was either direct revelation from God through His Spirit, as the new covenant declares, or directly lived by him, I find it much simpler and easier just to understand that for the 40 days on the mountain God revealed to Moses the things written about the beginning of all things in this realm. He told Moses who Adam was. He told Moses who the generations were and how long each lived. He told Moses about the time when, out on the plane of Shinar, men tried to build some glorious tower that would reach into the heavens.

You have at least changed my mind on something. I no longer think you are persuadable on the tablet issue. I do hope though you'll reconsider your inspiration doctrine. That'll have to be another thread though.

Just my thoughts, and who knows, maybe I'll convince you that it's really easier to believe my 'theory' than this other one. Just say to yourself, "God did it! He purposed for Israel to write the Scriptures and just as the Scriptures declare it was all done through the power and revelation of the Holy Spirit of God." All Scripture, read that again very carefully, all Scripture is God breathed. Is Genesis a part of the Scriptures? Did Jesus refer to the writings of Adam and Abraham as Scripture? All Scripture is God breathed.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Okay, let's give it a shot.

God did it! He purposed for Israel to write the Scriptures and just as the Scriptures declare it was all done through the power and revelation of the Holy Spirit of God.

I absolutely believe it. I also believe all Scripture is God breathed, even the parts not given by dictation by God. Is Genesis a part of the Scriptures? You bet? Did Jesus refer to the writings of Adam and Abraham as Scripture? Absolutely! All Scripture is God breathed. Genesis is a book of Moses. In fact the Tablet theory is an argument for the Mosaic authorship of Genesis.

Ted I do respect you, and your view about Genesis, though I strongly disagree. My only concern is the doctrine of inspiration you seemed to espouse, and I hope I merely misunderstood and inferred incorrectly.

 

[Keachian]

Colophon rebuttle again because Cal doesn't get it,

Genesis 10:11 which under Colophon theory would be such has Shem signing off on the Tower of Babel account, which he wasn't alive for.

Gen 25:19 has Isaac signing off on Ishmael's descendents, strange

Gen 36:1 has Esau signing off on the random adventures of Jacob which show Jacob in a mildly good light

37:2 says that Jacob's family line is merely 37:1

And there isn't a Colophon at the end of Genesis

 

[miamited]

And I will just say briefly, that I agree, and nothing in the tablet theory contradicts this. Genesis is a book of Moses. Moses is its only author. Genesis is only a book of Moses.

Ted, I'll will hopefully be able to explain all of this to you when I go back and reply to your other comments. But rest assured no one saying the scriptures did not begin with Moses' 5 books (at least no one on my side of the debate). I do intend to address your objections along with all the other objections from those on the TE side, Lord willing.

Hi cal,

Good morning. Ahhh, God is soooo good. The day dawns bright with hope and promise. I just sit in awe on my back deck with a cup of coffee and look around and consider, "God you made this all for me. How great and merciful you are."

Friend, what you have posted here would show that perhaps you don't understand the theory yourself. The tablet theory is proposing that Moses got his inspiration or knowledge of what he wrote about the beginning before his time from previously written ancient writings. Now, maybe you and I understand author differently. An author is not the same as a writer. A writer writes things that are not necessarily his own ideas and this is what all the people who have had the honor of writing pieces of God's Holy Scripture are. They are writers. The things that they wrote were inspired by God through His Holy Spirit. God is the author of all Scripture. An author is the one who actually conceives of the ideas and thoughts that he writes.

Moses was not the author of the Penteteuch. He was the writer. Now, the tablet theory says that he got his ideas and knowledge of what to write of the days before his time from previously authored work. Ted's understanding is that no, that's not true. Now, how you can say with a straight face that 'nothing in the tablet theory contradicts this', quite honestly continues to baffle me.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again cal,

This will have to be the last response from me to you on this subject. I'm finding myself repeating a lot now. However...

You answerered: No, I said there is no directly scriptural evidence that Moses worked with earlier writings. There is direct evidence and there is indirect scriptural evidence. Just want to be clear about that.

