Moses wrote Genesis working from the oldest writings in the world

[Calminian]

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

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

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

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

Here are some implications that jump out at me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the article

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

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

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

 

[Amber Bird]

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

 

[Calminian]

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

I do detect a little sarcasm, but it's interesting you bring this up. I'll reiterate from what I touched on above in regard to this, but the creation account that spans from Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a doesn't attribute this writing to Adam or any other human. Adam, would be the author of the section spanning from Genesis 2:4b to 5:1a. This concludes with "this is the history of Adam" or perhaps "history according to Adam."

The preceding section which contains the actual creation account doesn't have a human signature. And, from a theological perspective, that makes perfect sense. Adam couldn't have witnessed these events.

The article speculates God wrote this section. I on the other hand lean toward angelic authorship. According to Job, angels witnessed God laying the foundations of the land. Seems plausible an angel wrote this opening document.

 

[Amber Bird]

No sarcasm intended. It's just an interesting premise that proposes Adam, Angels or God would write an account of creation that can be discovered today.
As if by word alone one is then suppose to believe?
While those, as a for instance, who claim to walk in faith with no need of a Torah, Bible, etc... are looked at askance as if they're not then "true" believers.

 

[Calminian]

No sarcasm intended. It's just an interesting premise that proposes Adam, Angels or God would write an account of creation that can be discovered today.
As if by word alone one is then suppose to believe?
While those, as a for instance, who claim to walk in faith with no need of a Torah, Bible, etc... are looked at askance as if they're not then "true" believers.

So you reject Genesis? Not sure I'm following. We don't have originals of any biblical writings. But we do have textual evidence.

And I'm not sure what you mean by people who walk in faith without the Bible.

Help me out, because I don't want to draw wrong conclusions from what you're saying. My post is to encourage and edify believers in the Bible.

 

[miamited]

Hi Cal,

No, I don't believe that Moses worked off of the oldest writings in the world. Moses worked with the Creator of the world! He spent 40 days on that mountain. What do you think they did for 40 days? Just kicked back and enjoyed a Starbucks latte? A little poker and some beer?

It is my contention that for 40 days God gave Moses all the information that he (Moses) then wrote as the book of the beginning. God himself revealed to Moses that He had created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. We really don't have any evidence that Adam even knew that it had taken God 6 days to create this realm. I'm certainly not saying that he didn't, but there is no Scriptural support whereby we might confirm that after God created Adam on days six, He sat down with him and said, "Hey, guess what I've been doing for the last 5 days?"

It is my belief that Moses wrote most all of the Penteteuch from first hand knowledge. However, the first book, the book we call Genesis was the only book for which he would have had to depend on God's knowledge to write. From the Exodus to Deuteronomy, Moses lived it.

Those are my thoughts.
God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[Keachian]

Its a comforting idea to do away with JEPD, however it doesn't actually deal with one of the JEPD theories that 2:4ff predates 1:1-2:3 due to the limited vocabulary and use of YHWH

 

[Calminian]

....It is my belief that Moses wrote most all of the Penteteuch from first hand knowledge. However, the first book, the book we call Genesis was the only book for which he would have had to depend on God's knowledge to write. From the Exodus to Deuteronomy, Moses lived it.....

Hi Ted. That's interesting. I also believe Moses wrote mostly all of the penteteuch from first hand knowledge, and the law portions he received directly from God on the mountain. Obviously the tabernacle building instructions were also given to him directly on the mountain. And I also believe he was dependent on God's knowledge to write Genesis, and that God divinely guided the process.

But I don't find any evidence that God dictated to him the historical narrative of Genesis on mt. sinai. In fact I don't see any evidence at all that God gave Moses any historical narratives on Sinai from any of the five books.

There are many views and theories about how Moses put Genesis together, from bringing it together via oral tradition under God's guidance, to having it dictated to him directly. I think, however, that there is undeniable textual evidence that Genesis is a collection of books (with actual signatures by the various authors) and I believe God divinely preserved these books (like He does with all scripture), and gave Moses access to them. He also gave Moses a lot of time in the desert work on them, translating them, etc.. I doubt there was a Starbucks there either.

But hey, we'll have to disagree on this one. I do hope you'll at least take in the article. I do think it may change your view.

 

[Calminian]

Its a comforting idea to do away with JEPD, however it doesn't actually deal with one of the JEPD theories that 2:4ff predates 1:1-2:3 due to the limited vocabulary and use of YHWH

Not quite following this. Can you restate?

 

[Keachian]

Not quite following this. Can you restate?

