Moses wrote Genesis working from the oldest writings in the world

[Calminian]

Interesting thought, but doesn't line up with scientific evidence. Adam and Eve may very well have been actual people (I believe they were), but God did not created the world in six literal days only 6,000 years ago. In that sense, Genesis is figurative. It was written in a way that people of the time (nomads, sheep herders, etc.) could understand.

I was once a believer in long ages, as a christian. No longer the case. Now you say that young earth creation doesn't line up with the scientific evidence, but do you not realize that miracles in general, including the resurrection of Jesus Christ also don't and won't ever line up with scientific evidence.

You see science cannot consider miraculous historic events, including a miraculous creation taking 6 days only 6000 years ago. It must preclude this a priori for the sake of uniformitarianism (methodological naturalism).

But is there evidence for a young earth and world wide flood? You bet. In fact the author I've been writing about, PJ Wiseman, notes several archeologists that have been baffled about how far backward advanced civilizations go. They expected to find more primitive civilizations as they dug down, but found the opposite.

And there is historic evidence of a young world in scripture, indeed, in the book of Genesis. There are also flood legends found around the world that speak of a global flood. Yet this also goes against the "scientific evidence."

I've come to believe that science is a very useful tool, yet has some very real epistemological limitations, especially when trying to discern the past. If our origins and existence is the result of a miracle, then science will be of limited use in that area. If it was not a miracle, but a naturalistic uniformitarian process, then science would be of great use. But I've come to believe that God, the God of the Bible, is a God of miracles, and created the world in that fashion. Therefore I have come to believe science (while still a valuable tool in the creation debate) is not an epistemology in and of itself. It has limitations and must be looked at rationally to discern where it does and does not apply.

 

[RobbieD80]

^^ thumbs up

 

[watchman333]

Someone told me the other day that they would'nt read the Bible because it was written by men. That stance is just as ridiculous as some of the comments on this thread. Who wrote Genesis? The Same Who wrote Jeremiah, John or Revelation, the Holy Spirit wrote the Holy Bible. Man would contradict himself after a few paragraphs, and there are no mistakes in the Holy Scriptures. Holy men of old WROTE as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and speculation beyond that is superfluous. Bless the LORD.

 

[Calminian]

Someone told me the other day that they would'nt read the Bible because it was written by men. That stance is just as ridiculous as some of the comments on this thread. Who wrote Genesis? The Same Who wrote Jeremiah, John or Revelation, the Holy Spirit wrote the Holy Bible. Man would contradict himself after a few paragraphs, and there are no mistakes in the Holy Scriptures. Holy men of old WROTE as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and speculation beyond that is superfluous. Bless the LORD.

I would completely agree, but I'm curious who on this thread you are speaking of. Do you take issue with Henry Morris and others that believe God moved men through various means—even moving men to work off prior writings? Or are you of the camp that says God must have given the book of Genesis to Moes via direct dictation, or else Genesis is not inspired?

That's something that's been disputed on this thread, among other things. Hard to tell where you stand on that from the above.

 

[Philonephius]

But is there evidence for a young earth and world wide flood? You bet.

Well, by all means then, the floor is yours.

 

[Calminian]

Well, by all means then, the floor is yours.

Why thank you. But I've already made quite a few comments. Were they all over your head?

 

[Philonephius]

Why thank you. But I've already made quite a few comments. Were they all over your head?

Snide remark aside, I guess you missed my point. You claimed that there is evidence to support a young earth and global flood. My response: the floor is yours. In other words, please present this evidence. Did this go over your head?

Just to be sure, I double-checked every comment in the thread. I found no scientific evidence to support a young earth or global flood.

 

[Calminian]

Snide remark aside, I guess you missed my point. You claimed that there is evidence to support a young earth and global flood. My response: the floor is yours. In other words, please present this evidence. Did this go over your head?

Just to be sure, I double-checked every comment in the thread. I found no scientific evidence to support a young earth or global flood.

Well considering your last sentence, you missed my point on the nature of evidence. This is something that goes over the head of theistic evolutionists often.

 

[Philonephius]

Well considering your last sentence, you missed my point on the nature of evidence. This is something that goes over the head of theistic evolutionists often.

So your "evidence" is your particular interpretation of the Bible?

Impressive.

 

[Assyrian]

I would say it's marvelously supported, but I'm coming to this subject with the belief that Genesis is a true narrative. I believe that men from their initial creation were smart enough to use language and therefore smart enough to create a written language.

I am not sure you would like the implications of that argument. If people are illiterate does this mean it is because they aren't intelligent? And when Europeans came across cultures that were illiterate like the Plains Indians, black Africans or Australian Aborigines they were right to consider them inferior?

In fact, it seems reasonable, that God may have given Adam both. Clearly Adam was speaking from day one. This must have been supernaturally granted. Could writing have been also? Seems reasonable if the first premise is true, so the second would also be.

It is one thing to interpret a passage literally and propose miracles to explain your interpretation, but what you are doing here is making up miracles to explain Adam being able to write when the bible doesn't say he was able to write.

Now again, I've for a long time looked at the Genesis text and believed it was a compilation of multiple writings. The structure screams it. But it never dawned on me to not look at those toledoth statements as conclusions. I'm just like everyone else in my culture, very title oriented. Maybe that's because I don't live in an age where clay tablets were the norm. Once I opened my mind to this, it's seemed rather easy to follow each section, even those of Esau and Ismael.

People in the Ancient Near East, the ones who could read anyway, would have been familiar with both titles and colophons.

I will get to most of your comments. Please stay tuned......

This is getting rather long isn't it

The strength was they did notice signs of a redactor,of an editor of writings being brought together. The weakness is they then assumed without any evidence that the composition of the Torah must have been late, 1000 BC or later. This assumption lead to many other theories about writers that favored certain names of God over the others, none of which they ever found any evidence for either. They did however, notice differences in the accounts, and often it was along the same lines as what Wiseman discovered. But Wisman based his theory on actual evidence. He findings bore out the fact that it was not necessary to go against scriptural evidence, plus historical tradition that Genesis really was a book of Moses.

Once you realise Genesis is composed of different texts, aren't the different names for God the most obvious differences between them? I know traditionalist who think believe Moses wrote the whole book himself will argue against the significance of the different names used, but I don't see why someone who accepts it was compiled from different text would buy the arguments. It was actually evidence from the text that first made people think Genesis was edited quite late, when the Canaanites were no longer lived in Canaan. Gen 12:6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. Wiseman has evidence that colophons might be another possibility for the toledoth, but he has no evidence for Mosaic editorship of Genesis or that the texts date back to Adam.