Oh, my bad. What is the direct non-scriptural evidence that supports the tablet theory? I haven't seen you post any. Maybe I missed it, but all I can recall is that this theory is based on the 'fact' that we have earlier writings that seem to be written with similar structure. Nothing that says, "Here we have the exact words that Moses wrote about the creation in an earlier autograph that we believe may have been handed down through the ages from Adam. So, again, I would ask that you provide me with the evidence which you seem to be claiming we have but for whatever reason you haven't entered as evidence yet. It isn't in the article as far as I could tell. The article makes the same 'circumstantial' claim that we seem to have earlier writings that are about different subjects, but the general construction of these writings fits with what Moses wrote and so therefore, Moses probably copied what he wrote from earlier written documents. That's what I got anyway.

Then you asked:

40 days is a long time, and my objection to the direct revelation theory is not based on a too limited timeframe. This objection never occurred to me. But thinking about it, why is it not also plausible that God used this time to speak to Moses about which writings he was to use to put Genesis together? I don't see how the 40 days argument helps either position.

Well, basically because I'm having an awfully hard time finding any evidence that there were any written tablets that traveled from Adam to Moses. As I've previously stated, the only possible way this connection can be made is through Noah, and while we may envision that maybe he had a library of tablets put away in some chest that he lugged onto the ark, it is only a vision. Then those tablets have to get from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to the 12 sons and held in Egypt for 400 years and then carried out into the desert as the Hebrews left Egypt. I really have a very, very difficult time putting all that together and yet there is never a single mention of such writings. God's word never tells us or gives any hint that when Abraham packed up his things in Ur that he took his sacred writings of the beginning. As a matter of fact, the Scriptures certainly seem to imply that Abraham did not even know God before he was called from a land that worshipped other gods and so why would he not have this knowledge if he had cared for these earlier writings of Adam? Many of the commentaries that I've read regarding Abraham's life in Ur posit that he was probably a worshipper of these other gods just like everyone else in Ur. The Scriptures never claim that God called Abraham because he was righteous and believed in God. There have even been discussions on these boards about why God called Abraham? What was so special about him? I haven't yet found any verifiable answer as to why God did. I just honestly have a very difficult time finding evidence of or even imagining that for some 2500 years there was this carrying of some writings about the beginnings from generation to generation that somehow one day were found in the hands of Moses. It's just so much simpler to know and understand that God told Moses what to write. That God could have told Moses to write about things that Adam may or may not have even known of because God sees all things that man does.

So, to specifically answer your question: Why couldn't God have used the 40 days to tell Moses which writings to use... I can't find the writings anywhere. In order to place the writings in Moses possession I have to make a giant leap of imagining and quite honestly a great bit of faith to carry them over the flood. Now, surely that doesn't make this theory impossible, but highly improbable to me. Like I say, 40 days is a long, long time. You and I have carried this discussion and gone on with reams and reams of words and we've only been at it for about 3 days.

You responded:

Eek. I actually think this is a bit of an assault on the doctrine of inspiration, particularly on the rest of the canon that were not formed via direct revelation from God. God has worked through men in many ways, and I trust the Bible regardless of whether it is direct revelation to the author or not. Luke and Mark never actually met Jesus. Should we trust those accounts less? This is a very dangerous road to travel.

cal, no one, at least not on this side has ever made the argument that meeting Jesus is the link to direct revelation. It is the Holy Spirit. Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance all that had been done. So, yes, when Luke sat down to write what he wrote and Paul and John and Jude, et.al. sat down to write what they wrote, the Holy Spirit was with them prodding and reminding them of what they should write. I'm sorry that you see it somehow as an assault on the 'doctrine of inspiration' and perhaps your understanding of that 'doctrine' is different than mine. Mine is that ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD BREATHED. All,certainly of what was the canon of the old covenant that had already been codified by the time that Jesus visited us, is God breathed. All! And Jesus specifically mentions the writings of the beginnings in his discussion regarding marriage and divorce. So, even if you might wish to think, "Well, surely all those numbers in Numbers are not there by the inspiration of God." I certainly believe that the account of the beginnings is.

You then answered a previous question:

Jude is believed by many to quote the Book of Enoch, but that is disputed, so let's back up and bit to my original point. The Bible quotes non-biblical books in various passages. Here's a Wiki article on Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible. Does this mean those books were also inspired? Of course not. Nor does it mean God endorsed those writings as a whole.