Your theory only deals with some of the evidence used to support JEPD, that of, "well there are parts written by different people" which is more of the conclusion of JEPD rather than any part of the evidence brought up to establish it, in fact the premise that the accounts have been redacted according to age of the stories is in contradiction to the development of the hallowedness of the personal name of God (YHWH is used in the second account but not the first) the later vocabulary used in the first account leads me to believe that it is more likely to be JEPD than tablet theory. Does this mean that Scripture is any less inspired? Of course not! It just changes the author from Moses to the J,E,P,D, and R

 

[miamited]

Hi Cal,

Well, my greatest doubt in the tablet theory is, "Where did they come from?" We read of Abraham and we read of Isaac and Jacob and the 12 patriarchs and never is there any mention that anything is being recorded. Then the 12 patriarchs and Isael and their immediate families are relocated to Egypt. Where were these tablets? Certainly they weren't circulated in Egypt because when Moses first approaches Pharoah with the request to let the Israelites go because their God has said so, his response is, "Who is this God that I should obey Him?"

So, before I'm going to consider that maybe God didn't give to Moses the history of His creation to be written down to start the Scriptures, after all, remember it was Paul that said that the chief purpose of Judaism was the writing of the Scriptures, someone's going to have to convince me that there is a viable chain of evidence that these tablets existed.

Abraham, as far as we can tell, didn't even know the one true God before He called him out of Ur of the Chaldeans, so where would Abraham have gotten these tablets that he held onto and handed over to Isaac, who then handed them to Jacob, who then gave them to one of his sons and held them in the Hebrew clan for 400 years until Moses got them and decided to write a book. Frankly, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Here's the next big question: Did Noah have these tablets on the ark? How did they get from Adam to Moses after the world wide catastrophic flood that broke up just about everything? They certainly didn't just float around on the water for someone to pluck out of the sea.

The flood, if we believe the account as the biblical narrative tells us, pretty much breaks up any idea of handed down historical documents from pre-flood people to post-flood people.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

Your theory only deals with some of the evidence used to support JEPD, that of, "well there are parts written by different people" which is more of the conclusion of JEPD rather than any part of the evidence brought up to establish it, in fact the premise that the accounts have been redacted according to age of the stories is in contradiction to the development of the hallowedness of the personal name of God (YHWH is used in the second account but not the first) the later vocabulary used in the first account leads me to believe that it is more likely to be JEPD than tablet theory. Does this mean that Scripture is any less inspired? Of course not! It just changes the author from Moses to the J,E,P,D, and R

Okay, fair enough you accept the JEDP explanation. But this does contradict scripture that Moses is the author of Genesis.

But I would then as you, what evidence would you cite for the acceptance of JEDP? I don't know of any evidence for it. As the article states, there has never been any trace of the “documents” they refer to (Jehovist, Elohist, Deuteronomic, and Priestly). What historical writings have ever been discovered to bear out the theory?

The Tablet Theory has actual textual evidence to support it. Genesis clearly shows the same traits found in ancient clay tablets in Mesopotamia that predate Abraham.

And how about the fact that JEDP was premised on the belief that written language didn't exist prior to 1000 BC? No one believes that anymore to my knowledge.

 

[Calminian]

Hi Cal,

Well, my greatest doubt in the tablet theory is, "Where did they come from?" We read of Abraham and we read of Isaac and Jacob and the 12 patriarchs and never is there any mention that anything is being recorded. Then the 12 patriarchs and Isael and their immediate families are relocated to Egypt. Where were these tablets? Certainly they weren't circulated in Egypt because when Moses first approaches Pharoah with the request to let the Israelites go because their God has said so, his response is, "Who is this God that I should obey Him?"

So, before I'm going to consider that maybe God didn't give to Moses the history of His creation to be written down to start the Scriptures, after all, remember it was Paul that said that the chief purpose of Judaism was the writing of the Scriptures, someone's going to have to convince me that there is a viable chain of evidence that these tablets existed.

Abraham, as far as we can tell, didn't even know the one true God before He called him out of Ur of the Chaldeans, so where would Abraham have gotten these tablets that he held onto and handed over to Isaac, who then handed them to Jacob, who then gave them to one of his sons and held them in the Hebrew clan for 400 years until Moses got them and decided to write a book. Frankly, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Here's the next big question: Did Noah have these tablets on the ark? How did they get from Adam to Moses after the world wide catastrophic flood that broke up just about everything? They certainly didn't just float around on the water for someone to pluck out of the sea.

The flood, if we believe the account as the biblical narrative tells us, pretty much breaks up any idea of handed down historical documents from pre-flood people to post-flood people.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Ted, these are all good questions and all fair questions. I'm skeptical like you. But I firmly believe these are all answered by the Tablet theory. If you get a chance, just for kicks and giggles, check out the article. When I have time, I'll try to address this personally, along with some more challenges to your theory that God gave Moses the historical narrative directly.