The first part is well taken. I have no problem with Moses being a redactor, and compiler or editor for not only Genesis but all his books. In fact, in some ways it gives me a lot more respect for him. Writing from dictation is quite easy. Sifting through ancient writings and putting together the masterpiece of Genesis is quite another. Plus, as Henry Morris pointed out, compiling for historical narratives is actually the norm in scripture.

But the fact that Jesus read from the Septuagint starting with Moses and the prophets, and claimed that Moses wrote of Him, is irrefutable evidence that the Jewish tradition of mosaic authorship is correct. These were his writings, regardless of where he drew the details from. But I have no problem with him working from other writings, even for the rest of the books. This would not at all affect them being his books, and his writings. I also don't have a problem with later editing, especially for his obituary. God very well could have guided this process as well.

You don't seem to have addressed a question I wrote about this later in my post.

Does Jesus say Moses wrote the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, or does he attribute specific statements and laws to Moses and refer to the Torah by its common title ‘the book of Moses’, or simply ‘Moses’?
Does Jesus describe anything written by Moses that would not have been in the original texts that are attributed to Moses in Exodus to Deuteronomy and later edited together into those books?
​

Saying "Moses spoke of me" would certainly fit Moses being both writer and editor of the Pentateuch, but that isn't the issue. You need to show it doesn't fit Moses writing texts like the scroll of the law when were edited together later, along with other texts, to form the Pentateuch.

Is it possible that a later editor under inspiration split the scroll into 3 books. Of course. But these are Moses' writings. That was what Jesus said. I mean let's face it, Ex. Lev. Num. all pretty much run together.

The mark of good editorial work, especially when the books the bible describes Moses writing don't run together that way at all.

I would also grant that perhaps Moses worked with a scribe in the process of putting all these writings together. To what extent, i don't know. What I do know is, Jesus affirmed him being the author, and Wiseman obliterated the notion that writings didn't exist until 1000 BC. I also know that as a prince of Egypt, Moses would have been very educated and capable.

It is archaeological discoveries that showed us how far back writing goes, not Wiseman. I agree of course that writing existed in Moses' time and that he was well educated, literate and wrote the books the Pentateuch ascribes to him.

How do you know the book of the law was different then?

Because the books Moses is described as writing are very different from the books of the Pentateuch, I have shown you what the account of the battle with the Amalekites tells us Moses wrote and how it is different from the chapter we have in our bibles. You didn't really addressed the point I made.

Everything may have been on one scroll, but that doesn't mean it was in a different form. And Deuteronomy was actually in the form of an ancient vassal contract which was between Moses' generation and God. It makes no sense if that wasn't penned during Moses's time.
The format of Deuteronomy follows the structure of Ancient Near Eastern treaties which were made between greater and lesser powers. Israel, the lesser power, had been freed from bondage as Egypt's vassal and was now voluntarily becoming the vassal of Yahweh. Therefore, the book of Deuteronomy is a treaty or contract between God and Israel.
So book of the law, singular is not an issue for me. They're basically all running narratives, from Genesis to Deuteronomy. They flow together perfectly

How do you know the covenant layout of Deuteronomy isn't the work of the later editor? Or maybe it is just reading things into the layout of Deuteronomy that aren't there. Humans are very good a pattern recognition, we even see things that aren't there, just ask anyone who has ever looked at the clouds and seen a bunny rabbit or castle. What I can tell from the text of Deuteronomy itself is that it is different from the book of the law. As we have seen the book of the law contained the covenant Joshua and the Israelites made years after they entered the promised land, Deuteronomy continues for three and a quarter chapters after it describes Moses finishing the book of the law and giving it to the Levites.

Deut 31:24 When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end, 25 Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, 26 "Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.

What is your evidence that other books of the law were later added? I mean this phrase, "book of the law" was used even by Paul, who had the Septuagint. Was he referring to something outside of the Septuagint? It's very clear the books of moses were also called the book of the law.

No Paul is referring to the book of the law that is referred to again and again in Deuteronomy and he uses the same phrase the lxx uses to describe it, εν τω βιβλιω του νομου. In fact where you find this exact phrase it is in the context of the curses (or in one case blessings) that come with the law, which is the context Paul used the phrase in Gal 3:10.

Gotta go for now. You made a lot more points that deserve a response.

Thank you

That's actually and interpretation (a wrong one) that is feed by the creation account title myth. Look at the text very carefully, taking into consideration who the author of this tablet is. It's Adam himself, after he was created.

Like I said, it has nothing to do with the title, it is what a plain reading of the text of Genesis 2 actually says. On the other hand you are basing you argument on something the bible never tells us, that Adam wrote Genesis 2.

Now look at the first sentence:
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens — and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,
Now think about that, especially the explanation as to why no "field plants" had yet sprung up. Reason #1, there was no rain yet. But more important, reason #2, there were no farmers yet.

If there was no rain it is not just cultivated plants that wouldn't have been able to grow, wild plants would not have grown either, farmer or no farmer. But like I said this isn't talking about cultivated plants, herbs of the field were no more domesticated plants than the beasts of the field were livestock. If you want to understand the meaning of this, look back at Genesis 1:28&29 when it makes the same point, just in a different way. Like the dominion passage in Genesis 1, Genesis 2 is talking about our stewardship and responsibility over the whole earth.

It should be immediately clear to any ancient reader that understood colophon phrases that this account, Adam's, was not talking about the creation of plants, but rather the planting and cultivation of plants. Let's read on...

The toledoth doesn't say anything about Genesis 2 not being a creation account, so even if the readers understood it as a colophon, it wouldn't mean they would take a story of God making the first plants spring out of the ground and forming all the animals and birds and think it was just about cultivation.

.....Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

Garden, cultivated plants? Starting to make sense? The fact that God created the plants on day 3 doesn't mean that cultivated plants existed yet. Those he left for man to plant and toil over.

Does it say God created plants of the field and herbs of the field in the garden? We don't come across the herbs of the field again until Gen 3:18 where Adam is told he will have to eat them after he is kicked out of the garden. Having to eat the herbs of the field was part of the curse, these were hardly the beautiful and tasty plants Adam had to eat in the garden.