Right, but the question was: What parts of Enoch or in the Scriptures. I do understand that other books are referenced, but is there actually any part of them that are incorporated in the Scriptures?

Anyway, I have to go. God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Assyrian]

Thought this might be edifying for those felling called to defend the book of Genesis. I'm linking an article I recommend toward the bottom of this post. It's something every Genesis defender should have in his arsenal.

JEDP of course has been pushed for years as a "scholarly" theory which advocates the rejection of the mosaic authorship of Genesis. Problem was, there was no textual evidence from archaeological findings to back it up. The authors of JEDP merely picked up on literary differences within the book of Genesis and worked off the assumption that human writing didn't go back further than 1000 BC. And even though that starting premise has been proven wrong for many years, the theory is still pervasive among liberal theologians.

I think it is a genuine insight of Wiseman that the toledoth show, from the text of Genesis itself, that Genesis is composed of earlier documents edited together. What I find fascinating is that the documents he identifies through the toledoth broadly match the documents identified by documentary hypothesis scholars through changes in vocabulary and style.

The "Tablet Theory" on the other hand works off actual archeological findings of ancient clay tablets that predate Abraham. Amazingly (or maybe not so amazingly) many literary similarities were discovered between these ancient clay tablets and the book of Genesis. This not only supports the authorship claims in the Bible that Moses wrote Genesis, but also gives insights as to how Moses put the book together, and from what materials he worked from.

It is interesting you are trying to defend Moses writing Genesis by saying he didn't actually write the books that make up Genesis, he just edited them together.

As it has been pointed out already, the bible doesn't say Moses wrote Genesis. It doesn't even say he wrote Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers or Deuteronomy. It talks of him writing, and he is the first person in the bible ever said to write or have books or scrolls. But the scrolls he is said to have written do not match our Pentateuch, Exodus 17 is a typical example. Exodus 17:13 And Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the sword. 14 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." 15 And Moses built an altar and called the name of it, The LORD Is My Banner... We have a long description of the battle with the Amalekites, God telling Moses to write down his Judgement against the Amalekites and read it to Joshua then a description of Moses building the altar. In the whole chapter, the only thing Moses is described as writing is the judgement God pronounced. We have repeated description of God telling Moses to write down the laws God gave him, but they are found in books that not only contain laws but also the history of when the laws were given and descriptions of God telling Moses to write these laws. If Genesis can be composed of older books compiled by an unnamed editor, why couldn't Exodus to Deuteronomy be compiled by a later editor from older books including the writings of Moses? In fact we hear from this later editor in Num 21:14 where he refers to an earlier book, the Book of the Wars of the Lord.

If you look at Joshua, you will find him not just reading the book of the law, Joshua 8:34, but adding to the scroll himself. Joshua 24:26 And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. Yet Joshua's words here are not found in any of the books of the Pentateuch you think Moses wrote even though the bible tells us Joshua wrote in the same scroll.

Now I'm one who takes the Bible at face value that Moses wrote the pentateuch, but there's a whole host of interpretive insights that also come from this information (which is not new BTW).

Here are some implications that jump out at me:

1) It debunks the popular myth that Genesis has 2 creation accounts. We now know from historical textual evidence that Genesis 2:4a is actually not the title of what follows it, but the conclusion of what precedes it. There is only one creation account which begins with "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1) and ends with "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created," (Gen. 2:4a). This was the very first writing that Moses used in putting the book of Genesis together.

No, you still have two different texts composed in two different styles by two different writers, compiled together by an editor, whether the toledoth marks the end of the first account or the beginning of the second.

2) It shows Moses worked off the oldest documents in the world. We now have historical textual evidence that Adam was one of the original authors Moses worked off, and may not have even authors the oldest. The creation account doesn't specify him by name as the second section does. Perhaps an angel was the very first tablet author.

According to Wiseman's interpretation, the colophon, assuming it is a colophon, could refer to the writer, the owner, or the subject of the text. It is pure speculation to assume it means Adam was the writer of the genealogy rather than the plain meaning of the Hebrew that the subject was the genealogy of Adam. The use of the toledoth to describe the subject of the genealogy rather than the author also fits the very first toledoth, the generations of the heaven and earth which do describe creation, of the heaven and the earth in the first account, and the earth in the second, but were hardly written by the heaven and earth.

