Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Someone told me the other day that they would'nt read the Bible because it was written by men.
RU saying "Adam & Eve had other son's and daughter's and Cain's wife was one of them?" Or something else. ?
She was the only woman that was a direct creation of God. I highly doubt Adam only got the twinkle in his eye every 65 years.
Her looks are not too relevant. She was a perfect match. When your personalities click you don't see surface features.
Like I don't see my grandmother's wrinkles in my mind. Just the smile.
..
So you have intelligent cultures and races who came up with writing, some less intelligent cultures who were taught writing, and less intelligent cultures who never learned to write?Unless the writing was passed down to someone less intelligent. I don't consider the Talaban intelligent for example. But they have a written culture.
So to avoid being liberal I need to start looking down on other cultures and races?It really depends on the starting point. You're liberalism is showing.
Which is the point I have been making. It is one thing to propose a miracle to explains what the literal interpretation of the text says. That is quite different from making up things that aren't in the text and claiming miracles to explain those too.But the story does show him talking. That in and of itself is a miracle.
Again some archaeological evidence for this claim would be great.And now we have good textual evidence from archeological evidence that Adam was the owner if this account.
I thought you were talking about what was obvious form the text. If you what to go by what most conservative and liberal scholars agree on you would need you would need to drop the colophon idea and that Adam wrote the text of Genesis 2-4.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?
Why? Writing existing earlier wouldn't mean Genesis was written earlier. The evidence from the text itself points to it being edited together when the Canaanites no longer lived in the region. It is the text itself that told then that the editor composed it from earlier documents.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.
Speaking of which...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.
You agree there is evidence for Genesis being composed of earlier texts and that there could have been post exilic redactors. Apart from your groundless claim Adam had clay tablets with the first parts of Genesis on it, your only evidence for Moses bring the main editor is not the text of Genesis, or any archaeological evidence, but your interpretation of Jesus' statements, which so far you haven't been able to defend. Like Is said before, it is not enough that Jesus' statements fit your idea of Moses as the editor, you need to show that they contradict mine. It is possible you will answer this further down your post if so I will address it there.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.
Claiming liberal scholars agree with you is not the same as backing up you argument from the text. Of course kenosis would be one possible answer if you could show Jesus thought Moses wrote the Pentateuch as is, but even the most conservative scholars understand Jesus used idiomatic language.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.
See? You are still not answering my point. It is not enough to say how much post exilic editing you (and conservative scholars) are willing to accept, what you need to show is that a more thorough work of compilation and editing would be contradicted by NT references to Moses.I 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.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'.
Because you keep making the claim that what Jesus said about Moses means Moses must have been the editor of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch.That's silly. Why?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.
It helps to look back over a few post to follow the line of our discussion. You switched between talking about Paul's use of the Septuagint to suggesting "so you don't believe Jesus read the Septuagint?" which made no sense in the context. Meanwhile you hadn't addressed my point about Paul's use of the Greek phrase.You kinda lost me. Seem to be getting upset, maybe not expressing yourself correctly.
I have shown you what the text says. Call them unsupported if you like, they are still there. You can point to other things in the text but the acts of creation in the text are still there too. You can point to things the text does not describe being created, but the things it does describe are all still there.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.
Ok.That's an argument? Okay!
Compare the creation of plants in Genesis chapters one and two. In chapter one, the earth had just emerged from under water and God commanded the earth to produce grass and herbs and trees bearing fruit. This was three days before God created man. In Genesis two the earth is a dry and barren wilderness. Plants were unable to grow because there was no rain to water the ground and no farmer to till it. God moistened the earth with a mist, he then created man then we see him creating every kind of fruit tree.Er, huh?
The text distinguishes between beasts of the earth and livestock so claiming 'all animals in a sense were domesticated", is not following the text. You think 'believing the text' means finding a way to read it that gets rid of contradictions between the literal meaning Genesis 1 and Genesis two, but maybe those contradictions are really there and it is the text itself that is showing you your literal interpretation is wrong. Finding ways out of the plain meaning of the text may be how you try to believe the text but it is not being faithful to it.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.
So you keep telling yourself. But the title you have for the tablet doesn't tell you whether Genesis 2 is a creation account or not. If it doessn't, why not look at the text as I have been showing you, and perhaps even address my pointI 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.
I thought the tablet was supposed to start in Gen 2:5?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.
Again you pick and choose parts of the creation account and ignore the rest. Even if you call them 'context' the text still describe God creating man and plants animals birds and the woman.So again, this is all about the Garden. Take that awkward title away, and no one gets confused, even the most stubborn adults.
It doesn't say where God created them, or how far he had to bring them to Adam, it just says that God formed all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air and brought them to Adam to name. God created Adam outside the garden and brought him there, why would you think God was limited to creating animals and birds in the garden just because that is where Adam was?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.
What about the four rivers? The second creation account concentrates on different things to the first creation account. We read about the birds of the heavens, but not the sun, moon and stars. Creation accounts don't have to mention everything.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!!