Now again, no one understanding the writing structure of this account would be confused by that. It would have been obvious that these were cultivated farmed plants that that the author was talking about. But at the same time, I can understand why someone would think this to be a creation account if it had the title over it, "This is the creation account of the Heavens and the Earth." That would get people thinking. But once that title is taken away, and you realize this was a story that Adam wrote or owned, everything falls into place.

It still has God creating man, plants, animals, birds and woman, it doesn't need the toledoth to tell us it is a creation story.

Later in the account there seems to be a passage about the creation of animals. But here again, when we realize this was Adam's account of the Garden, we realize that this also is not saying Animals were created right then, after Adam, but rather they were being showcased in front of Adam for the purpose of naming them. Adam merely shared that God formed animals out of the ground. This is why the NIV translates the passage, "now the Lord had formed."

The question is whether this is a good translation or not. Is this looking at the plain meaning of the text or making the text fit their preconceptions of what they think is should say? This is a straightforward Hebrew construction used to describe a series of event in the past, it is found throughout the narrative in Genesis 2, throughout Genesis and Hebrew narrative texts, and the standard translation is a simple past tense. So why pick this one and turn it into the pluperfect 'had formed'? They are trying to make the text fit Genesis 1 not letting the text speak for itself. It is an interpretation not a translation. If the writer had wanted to say God had formed the animals, he could do it the way he described 'the man whom God had formed' in verse 8.

Once you apply proper understandings of ancient writing structures, all difficulties disappear.

Or you could let the text speak for itself and see it as the creation account it really is.

continued... *deep breath*

 

[Assyrian]

*and out*

Wiseman noted that all the colophon phrases of Genesis just happened to be arranged in a way that the individuals mentioned would have had direct accesses to the information on them. Adam certainly would have qualified to write about his own creation in the was we find it in chapter 2. It merely says God formed man and breathed life into his nostrils. Why wouldn't he be able to report those 2 facts? Certainly God would have communicated with him in some way, but the details are very generic.

'Just happened' is hardly surprising given the long lifespans ascribed to the people in Genesis. God could have doesn't mean God did. This isn't evidence of anything, especially of something the bible never tells us.

Actually, toledoth is a very uncommon hebrew word for genealogy.

toledoth occurs 40 times while yachas as a noun and verb occur a total of 35. There is the word dor or Aramaic dar meaning a generation which occurs 141 times but it is more in the sense of "talking 'bout my generation", people of the same period, than a genealogy.

If you want to see the relationship between yachas a genealogy and toledoth generations, have a look at 1Chron 5:7 And his kinsmen by their clans, when the genealogy [yachas] of their generations [toledoth] was recorded... toledoth refer to who is actually descended from whom while yachas was an official court document recording the descent. Interestingly yachas only occurs in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah

Wiseman in his writings lists dozens of scholars that disagree with you on this.

Unfortunately they are not here to discuss it with us so you will have to make the case yourself.

and yes, the fact that an account is finished before the death of the named individual in the colophon does not prove he wrote it, but sure gives us a very good clue. And as Wiseman points out, this is not the case in just one of the accounts, but all of them.

Yes but just because the heavens and the earth were still around when the 'generations of the heavens and the earth' hardly means the heavens and the earth wrote it. It is not even 'a very good clue'. Just because something fits a piece of wild speculation doesn't mean it isn't still wild speculation or that it is a very good clue. What you need is actual evidence from scripture that says Adam the other patriarchs wrote these text, but there is nothing in the bible that says this.

What's even more interesting is even in Adam's account where Cain's line is mentioned, it also only goes down as far as Adam would have been alive to know about. It then suddenly stops.

Didn't it stop because they all drowned?

Wiseman also points out that in Jacob's account, it mentions he still living in Canaan. And while Joseph was still alive at that time in Egypt, none of this is mentioned by Jacob, as he wouldn't have known about that stuff until he moved to Egypt himself. He wouldn't have had access to that info yet. Thus it makes sense it's not in his Canaan account.

It is pretty speculative to claim the long list of Edomite kings in Gen 36:31-43, descendants of Jacob's brother Esau was information available to Jacob. But it is not the things that fit that are the issue with colophons it is the things that make no sense. If it is a colophon then 'the generations of Jacob' (Gen 37:2) is just the list of Esau's descendants Gen 36:9-43 while 'the generations of Esau' in Gen 36:1 is the story of Jacob in previous chapters.

So we have abundant evidence that these were actually accounts by the authors named.

There is no evidence these were accounts by the people named, just an argument that fits in some places doesn't fit in others. Where is there any hint in the actual text that tells us these people wrote the texts?

You're getting very strict with this. Remember, this is just human writings. They were just like us and followed general rules. But with that said, if there was a time to do this, wouldn't this be the right time, where no human witness could have signed this? "This is the account of creation." It's logical.

It shows us the term toledoth not being used the way Wiseman claims. Your only argument is the circumstantial one that it always fits but it doesn't always fit.

You're just dead wrong on this. Wiseman quotes several archeologists that make the very opposite point. They all seem to agree that no matter how deep we go, we find civilization advanced and we find writings.

Now the assumption of these archeologists were originally the opposite. They thought that the deeper they went, the more primitive cultures they would find. But that's not what they're finding...

Wiseman was writing in 1936, I suspect the archaeologists he was quoting are not as up to date as the ones today.

The use of tools long predates drawing and symbols, symbols go back a long way, we find them with cave drawings, but that is not the same as writing. You can have symbols for numbers, for people's names, for different goods or for different gods, but you cannot write a conversation in those symbols, for that you need to have a symbol for every word in your language, work out a system for every possible syllable, or work out an alphabet for every sound. But writing that was flexible enough to write down every word, that could record a story as a text came much later.

I think you've missed the point. Wiseman is not claiming to have found Adam's original writings. He's claiming to have found writings that predate Moses and even Abraham, and he's claiming to have found ancient structural keys that the Bible uses and the Genesis accounts used. When this information is applied, all kinds of interpretive difficulties that have plagued commentators over the years disappear.

If the toledoth weren't on the tablets Moses edited into Genesis, then why would Moses use a Babylonian system for labelling clay tablets, when with his Egyptian higher education, he wrote Genesis in a papyrus scroll?

Among these keys are colophon phrases at the end, and interestingly, genealogies at the beginning with no particular introductory titles. And BTW, this is very common in the Bible. How many books start out with genealogies?

Do any of these books finish the genealogy with a toledoth phrase, 'these are the generations of X'? How many of the toledoth phrases in Genesis are followed by a genealogy of the person named or a description of their children?

No, it actually doesn't. I explained this already in the previous post.