Writing may predate Abraham but you need to be careful trying to apply scientific dating to creationist dating systems which compress the history of human habitation of the Middle East into a much short times span. If you are trying to compare the two dating systems you need to realise that the evidence from archaeology puts the origin of writing long after the earliest settlements in the region. Before writing was developed sufficiently to record stories, simpler forms were used for counting and keeping accounts of quantities being stored and traded, followed by simple symbols identifying what was being counted. It is interesting that while there is no reference to writing or books before Moses, we do have references to counting or numbering with Abraham, Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." The word number according to Strongs is saphar "A primitive root; properly to score with a mark as a tally or record". You had numbers before that, just look at Noah dealing with seven pairs of clean animals, but no reference to writing the numbers down or keeping a tally. Even if some cities were experimenting with recording their stories on clays tablets, this skill would have been impractical for a nomadic herdsman, large clay tablets telling stories needed libraries or temples to store them. It was only when the Israelites came out of Egypt the home of papyrus that we read of them writing their accounts in scrolls, they did have two tablets with writing on them, but these were carried by a team of levites.

3) Genesis rather than allegory, is a collection of historical writings passed down from eye-witnesses. The book signatures we now recognize show the authors to be contemporary to their writings.

Even if they were the authors, it doesn't make the texts literal. Remember you have two different with two different accounts of the creation each giving a different sequence of the creation. That is not what you would expect from two literal historical records.

4) Given that we have historical textual evidence that Moses worked from writings older than any other known writings, accusations that the Genesis creation account was copied from older creation accounts falls apart. It's more likely that the Genesis creation account was the one being copied.

From the editorial comments in the Pentateuch it is more likely Moses writings were edited too, rather than him being the one who did the editing. But even if Moses edited Genesis, the Israelites and their forefathers had spent time in both Egypt and Mesopotamia, there is no reason the creation accounts could not have been written to refute pagan creation stories they were surrounded by, echoing these stories in the the process of refuting them and pointing to the Lord as the creator.

5) This debunks the notion that the Genesis creation account must be viewed through the lens of the culture of Moses' time. Clearly there is textual evidence that Moses worked off writings that preceded his time by thousands of years. It would be just as wrong to force ANE cosmology onto Genesis as it would to force modern cosmology on it.

I would have though a better approach would be to look at the text objectively and see what sort of cultural and cosmological background it was written in. If there isn't any to be seen, then fair enough, but if there is, then why shouldn't we understand that God spoke to people of that time in terms they understood, rather than assume God couldn't or wouldn't speak to people that way and force these preconceptions into the text?

The implications don't stop there, but those are some very important ones. All of the above are issues we see on this boards often.

Here's the article

The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship
Curt Sewell
© 1998-2001 by Curt Sewell. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
Originally published by the archaeological magazine Bible and Spade, Winter 1994, Vol. 7, No. 1

Now mind you, I may have some minor disagreements with the theory, but as a whole, I'm pretty much on board. I have very little doubt that Moses worked from 11 separate writings.

If you're not familiar with the theory, please take in the linked article and share your thoughts.

I really appreciate Wiseman's book, it revolutionised my understanding of Genesis back when I was a literalist and a creationist. It made me realise there were other ways to understand the text other than the straight literal six day reading of Genesis 1, IIRC he claimed that God revealed the six days to Adam over six days rather than creation itself taking place in six days. I found it very encouraging too at the time that Genesis was a reliable account written by eye witnesses with the tablets passed down through the generations from patriarch to patriarch. It was only gradually I began to realise Wiseman didn't actually have any evidence to support this claim. But it did show me that there were different ways to read the text and instead of being threatened by documentary hypothesis, that the text of Genesis itself supports the idea it was edited together from other texts, though I think their ideas of who wrote the different sources, JEDP, and their reasons for writing them, are pretty speculative too. But I don't have a problem with the possibility of post exilic composition, the book of Psalms with contains psalms of David as well as laments about exile in Babylon must have been compiled in this period.