You have changed the subject again. However the Hebrew grammar does tell us God created the animals after he created man. The construction of the verbs do give the sequence of creation. It is not just the flow of the narrative you have to ignore, the Hebrew grammar tells you the order of creation.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.
Perhaps instead of telling yourself, humblyI'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.
Indeed, however I am the one with the arguments you can't address. I could still be wrong, but you haven't shown it, while I have taken your arguments apart and you haven't been able to respond.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.
So you have intelligent cultures and races who came up with writing, some less intelligent cultures who were taught writing, and less intelligent cultures who never learned to write?
So to avoid being liberal I need to start looking down on other cultures and races?
Which is the point I have been making. It is one thing to propose a miracle to explains what the literal interpretation of the text says. That is quite different from making up things that aren't in the text and claiming miracles to explain those too.
Again some archaeological evidence for this claim would be great.
Why? Writing existing earlier wouldn't mean Genesis was written earlier. The evidence from the text itself points to it being edited together when the Canaanites no longer lived in the region. It is the text itself that told then that the editor composed it from earlier documents.
You agree there is evidence for Genesis being composed of earlier texts and that there could have been post exilic redactors. Apart from your groundless claim Adam had clay tablets with the first parts of Genesis on it, your only evidence for Moses bring the main editor is not the text of Genesis, or any archaeological evidence, but your interpretation of Jesus' statements, which so far you haven't been able to defend. Like Is said before, it is not enough that Jesus' statements fit your idea of Moses as the editor, you need to show that they contradict mine. It is possible you will answer this further down your post if so I will address it there.
Claiming liberal scholars agree with you is not the same as backing up you argument from the text. Of course kenosis would be one possible answer if you could show Jesus thought Moses wrote the Pentateuch as is, but even the most conservative scholars understand Jesus used idiomatic language.
See? You are still not answering my point. It is not enough to say how much post exilic editing you (and conservative scholars) are willing to accept, what you need to show is that a more thorough work of compilation and editing would be contradicted by NT references to Moses.
What is interesting is how much of the discoveries of liberal scholarship over the past few centuries conservative scholars have come to accept, including Wiseman's realisation the Genesis really was composed of different documents. My point here is not to push liberal bible scholarship or to cling to tradition of Mosaic authorship, but to look at the text and see what we it shows us.
Because you keep making the claim that what Jesus said about Moses means Moses must have been the editor of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch.
I have shown you what the text says. Call them unsupported if you like, they are still there.
Compare the creation of plants in Genesis chapters one and two. In chapter one, the earth had just emerged from under water and God commanded the earth to produce grass and herbs and trees bearing fruit. This was three days before God created man. In Genesis two the earth is a dry and barren wilderness.
Plants were unable to grow because there was no rain to water the ground and no farmer to till it.
Gen 1: wet earth emerges from the waters, God creates plants and trees, 3 day later, man.
Gen 2: dry barren earth without plants or trees, God created man, then created plants and trees.
You claim it was only cultivated plants the weren't there. But how could any plants have grown in the dry barren wilderness described in Genesis 2? ....
The text distinguishes between beasts of the earth and livestock so claiming 'all animals in a sense were domesticated", is not following the text.
I thought the tablet was supposed to start in Gen 2:5?
It doesn't say where God created them, or how far he had to bring them to Adam, it just says that God formed all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air and brought them to Adam to name. God created Adam outside the garden and brought him there, why would you think God was limited to creating animals and birds in the garden just because that is where Adam was?
What about the four rivers? The second creation account concentrates on different things to the first creation account. We read about the birds of the heavens, but not the sun, moon and stars. Creation accounts don't have to mention everything.
You have changed the subject again. However the Hebrew grammar does tell us God created the animals after he created man. The construction of the verbs do give the sequence of creation. It is not just the flow of the narrative you have to ignore, the Hebrew grammar tells you the order of creation.
Perhaps instead of telling yourself, humblythat you have obliterated it, you could try dealing with my argument.
Fear not. God has that covered.
"God's invisible qualities"
And here they are for anyone interesting in knowing and understanding...since i can't post the link yet, it's in the thread: Origin and Creation explored and explained.
Looking forward to your perspectives!
Conservative Bible scholars deny Mosaic authorship? I don't think that's what you meant to say.
This from Theopedia
Jesus divided the Old Testament into three sections in Luke 24:27, 44: Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Also, in Mark 10:4-8, Jesus quoted Gen. 2:24 as coming from Moses. In Mark 7:10, Jesus quoted the Ten Commandments as coming from Moses. In Mark 10:3 Jesus refers to Deut. 24:1f as being from Moses, and in Matt. 8:4 Jesus quoted Lev. 14 as coming from Moses. [5]
Again you're not fighting with me on this, but your own liberal allies. I'm not sure why.
And I don't think any cultures have actually come up with writing. I tend to believe that was a gift from God, that is passed down.
But yeah, if you say all cultures are morally equal you are morally deficient yourself. You should look down on bad cultures like nazi's etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?