You haven't addressed my point that 'herb of the field' are hardly domesticated plants when 'beasts of the field' are wild animals and that the text specifically mentions livestock as well as beasts of the field.

How about just plainly reading the text in context and noticing that God said these plants didn't exist yet because there were no farmers. Sorry, but that's exactly what it says. Why would wild plants need farmers?

It just means you have a problem taking the plain meaning of the text literally, not that it isn't the plain meaning. But you haven't addressed my point; a that creation account in the bible don't have to use the word create, and interpreting the toledoth as a colophon to Genesis 1 doesn't mean Genesis 2 isn't a creation account.

This assumes all your premises are true. Unfortunately none of them are.

I have been backing up my points from scripture, If you want to claim my arguments have false premises, you need to show what the premises are, show that they are false and show how it undermines the arguments and the evidence I based them on. Just claiming it doesn't really count.

This is the whole myth that Wiseman exploded. First, there aren't enough genealogies to go around for all these colophon phrases. This has been a difficulty in interpreting Genesis over the years, and Wiseman quotes quite a few confused theologians (though, it's understandable why they were confused, so it's by no means a knock). You'd have these "generations" statements, and then no genealogy or generational info to follow. Now it makes perfect sense why this happened. We are title oriented. They writers of Genesis were not.

You haven't addressed the point I made. But as for your point here, it is easier to force everything into a single straight jacket whether it really fits or not, than really try to tease all the different sources apart in an ancient text. Having scholars disagree isn't evidence you are right, it is just evidence the text is complex and difficult to tease apart.

I have mentioned Gen 10:1 These are the generations [toledoth] of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, which was followed by a long genealogy of the descendants of Noah's sons, and finished by saying, Gen 10:32 These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies [toledoth], in their nations. How could you not think that the genealogy spanning those two verses isn't the toledoth?

You get the a similar thing with Ishmael's genealogy in Genesis 25, it starts off in verse 12 These are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's servant, bore to Abraham. The passage before isn't about Ishmael it is about Isaac, but look at the verse just after, it follows Ishmael being born to Abraham and Hagar with Gen 25:13 And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations [toledoth]: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam... down to verse 18 where we read the death of Ishmael. Why would you thing the generation of Ishmael is the passage before about Isaac rather than the passage after it when it describes Ishmael and his sons in their toledoth?

Again, you put etymology over usage, and assume ANE etymology in spite of the evidence Wiseman made available. It seems rather obvious now, that corrupted views of history and the structures of the heavens, were merely corrupted copies and retellings from these original tablets that Moses worked from. It used to be charged that Moses (or later redactors) copied from earlier creation accounts. We now can see that just the opposite is true. It's the Genesis account that is the original, and the perversions of it came later, from strange flood accounts, to false views of the cosmos.

What have Wiseman's colophons got to do with the cosmology of the writers? Even if you claim pagan myths were a corruption of Genesis, it still doesn't change the ancient cosmology we can see in the texts. It is Genesis that uses the word for a beaten out metal bowl to describe the heavens, it is not just the etymology of raqia, people back then like Elihu used the etymological root raqa, beating out, to describe God creating the heavens. Job 37:18 Can you, like him, spread out [raqa] the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror? Elihu even compares the results to a shiny metal mirror. Elihu may not have been inspired by God, but he shows us the cosmology of the day and what calling the heavens raqia meant to people back then.

Sorry, but it makes perfect sense. You're trying to poke holes in it, but have failed to this point IMHO.

So the heavens and the earth wrote the first creation story or owned the clay tablet?

I don't think it's possible I could disagree more.

I have shown you some of the problems.

Wiseman addressed this issue directly. Yes, they could be referring to the primary individual, but then if this is true, as Wiseman asked, why no Abraham colophon? Can any one argue that he was not a central character? And why are accounts for Ishmael and Esau and Terah in there? Are they really central characters? And since Noah is the main character in the account containing the flood, why is it signed by his sons? The main character explanation just doesn't fit. This is why Wiseman, wisely, ruled it out.

There are more then fourteen chapters about Abraham between the generations of Terah in Gen 11:27 and the generations of Ishmael in Gen 25:12. Is Ishmael's tablet the only source we have for the life of Abraham? Or could the book of Genesis made up of more texts than just the ones called toledoth? You don't know that Abrahams didn't have separate tablets about his life too, the issue is the meaning of the colophon phrase which still make better sense of the Hebrew to be about the subject of the table than the owner. It makes more sense to have separate genealogies or tablets for Isaac and Ishmael with the great nations that came from them, and the sharp divergence of biblical history.

Wiseman then points out how in each case, the named individual is never attached to an account where that individual wouldn't have been alive and had access to information on those events. Between those two glaring facts, it makes sense that these were the writer/owners of these particular tablets.

However glaring you think the fact are neither of them tell us the individual owned the tablets. As I said with the long ages ascribed to the people in Genesis and the fact Wiseman takes people mentioned later in Genesis than the text he ascribes to them, it is hardly surprising he can claim they were still alive at the time, that is ignoring the fact the heavens and the earth aren’t alive at all. Saying they had access to information isn’t particularly difficult either when you are always able to claim God told them. If you had evidence from the text these people owned the tablets then you might be able claim this as some sort corroboration, but there isn’t evidence from the text they owned any sort of books or even could read.

 

[Calminian]

I am not sure you would like the implications of that argument. If people are illiterate does this mean it is because they aren't intelligent? And when Europeans came across cultures that were illiterate like the Plains Indians, black Africans or Australian Aborigines they were right to consider them inferior?

Yes! Cultures without written languages are inferior, culturally speaking. Be it european ones, american ones, or african ones.

I'm really not into political correctness, if that's where you're going. I think any rational person would agree that cultures with written languages are culturally superior to those without, generally speaking. That doesn't mean they are morally superior, but it does mean they are culturally superior.

But you're missing the point. Archeologies having been finding for quite some time now that language both written and spoken were present in the earliest cultures we know about. This would confirm what the Genesis record tells us about our origin.

It is one thing to interpret a passage literally and propose miracles to explain your interpretation, but what you are doing here is making up miracles to explain Adam being able to write when the bible doesn't say he was able to write.

Okay, fine. I believe it takes a miracle to explain just about everything about Adam. He was speaking immediately. He was full grown. Scripture screams that Adam's formation was a special non-uniformitarian act of God.