In fact I see God's inspiration in the way the editor compiled it, answering the terrible cry of Psalm 137:4 How shall we sing the LORD's song in a foreign land? with its fearful prayer for their enemies' infants to be smashed against rocks, with a Psalm of David from when he was in exile, Psalm 138:1 Of David. I give you thanks, O LORD, with my whole heart; before the gods I sing your praise; and that instead of cursing their enemies they could trust that 8 The LORD will fulfill his purpose for me and that 4 All the kings of the earth shall give you thanks.

 

[miamited]

Hi cal,

Sorry I had to leave in mid-post before, but Wednesday is my day to pick up food from the grocery stores for the food bank and off I had to go.

I was just reading the preceeding post and all I can say is, most of that post seems, to me, to prove my point. Here you and I are just discussing Moses not having been the writer of the book of the beginnings and now we have a voice in the fray that pretty much claims Moses didn't have anything to do with it.

This is what invariably happens when we try to understand a lot of the 'how' things happened in the Scriptures. In talking with others about the miracle of God parting the sea I get all kinds of explanations about there being some kind of sandbar or it was some other sea, specifically the 'Reed' sea that was crossed and that's just an oversize swamp. People try to set the crucifixtion of the Lord on a particular date or year because there was a solar eclipse that would have naturally made the daytime dark.

All of these explanations deny the power of God. That God, if he chooses, can make a dry path from New York to Europe walking along mile high walls of water on either side. That when God wants the sun to go out He doesn't 'arrange' some natural phenomena, He just turns out the light! Similarly, with this thinking of the 'tablet theory' maybe it's true, maybe God did just walk the Egptians through some 18" deep 'sea of reeds', maybe there was a solar eclipse the day Jesus was crucified, but until someone can offer me some more substantial 'facts' to prove such things, I'm not buying it.

According to Paul the chief purpose of the Jew was that they were entrusted with the very oracles of God. For me that's it. Adam was not a Jew. Noah was not a Jew. Abraham is credited in the Scriptures as being the father of Judaism, the Jewish people. The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God and that's what I'm staying with. Each man must set in his own heart what he believes and this is my belief.

I believe that 6,000 years ago there was nothing, nothing in all of the dark void of the space in which the universe now sits. At some point in God's time He created the earth and then all of the other physical forms in the universe in the time that it took for the earth to spin 7 times on its axis. Then He created Adam and Eve. Two real life people who began all that we now see as the human race.

At some point God was so grieved as He looked down from heaven and saw the wickedness and pain and suffering that human life had become because of fear, anger, hate, greed, lust and all the other selfish desire of mankind and He destroyed everything upon the earth. Everything! There was a sea of water that covered the earth just as there had been a sea of water that covered the earth when it was first formed. Then after a few generations God picked a no account man named Abram and began through him and his descendents to set in motion a wonderful, gracious and merciful plan whereby man could gain that for which he was created. Eternal life with God!

God nurtured Abraham and brought forth Isaac by another miracle from a woman's body which was dead to childbirth. He then brought from Isaac, Jacob and then the 12 brothers. God then caused the 12 brothers to go to Egypt where they were set in their own place. The Scriptures tell us that though the children of Israel first went into Egypt as free people, they were looked down upon by the Egyptians. Thereby forcing them to stay in their place separated from the Egyptians. Much like blacks in America today often will stay in the neighborhoods where they grew up because they feel a cultural 'safeness'. Even if they move they often seek out new neighborhoods where there will be many that are like themselves because of this cultural 'safeness'. The Hebrews were in that same kind of place. "We'll all hang together over here in Goshen because that's where we are accepted and safe among our own kind."

Well, there was a reason for that. With that attitude and in that place those 12 sons of Israel became a nation. They left Egypt, most estimates claim, at least a half a million strong. When they are counted in the book of Numbers just the men who are counted are several hundred thousand. So, by God working out that the 12 sons of Israel went to Egypt to escape a great famine, they were actually keeping to God's plan. Just as Joseph told his brothers when they came to get food from Egypt and he revealed to them who he was, he said, "What you meant for evil, God meant for good." So, even today when we look back and think of all the terrible suffering and toil that the Hebrews suffered at the hands of the Egyptians, God meant for good. He used that for His glory.

The stay in Egypt and the suffering and persecution under Pharoah also provided God the opportunity to show off His great power and love for His people so that they would really know that they had been redeemed from Egypt by a God. Their God!!

Then God began the work in earnest of beginning the writing of the Scriptures and for 1500 years God worked in and through His people, despite their wickedness and rebeillion, because again, what they meant for evil, God meant for good. God had a great, great purpose to be completed by Israel. So, even though they rebelled, He used their rebellion to cause to be written a prophecy about how He was going to punish them and how He was going to redeem them. All written, sometimes hundreds of years, but almost always many years before the event occurred. Of course there are those same christians who will tell you that there's no such thing as prophecy in the Sciptures. That all those supposed prophetic writings were added in after the fact.

Anyway, I've gotten to the point where I'm repeating myself again, so friend, brother go with what seems right to you. For me God revealed to His people through His Spirit every word of Scripture.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

Hi Marshall. Let me finally get to this entire post. Now to be clear, we're coming from different ends of the block. You don't read Genesis as an actual account, but rather allegory, at least for part of the account. You also are a proponent of JEDP to some degree. I mention that, because we do have some points of agreement. We agree that the Genesis writings do show traits of different authors. JEDP puts these at later dates (with no evidence to bear it out) while the Tablet theory works of actual textual evidence to support Moses as the author working with older writings.

I would make the case to you, that the Tablet theory may unlock the door to the possibility that Genesis actually is an ancient historical narrative.

A few comments on this idea of Genesis' composition.

The theory doesn't really go this route, but rather suggests that Moses worked with older ancient writings to write Genesis. I wouldn't say Genesis s a composite, anymore than a history book quoting older documents is a composite. I have no doubt God worked with Moses either directly or indirectly.

I'm going to make these general points rather than quoting the specifics of what statement I'm disagreeing with so hopefully this doesn't come across as adversarial or personal.

Feel free to be as harsh as you wish on my views. I appreciate you not getting personal.

1. The toledot statements are not restricted to Genesis or to the time before Moses.

In English, toledot statements are often translated as "these are the generations of" or "this is the account of". While only Genesis uses these statements repeatedly, there are two more statements just like the ones in Genesis elsewhere in the Old Testament:

Yes, I was aware of the numbers passage. You are correct, though, its much more extant in Genesis.

I have no doubt Moses knew what the phrases were, but as you say, it just wasn't a common practice for Moses and later biblical writers. Now the interpretation of term itself was called into question by Wiseman, and he did have quite a few hebrew scholars back him up. The NIV uses the term, "account." There were other terms as well hebrew scholars were suggesting such as "chronicles," etc.

This is the account of the family of Aaron and Moses at the time the LORD talked with Moses on Mount Sinai.

Is this a writing of Numbers that Moses wanted to attribute to family members? Sure seems that way. Is it a footnote? Sure seems plausible, considering what we now know about ancient writings and considering the term "generations" may not be the best translation after all.

2. The toledot statements are not necessarily author signatures.

What we actually see from the examples in Numbers and Ruth above is that this phrase is not necessarily a colophon phrase. It is a phrase used to divide an account, but it does not seem to indicate the author of the account. This is also clear from the very first toledot statement in Scripture:

I completely disagree with your reasoning on this. Once Wiseman (Sr. and Jr.) actually opened up the door to signature phrases, the context seems to magically make sense. If the Creation Toledoth is a title, it really doesn't make any sense.

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

What follows this is actually not a creation account of the heavens and the earth. It's the story of the Garden, and cultivated plants, and Adam being placed there to cultivate the fields, and Eve being made, the fall, Cain and Able, etc.

The only thing confusing people and making them think there were two accounts is the mere fact that they thought Gen. 2:4 is actually a title. Once it was show that toledoths could actually be signatures, suddenly everything falls into place. Because what precedes this toledoth statement is a creation account of the heavens and the earth.

You see I'm not for a minute suggesting that we ignore the text and context. Usage will aways be the first key to interpretation. The problem is, we have subconscious views about literary structures we're not even aware of, and have to identify these to make sure we're not imposing modern presuppositions onto ancient writers. I'm guilty of this. I used to view earth (erets) as planet earth, rather than just land as scripture defines it. Same with other biblical terms, stars, birds, etc. The nomenclature of that day does not perfectly match ours. Nor did writing structures. Being a modern writer of articles, I'm a very title oriented person. Thus, I assumed the biblical writers were also.