This is getting rather long isn't it

It is, and eventually we'll start going in circles and I suppose have to agree to disagree. And I have a feeling you and I may agree in some areas, where I might part from traditional views. I will be reading and responding to most......

 

[Assyrian]

Yes! Cultures without written languages are inferior, culturally speaking. Be it european ones, american ones, or african ones.

I'm really not into political correctness, if that's where you're going. I think any rational person would agree that cultures with written languages are culturally superior to those without, generally speaking. That doesn't mean they are morally superior, but it does mean they are culturally superior.

And the people are less intelligent as well? Otherwise they would have come up with their own writing system.

But you're missing the point. Archeologies having been finding for quite some time now that language both written and spoken were present in the earliest cultures we know about. This would confirm what the Genesis record tells us about our origin.

Except that is not what archaeology has shown us. Writing is recent. Before that people used symbols and numbers, they could label the contents of a clay jar or keep a tally of transactions, but they couldn't record a story.

Okay, fine. I believe it takes a miracle to explain just about everything about Adam. He was speaking immediately. He was full grown. Scripture screams that Adam's formation was a special non-uniformitarian act of God.

Screaming or not you still shouldn't make up miracles God didn't say he preformed, to explain events the bible never said happened.

It is, and eventually we'll start going in circles and I suppose have to agree to disagree. And I have a feeling you and I may agree in some areas, where I might part from traditional views. I will be reading and responding to most......

I look forward to it.

 

[Calminian]

And the people are less intelligent as well? Otherwise they would have come up with their own writing system.

Depends on how you define intelligence. Give me a definition and maybe I can answer. But all I've said are cultures with written languages are culturally superior. I don't know why you're getting so offended by this.

Except that is not what archaeology has shown us. Writing is recent. Before that people used symbols and numbers, they could label the contents of a clay jar or keep a tally of transactions, but they couldn't record a story.

Please share your evidence.

Screaming or not you still shouldn't make up miracles God didn't say he preformed, to explain events the bible never said happened.

Actually I was speaking about the scriptural record about Adam. Scripture describes a miraculous creation of Adam and Eve. You may dismiss that record, but you can't accuse me of making it up.

 

[Calminian]

Once you realise Genesis is composed of different texts, aren't the different names for God the most obvious differences between them? I know traditionalist who think believe Moses wrote the whole book himself will argue against the significance of the different names used, but I don't see why someone who accepts it was compiled from different text would buy the arguments. It was actually evidence from the text that first made people think Genesis was edited quite late, when the Canaanites were no longer lived in Canaan. Gen 12:6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. Wiseman has evidence that colophons might be another possibility for the toledoth, but he has no evidence for Mosaic editorship of Genesis or that the texts date back to Adam.

I think the names of God thing was a stretch. There are differences in the tablets, though, very obvious differences. Perhaps the biggest is the different terms used as the tablets get older. In the early tablets we see a babylonian influence, and then an Egyptian influence in the later tablets. I think this shows the writings are from multiple sources.

But again, what drove JPDP was the assumption that writings didn't go back that far. Now that we know they did go back much further than Moses and even Abraham, it seems logical that Moses would have been the perfect compiler redactor. His background makes him the perfect candidate to translate the documents. It's also very possible Moses had a scribe or scribes working for him.

You don't seem to have addressed a question I wrote about this later in my post.

Does Jesus say Moses wrote the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, or does he attribute specific statements and laws to Moses and refer to the Torah by its common title ‘the book of Moses’, or simply ‘Moses’?
Does Jesus describe anything written by Moses that would not have been in the original texts that are attributed to Moses in Exodus to Deuteronomy and later edited together into those books?
​

Saying "Moses spoke of me" would certainly fit Moses being both writer and editor of the Pentateuch, but that isn't the issue. You need to show it doesn't fit Moses writing texts like the scroll of the law when were edited together later, along with other texts, to form the Pentateuch.

I actually did answer that in quite a bit of detail. What part didn't you like?

There are several statements from Jesus and the N.T. that make it clears the writings of these books were attributed to Moses, though the names of the specific books are not mentioned. However, in fairness, those names of the books developed later, much like chapters and verses.

But please feel free to quote what I wrote and ask me about it.

Because the books Moses is described as writing are very different from the books of the Pentateuch, I have shown you what the account of the battle with the Amalekites tells us Moses wrote and how it is different from the chapter we have in our bibles. You didn't really addressed the point I made.

I totally disagree, and so did the N.T. writers. They attributed writings in these books to Moses. I think you're getting hung up on the books names which developed later.

I havent researched the specific Amalekite issue.

How do you know the covenant layout of Deuteronomy isn't the work of the later editor?

Why would I assume it was later? The book was a treaty between Moses and the Israelites and God.

Deut 31:24 When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end, 25 Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, 26 "Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.

No Paul is referring to the book of the law that is referred to again and again in Deuteronomy and he uses the same phrase the lxx uses to describe it, εν τω βιβλιω του νομου. In fact where you find this exact phrase it is in the context of the curses (or in one case blessings) that come with the law, which is the context Paul used the phrase in Gal 3:10.

So, you don't believe the Jesus read from the septuagint? It just seems very hard to believe that he was not reading from the actual Bible of his day, but something else. It doesn't make any sense.

Like I said, it has nothing to do with the title, it is what a plain reading of the text of Genesis 2 actually says. On the other hand you are basing you argument on something the bible never tells us, that Adam wrote Genesis 2.

The plain reading of the text is that this is the story of a Garden, not a creation story. The title is the only thing saving you on this. You're clinging to it, but it's in vain. By all means, trying to explain where the creation is in this account.

If there was no rain it is not just cultivated plants that wouldn't have been able to grow, wild plants would not have grown either, farmer or no farmer.

Exactly. This was day 6. The land was just newly formed. The only plants that existed were the ones created fully grown by God. But the plants in this account, not only need water, but also a farmer.

This is so obvious, a child could understand it.

But like I said this isn't talking about cultivated plants, herbs of the field were no more domesticated plants than the beasts of the field were livestock.

Actually the beasts of the field there may very well have been beasts of the Garden of Eden. Remember there was no predation at that time, and it's very possible that just as there were specific plants to be grown in that Garden, so were the specific animals to live in it as well.

If you want to understand the meaning of this, look back at Genesis 1:28&29 when it makes the same point, just in a different way. Like the dominion passage in Genesis 1, Genesis 2 is talking about our stewardship and responsibility over the whole earth.