Now that the colophon door has been opened, frankly it's undeniable. It works so beautifully with the context, there is no reason to return to titles. I would cite the very first colophon phrase in the Bible as the best example.

Note that this does not say "these are the generations of a messenger of God" or "these are the generations of God", but rather the generations of "the heavens and the earth". This is not specifying the author of the account, but rather the subject of the account.

This is not an issue at all. Yes, it is generic, just as would seem reasonable considering no human eyewitness would have been able to make this account. I suppose if this account called out Adam, the objection would then be made that he would not have been alive for these events.

So instead of saying this is the account of so and so, it merely says this is the account, leaving the accounter a question mark. But it's still a toledoth statement, and is the first in an obvious pattern of colophon phrases.

3. The toledot statements typically introduce rather than conclude a section.

While Genesis 2:4 is ambiguous, capable of being interpreted either way, in every other case the toledot statement seems linked with what follows, not what came earlier.

I just explained why this view is so fallacious considering we now know these phrases can be signatures rather than titles. You say the passage is ambiguous, but the truth is, it just does't work as a title for the proceeding section. English title structures have simply hindered us from noticing the obvious.

If you do want to point to something ambiguous I would point to the numbers passage. I have not studied the Ruth passage. I would still say context is key, which is why the Genesis 2:4 passage must be a colophon phrase.

• "This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man [Adam], he made him in the likeness of God" (Genesis 5:1). The account goes on to summarize Adam's creation and give his genealogy.

• 
  
  I once made this same mistake, thinking this was a title, though I never attributed this genealogy to Adam himself, being that he died before the genealogy was complete. I just figured Noah or someone else originally wrote this. But when viewed as a colophon phrase, this statement makes absolute perfect sense. Adam would have been present and aware of all the events preceding this statement. He was there when Eve was made, when they were put in the Garden, when the Garden had not crops yet. He was there for the fall. He was alive at the time of the Cain/Able incident, Seth's birth, etc. He's a very viable accounter.
  
  So who recorded the chapter 5 genealogies?
  
  In the tablet theory, this one also perfectly fits with the context. Noah's account starts with a genealogy spanning from Adam to himself. Notice Adam's death is recorded, as well as all the others. Only one death is not recorded. Noah's!! Of all these mentioned, who would be the only real candidate to record this. I'm sure he father handed down to him written records, but the record of deaths stops prior to him. He then gives information about how evil the world was at that time, and the sons of God incident. But then something very interesting happens as I'll explain in the next section.
  
  

  [*]"These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God" (Genesis 6:9). Note that the account that follows is about Noah and his family.

  
  As you point out, it starts with, This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man. Now does that sound like something a righteous man would say? Well the tablet theory, once again, makes sense of the context. This is actually the end of one writing and the start of another. The statement "Noah was a righteous man" is attributed to Noah's sons account (genesis 10). It's amazing how much the colophon explanation clears up confusion. It's a blessing to me, is the best way I can put it.
  
  It's very plausible Noah's sons would call him righteous. They were there with Noah received his instructions for the Ark. They were they when the flood hit. They were in the ark, and the perfect candidates to record all that events inside, including when the hit land, and where the hit land, and what happened afterward. They were also there when Ham sinned against his father.
  
  I firmly believe, once you read the text from a colophon perspective you can never go back.
  
  Shem is the next account mentioned at the end of the Tower of Babel account. Again, this makes perfect sense. According to what we know about how long he lived, he was a a very unique individual. He would have been alive for the Babel event and long after it. In fact he outlived many of his descendants. Again, a perfect fit.
  
  Terah? Same exact thing. The first verse in Terah's account records the years Shem lived, as well as all the others, but strangely, not his own number of years? But again, this is only strange when you consider the toledoth to be a title. When it becomes a colophon ending phrase, suddenly everything falls perfectly into place. Just as it made sense that Noah would be the accounter of a genealogy that ended with him, so in makes sense that Terah would be the account of a genealogy that ended with him.
  