Sorry, that's just a whiff. No other way to describe it. This supposed second creation account is specifically talking about a special Garden that God made and placed Adam in. It's not speaking about the entire land, just the land of that particular Garden. You're asking me to ignore something that's obvious.

The toledoth doesn't say anything about Genesis 2 not being a creation account, so even if the readers understood it as a colophon, it wouldn't mean they would take a story of God making the first plants spring out of the ground and forming all the animals and birds and think it was just about cultivation.

Of course you haven't shown me anything that supports that bizarre interpretation. You're simply clinging to a dead interpretation.

Does it say God created plants of the field and herbs of the field in the garden? We don't come across the herbs of the field again until Gen 3:18 where Adam is told he will have to eat them after he is kicked out of the garden. Having to eat the herbs of the field was part of the curse, these were hardly the beautiful and tasty plants Adam had to eat in the garden.

Exactly, and you just shot yourself in the foot. You just proved my point. When Adam was kicked out of the garden he was informed the raising cultivated plants would never be an easy task again. Thorns and Thistles would now plague farmers from then on. Again, anyone that can't see the idea of cultivation in this passage simply doesn't want to.

It still has God creating man, plants, animals, birds and woman, it doesn't need the toledoth to tell us it is a creation story.

Sorry, it just doesn't. You can say it til you're blue, it just doesn't. That title was your only refuge.

The question is whether this is a good translation or not. Is this looking at the plain meaning of the text or making the text fit their preconceptions of what they think is should say? This is a straightforward Hebrew construction used to describe a series of event in the past, it is found throughout the narrative in Genesis 2, throughout Genesis and Hebrew narrative texts, and the standard translation is a simple past tense. So why pick this one and turn it into the pluperfect 'had formed'? They are trying to make the text fit Genesis 1 not letting the text speak for itself. It is an interpretation not a translation. If the writer had wanted to say God had formed the animals, he could do it the way he described 'the man whom God had formed' in verse 8.

I think you're a bit naive to think that title presuppositions haven't affected translations. The NIV is actually a very good translation employing 100 language scholars. The translation they provide a perfectly acceptable translation. Please explain why the translation is not appropriate, especially now that we understand the ancient writing styles better.

Or you could let the text speak for itself and see it as the creation account it really is.

continued... *deep breath*

LOL. I've never seen anyone cling to a fallacious interpretation so passionately. You just don't want to let it go. I'm perfectly fine with you clinging to the 2 creation accounts myth. I'll just keep pointing out the obvious until you just can't stand it anymore.

 

[Assyrian]

Depends on how you define intelligence. Give me a definition and maybe I can answer. But all I've said are cultures with written languages are culturally superior. I don't know why you're getting so offended by this.

It is not just cultures you have to dismiss as inferior, you have to believe they are less intelligent too, otherwise they would have come up with writing themselves.

Please share your evidence.

I suggest you read of Wikipedia on the history of writing and follow the links it gives. It will give you a good overview modern archaeology. Be sure to notice the distinction between preliterate using symbols and actual writing. But you are the one insisting that archaeology has shown that writing has existed from the earliest civilisations, rather than asking me to prove a negative perhaps you can show the evidence for your claim.

Actually I was speaking about the scriptural record about Adam. Scripture describes a miraculous creation of Adam and Eve. You may dismiss that record, but you can't accuse me of making it up.

It is not that you interpret the story literally and I don't, it's that the story never says Adam could read and write. You are making up the miracle to explain things you have added to the text.

I think the names of God thing was a stretch. There are differences in the tablets, though, very obvious differences. Perhaps the biggest is the different terms used as the tablets get older. In the early tablets we see a babylonian influence, and then an Egyptian influence in the later tablets. I think this shows the writings are from multiple sources.

You think the difference between Babylonian and Egyptian terms is very obvious even though you can't speak either language, yet you think the differences in the name of God in the texts that comes through plainly even in English , between God, elohiym, and LORD God, yahweh elohiym, is a 'stretch'. Do you have some sort of confirmation bias going on there?

But again, what drove JPDP was the assumption that writings didn't go back that far. Now that we know they did go back much further than Moses and even Abraham, it seems logical that Moses would have been the perfect compiler redactor. His background makes him the perfect candidate to translate the documents. It's also very possible Moses had a scribe or scribes working for him.

I have shown you the basis of the documentary hypothesis was what the text actually said, that it was compiled at a time the Canaanites no longer lived in the land, You even agree with the main evidence for the documentary hypothesis that the text itself show signs of being composed of different documents edited together. Now you think you have disproved one of the supporting ideas for JPED the dating of writing, and want to believe that was the one thing that 'drove' the documentary hypothesis? The evidence stills says it is composed of different documents and edited in the exilic or post exilic period, why would discovering slightly earlier writing change that? Thinking Moses was a good candidate as editor doesn't mean he was the editor.

I actually did answer that in quite a bit of detail. What part didn't you like?

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'.

There are several statements from Jesus and the N.T. that make it clears the writings of these books were attributed to Moses, though the names of the specific books are not mentioned. However, in fairness, those names of the books developed later, much like chapters and verses.

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.

But please feel free to quote what I wrote and ask me about it.

Seeing as you haven't dealt with the issue, there is nothing for me to quote. You need to make an argument before I can address it.

Because the books Moses is described as writing are very different from the books of the Pentateuch, I have shown you what the account of the battle with the Amalekites tells us Moses wrote and how it is different from the chapter we have in our bibles. You didn't really addressed the point I made.

I totally disagree, and so did the N.T. writers. They attributed writings in these books to Moses. I think you're getting hung up on the books names which developed later.

I havent researched the specific Amalekite issue.

It is nothing to do with the names of the books, and with the Amalekites all you need to do is read Exodus 17 and see how much of the chapter it describes Moses writing.

Why would I assume it was later? The book was a treaty between Moses and the Israelites and God.

You are the one who quoted the layout of Deuteronomy as evidence of Mosaic authorship, are you saying it isn't evidence of that at all you are just assuming it was Moses?

No Paul is referring to the book of the law that is referred to again and again in Deuteronomy and he uses the same phrase the lxx uses to describe it, εν τω βιβλιω του νομου. In fact where you find this exact phrase it is in the context of the curses (or in one case blessings) that come with the law, which is the context Paul used the phrase in Gal 3:10.

So, you don't believe the Jesus read from the septuagint? It just seems very hard to believe that he was not reading from the actual Bible of his day, but something else. It doesn't make any sense.