  
  And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and had other sons and daughters. After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. 27 This is the account of Terah.​
  
  Colophon phrase are the key to interpreting Genesis.
  
  

  4. The toledot statements alone do not neatly divide Genesis into sections.

  
  I think the above refutes this pretty thoroughly.
  
  

  It is odd, for instance, that there is no toledot statement for Abram, even though he is a key character in Genesis.

  
  Jesus never recorded an account either. Is He not a main character? This is not an issue.
  
  

  Abram's story is told between the toledot statements of Terah (Genesis 11:27) and Ishmael (Genesis 25:12). Terah's toledot statement seems like a good introduction for the genealogical information in Genesis 11:27-32, and perhaps that is all it should be linked with. The following chapters (12-24) may not have a toledot statement connected to them. It may be a mistake to think that each part of Genesis is associated with a toledot statement.

  
  Again, context is the key. In the article I linked, Ishmael's account is actually inside Isaac's account. But why? Well, think about. Who would have had access to Ismael to acquire his account? You guessed it, Isaac! They buried Abraham together. It makes sense. It brings the context together. Now you are correct, this toledoth inside Isaac's account does seem to obviously be a title. But that also makes sense as it is a situation where the accounter had to mark where the new embedded account started. It's end is obvious by the context. I actually don't view Ishmael's account as an actual tablet. It was an insertion into Isaac's tablet. When you think about it, there really would be no other way for Isaac to mark the beginning Ishmael's account.
  
  What about Esau? Exact same thing. His writings were included in Jacob's Tablet. Thus Jacob also had to create a starting point on the tablet to show where Esau's account started and in this case ended. I also don't view Esau's account as an actual tablet, but rather Jacob included his account on his tablet. And, BTW, just as Isaac would have had access to Ishmael, so Jacob had access with Esau. Fit's perfectly. Once again, the colophon concept unlocks the very simple context of Genesis.
  
  

  5. The ancient tablet colophons are not toledot statements.

  
  It depends on how you translate toledoth. It's not the general word used for genealogies. The NIV simply translates the word "account". Other possible translations are "chronicles."
  
  You'd have to expand on walvoord's objection, but these phrases in the Bible seem to perfectly fit the concept of colophon phrase. Context is the key.
  
  Phewwww! I think that about covers it.

 

[Calminian]

...I was just reading the preceeding post and all I can say is, most of that post seems, to me, to prove my point.

I had a feeling you were fairly dug in. At times it may seem that just about everything proves our pet theories. It's funny, because the more I'm interacting with these posts, the more I'm convinced of my viewpoint. So who's right? The Lord knows.

I do appreciate your input. I wish you would have interacted with my responses a little more. If you get a chance I would still invite you to do this A lot of effort went into those. I still don't think you quite understand the basics of the theory. I do have to move on, though at this point. I want to give the curtesy of responding to others that have given input.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Calminian, you seem to be arguing that it makes more sense to view the toledot statement as describing the author of the preceding material rather than the following material. But neither I nor anyone else is arguing that toledot statements give the author of the following material! The traditional understanding of the toledot statements is that they introduce sections, not authors.

Adam isn't the author of the Genesis 5 genealogy, but that genealogy is his genealogy. Similarly, if I compose my great-grandfather's family tree, it is his family tree even if I write it. So, the toledot statements are not typically understood as giving us information about the author.

You'd have to expand on walvoord's objection, but these phrases in the Bible seem to perfectly fit the concept of colophon phrase. Context is the key.

This is what I would most like you to expand on. How do the toledot phrases in the Bible "perfectly fit the concept of colophon phrase"?

For instance, Genesis 10 gives us the genealogies of the sons of Noah:

"These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Sons were born to them after the flood. The sons of Japheth: ....
The sons of Ham: ....
The sons of Shem: ....
These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their nations, and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood" (Genesis 10:1-2a, 6a, 22a, 32, ESV).​

So, how do you determine that the first phrase I bolded from Genesis 10:1 is a colophon (a signature at the end of an account) while the second phrase I bolded from Genesis 10:32 isn't? How specifically is Genesis 10:1 similar to other ancient tablet colophons and Genesis 10:32 dissimilar?

If you can answer those two questions, I will have a better understanding of why you find this view compelling.