Jesus? I thought you were talking about Paul? If you meant Paul, why would you ask if I think that when I mention Paul using the same phrase we find in the lxx? (you do realise lxx is the abbreviation for the Septuagint?) Perhaps instead of asking what I believe you could address my actual argument.

The plain reading of the text is that this is the story of a Garden, not a creation story. The title is the only thing saving you on this. You're clinging to it, but it's in vain. By all means, trying to explain where the creation is in this account.

I am not relying on the title at all. It is not just the story of a garden it is the story of the creation of the first garden, the creation of plants when there were no plants in the world, the creation of a man and animals and birds and a woman. The story may involve a garden, but it is all the divine acts of creation in the story that make it a creation account. You want to believe removing the title undermines the whole idea Genesis 2 is a creation story, but it doesn't. It isn't just that the argument for colophons isn't that solid and isn't widely accepted, it is that even it it were a colophon, Genesis 2 is still clearly a creation story because of all the works of creation in it.

Exactly. This was day 6. The land was just newly formed. The only plants that existed were the ones created fully grown by God. But the plants in this account, not only need water, but also a farmer.

This is so obvious, a child could understand it.

You are not explaining how any plants were able to grow without water. If it is day 6 why are we watching fruit trees spring up.

Actually the beasts of the field there may very well have been beasts of the Garden of Eden. Remember there was no predation at that time, and it's very possible that just as there were specific plants to be grown in that Garden, so were the specific animals to live in it as well.

You are not dealing with the argument. The account mentions beasts of the field and livestock. Even if you believe there were no carnivores, the animals it describes are the non domesticated ones. And if the beasts of the field are wild animals why would you think herbs of the field were domesticated? The emphasis in the account is that Adam gave names to all the animals, Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. Trying to restrict the animals to a limited selection in the garden is reading things into the text, trying to force it to fit your preconceived ideas, rather than looking to see what the text itself is saying.

Sorry, that's just a whiff. No other way to describe it. This supposed second creation account is specifically talking about a special Garden that God made and placed Adam in. It's not speaking about the entire land, just the land of that particular Garden. You're asking me to ignore something that's obvious.

There were no plants in the earth, none in the ground Adam was taken out of, there were by the time he was kicked out of the garden, Adam returned to the place he was formed to till the ground, and he had to eat the herbs of the field there. It doesn't say God created the animals in the garden either, it says God formed the animals and brought them to Adam. I never said you had to ignore the garden, you just need to stop ignoring all the works of creation in this creation account.

Of course you haven't shown me anything that supports that bizarre interpretation. You're simply clinging to a dead interpretation.

I am showing you a possible meaning to the text which you haven't refuted. You claimed there was no other explanation than yours, I have shown you there is. Even if I couldn't suggest any reason, it still wouldn't make your explanation right, when I have shown you that your explanation simply doesn't fit the text.

Exactly, and you just shot yourself in the foot. You just proved my point. When Adam was kicked out of the garden he was informed the raising cultivated plants would never be an easy task again. Thorns and Thistles would now plague farmers from then on. Again, anyone that can't see the idea of cultivation in this passage simply doesn't want to.

Never said there wasn't any cultivation either. You haven't dealt with my point.

Sorry, it just doesn't. You can say it til you're blue, it just doesn't. That title was your only refuge.

And you can keep saying that if you want to believe it, but anybody can see I have based my claim of Genesis 2 being a creation story on the text of the story, not on the title. Doesn't it worry you that you can only only attack an argument I haven't made and cannot address the arguments I do make?

I think you're a bit naive to think that title presuppositions haven't affected translations. The NIV is actually a very good translation employing 100 language scholars. The translation they provide a perfectly acceptable translation. Please explain why the translation is not appropriate, especially now that we understand the ancient writing styles better.

You don't need to be influenced by presuppositions to interpret a verb in its normal ordinary meaning, it is when you change the normal meaning to something else like the NIV translators working on Genesis 2 did that you should worry about bias and presuppositions. Now I explained the problem with the translation in the section you quoted, but you didn't address it.

LOL. I've never seen anyone cling to a fallacious interpretation so passionately. You just don't want to let it go. I'm perfectly fine with you clinging to the 2 creation accounts myth. I'll just keep pointing out the obvious until you just can't stand it anymore.

It may seem obvious to you, but it loses something when you try to write it down in a post. I have show you from the text what the text actually says, perhaps you could do the same and stop trying to convince yourself the if you can just read Gen 2:4 as part of the Genesis 1 creation account, then you can say anything you like about Genesis 2.

 

[Calminian]

It is not just cultures you have to dismiss as inferior, you have to believe they are less intelligent too, otherwise they would have come up with writing themselves.

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.

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

It is not that you interpret the story literally and I don't, it's that the story never says Adam could read and write. You are making up the miracle to explain things you have added to the text.

But the story does show him talking. That in and of itself is a miracle. And now we have good textual evidence from archeological evidence that Adam was the owner if this account.

You think the difference between Babylonian and Egyptian terms is very obvious even though you can't speak either language, yet you think the differences in the name of God in the texts that comes through plainly even in English , between God, elohiym, and LORD God, yahweh elohiym, is a 'stretch'. Do you have some sort of confirmation bias going on there?

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 have shown you the basis of the documentary hypothesis was what the text actually said, that it was compiled at a time the Canaanites no longer lived in the land, You even agree with the main evidence for the documentary hypothesis that the text itself show signs of being composed of different documents edited together. Now you think you have disproved one of the supporting ideas for JPED the dating of writing, and want to believe that was the one thing that 'drove' the documentary hypothesis?

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.

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.

The evidence stills says it is composed of different documents and edited in the exilic or post exilic period, why would discovering slightly earlier writing change that? Thinking Moses was a good candidate as editor doesn't mean he was the editor.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Jesus? I thought you were talking about Paul? If you meant Paul, why would you ask if I think that when I mention Paul using the same phrase we find in the lxx? (you do realise lxx is the abbreviation for the Septuagint?) Perhaps instead of asking what I believe you could address my actual argument.

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

I am not relying on the title at all. It is not just the story of a garden it is the story of the creation of the first garden, the creation of plants when there were no plants in the world, the creation of a man and animals and birds and a woman. The story may involve a garden, but it is all the divine acts of creation in the story that make it a creation account.

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.

You want to believe removing the title undermines the whole idea Genesis 2 is a creation story, but it doesn't. It isn't just that the argument for colophons isn't that solid and isn't widely accepted, it is that even it it were a colophon, Genesis 2 is still clearly a creation story because of all the works of creation in it.

That's an argument? Okay!

You are not explaining how any plants were able to grow without water. If it is day 6 why are we watching fruit trees spring up.

Er, huh?

You are not dealing with the argument. The account mentions beasts of the field and livestock. Even if you believe there were no carnivores, the animals it describes are the non domesticated ones. And if the beasts of the field are wild animals why would you think herbs of the field were domesticated?

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 emphasis in the account is that Adam gave names to all the animals, Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. Trying to restrict the animals to a limited selection in the garden is reading things into the text, trying to force it to fit your preconceived ideas, rather than looking to see what the text itself is saying.

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.

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.
​

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

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. 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!!

There were no plants in the earth, none in the ground Adam was taken out of, there were by the time he was kicked out of the garden, Adam returned to the place he was formed to till the ground, and he had to eat the herbs of the field there. It doesn't say God created the animals in the garden either, it says God formed the animals and brought them to Adam. I never said you had to ignore the garden, you just need to stop ignoring all the works of creation in this creation account.

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.

I am showing you a possible meaning to the text which you haven't refuted.

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.

And you can keep saying that if you want to believe it, but anybody can see I have based my claim of Genesis 2 being a creation story on the text of the story, not on the title. Doesn't it worry you that you can only only attack an argument I haven't made and cannot address the arguments I do make?

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.

 

[Calminian]

BTW, on a side note, there are other ways the tablet theory resolves the 2 creation account accusation, as well as issues like Cain's wife.

Regarding the 2 creation accounts, people have been confused in the past about the account of the garden because it seems to mention the creation of animals again, yet jumbles the order. But when you understand that this was Adam's account, and it was able to stand alone, it becomes obvious why the creation of animals is mentioned. Being that it was its own tablet, it was necessary to cover some details so the ancient reader knew where the animals came from. It would be awkward for Adam to just jump right into the naming of animals, without a brief word about their origin. Adam's grammar makes no mention of the order of their creation, just that they had been created. Since he was about to talk about the naming of the animals, it made sense for him to mention how they came to be at that point of his text. When you see this is a different text, and take the erroneous title away, everything falls into to place without confusion.

Now regarding Cain's wife, the tablet theory addresses this in a very similar way. For Adam's account ends in Genesis 5:1a, and Noah's account starts in 5:1b. Not realizing this, a reader might be tempted to string the two accounts together, and think the account to be chronological in terms of the birth orders—Cain, Abel, Seth, other sons and daughters. But when one realizes that Noah's account is a separate document and stands alone, the confusion disappears. Noah's intention was not to complete Adam's account. It came hundreds of years later, or even more. It was its own tablet, and was meant to record the line that connected him to Adam. Therefore he only mentions Seth, and then mentions that Adam had other sons and daughters. Those "other sons and daughters" would have included Cain and Abel. But Noah's purpose in mentioning Seth was to show which son connected him to Adam, not to show who was born first. And in fact, we know Seth was not the first born of Adam, since we also have Adam's account. Now since it is very clear that at least two sons were born before Seth, we can also safely assume that Noah's account was not intending to claim all the others sons and daughters were born after Seth. In fact, this is certainly not the case, since Adam had already lived 130 years at the time of Seth's birth. That's 130 years of life, being made mature and ready to procreate from day one! And he was given Eve, the only directly created female. Think she may have been hot? Now think about this. If Seth was only the 3rd born in 130 years, that means Adam only got that twinkle in his eye every 65 years. Does that make any logical sense?

But the tablet theory shows that Noah's account is separate and was in no way trying to comment on Seth's order of birth in relation to Cain and Abel, nor anyone else. It doesn't mention any others sons or daughters by name, just Seth alone, and we know for certain that Cain and Abel were among those born before Seth. Who knows how many countless others were. Yet another ostensible problem solved by the tablet theory.

 

[SkyWriting]

And on the 61/2 day God taught Adam how to...write?

Adam the the sharpest tool in the shed.
Even his children scored lower on their SAT's.

 

[SkyWriting]

BTW, on a side note, there are other ways the tablet theory resolves the 2 creation account accusation, as well as issues like Cain's wife. Regarding the 2 creation accounts, people have been confused in the past about the account of the garden because it seems to mention the creation of animals again, yet jumbles the order. But when you understand that this was Adam's account, and it was able to stand alone, it becomes obvious why the creation of animals is mentioned. Being that it was its own tablet, it was necessary to cover some details so the ancient reader knew where the animals came from. It would be awkward for Adam to just jump right into the naming of animals, without a brief word about their origin. Adam's grammar makes no mention of the order of their creation, just that they had been created. Since he was about to talk about the naming of the animals, it made sense for him to mention how they came to be at that point of his text. When you see this is a different text, and take the erroneous title away, everything falls into to place without confusion. Now regarding Cain's wife, the tablet theory addresses this in a very similar way. For Adam's account ends in Genesis 5:1a, and Noah's account starts in 5:1b. Not realizing this, a reader might be tempted to string the two accounts together, and think the account to be chronological in terms of the birth orders—Cain, Abel, Seth, other sons and daughters. But when one realizes that Noah's account is a separate document and stands alone, the confusion disappears. Noah's intention was not to complete Adam's account. It came hundreds of years later, or even more. It was its own tablet, and was meant to record the line that connected him to Adam. Therefore he only mentions Seth, and then mentions that Adam had other sons and daughters. Those "other sons and daughters" would have included Cain and Abel. But Noah's purpose in mentioning Seth was to show which son connected him to Adam, not to show who was born first. And in fact, we know Seth was not the first born of Adam, since we also have Adam's account. Now since it is very clear that at least two sons were born before Seth, we can also safely assume that Noah's account was not intending to claim all the others sons and daughters were born after Seth. In fact, this is certainly not the case, since Adam had already lived 130 years at the time of Seth's birth. That's 130 years of life, being made mature and ready to procreate from day one! And he was given Eve, the only directly created female. Think she may have been hot? Now think about this. If Seth was only the 3rd born in 130 years, that means Adam only got that twinkle in his eye every 65 years. Does that make any logical sense? But the tablet theory shows that Noah's account is separate and was in no way trying to comment on Seth's order of birth in relation to Cain and Abel, nor anyone else. It doesn't mention any others sons or daughters by name, just Seth alone, and we know for certain that Cain and Abel were among those born before Seth. Who knows how many countless others were. Yet another ostensible problem solved by the tablet theory.

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