Ultimately, we not going to be able to prove either theory, but I think you'll find this one more plausible. I could be wrong. It's not a hill I'm willing to die on.

 

[Keachian]

Okay, fair enough you accept the JEDP explanation. But this does contradict scripture that Moses is the author of Genesis.

But I would then as you, what evidence would you cite for the acceptance of JEDP? I don't know of any evidence for it. As the article states, there has never been any trace of the “documents” they refer to (Jehovist, Elohist, Deuteronomic, and Priestly). What historical writings have ever been discovered to bear out the theory?

The Tablet Theory has actual textual evidence to support it. Genesis clearly shows the same traits found in ancient clay tablets in Mesopotamia that predate Abraham.

And how about the fact that JEDP was premised on the belief that written language didn't exist prior to 1000 BC? No one believes that anymore to my knowledge.

I wouldn't have thought that JEDP relies on that, especially as most linguists see the rise of written language at around 6000 BC.

In regards to the claim that the Bible states that Moses wrote Torah, this seems to me akin to claiming that Jesus wrote the gospels. From my recollection of the references to Moses being the author of Torah can be seen as referencing the teachings of a person handed down, this handing down need not be done through writing, if you don't feel this is the case then pull out your verses and I'll have a look at them.

 

[Calminian]

I wouldn't have thought that JEDP relies on that, especially as most linguists see the rise of written language at around 6000 BC.

Exactly. This is why this should be a dead theory. Apparently JEDP actually did start out with the premise that writing didn't go back that far, at least in that area of the world.

In regards to the claim that the Bible states that Moses wrote Torah, this seems to me akin to claiming that Jesus wrote the gospels.

Except for the tiny problem that there is no claim that Jesus personally penned the gospels.

From my recollection of the references to Moses being the author of Torah can be seen as referencing the teachings of a person handed down, this handing down need not be done through writing, if you don't feel this is the case then pull out your verses and I'll have a look at them.

Here you go. See the passages listed below. To argue for a late authorship of the pentateuch is futile apart form arguing against inspiration. Moses was given instructions on how to build the tabernacle. If those instructions were authored hundreds of years later, how did it ever get built? Perhaps you'd have to allegorize that portion of scripture as well.

Perhaps you believe the torah was written and then lost, and rewritten, but there's no evidence for this. The fact that the hebrews took stewardship of the torah serious is an understatement.

Passages in the Pentateuch itself:
Exodus 17:14 "Then the Lord instructed Moses, 'Write this down as a permanent record...'"
Exodus 24:4 "Then Moses carefully wrote down all the Lord's instructions."
Exodus 34:27 "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Write down all these instructions, for they represents the terms of my covenant with you and with Israel.'"
Leviticus 1:1 "The Lord called to Moses from the Tabernacle and said to him, 'Give the following instructions to the Israelites...'"
Leviticus 6:8 "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Give Aaron and his sons the following instructions...'"
Deuteronomy 31:9 "So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests."
Deuteronomy 31:24-26 "When Moses had finished writing down this entire body of law in a book..."
Passages elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures:
Joshua 1:7-8 "...Obey all the laws Moses gave you."
Joshua 8:31-34 "He followed the instructions that Moses the Lord's servant had written in the Book of the Law..."
Joshua 22:5 "...obey all the commands and the laws that Moses gave to you."
2 Chronicles 34:14 "...Hilkiah the high priest...found the book of the Law of the Lord as it had been given through Moses."
Passages in the Gospels which show that Jesus and John the Baptizer believed Moses to be the author:
Matthew 19:7-8 "...why did Moses say a man could merely write an official letter of divorce and send her away?", they asked. Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted divorce...'"
Matthew 22:24 "Moses said, 'If a man dies without children...'"
Mark 7:10 "For instance, Moses gave you this law from God..."
Mark 12:24 "...haven't you ever read about this in the writings of Moses, in the story of the burning bush..."
Luke 24:44 "...I told you that everything written about me by Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must all come true."
John 1:17 "For the law was given through Moses..."
John 5:46 "But if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me because he wrote about me. And since you don't believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?"
John 7:23 "...do it, so as not to break the law of Moses..."
Passages elsewhere in the Christian Scriptures:
Acts 26:22 "...I teach nothing except what the prophets and Moses said would happen..."
Romans 10:5 "For Moses wrote..."
​

Here's a fairly recent article from Answers in Genesis on the subject:

Did Moses Write Genesis?
by Dr. Terry Mortenson and Bodie Hodge AiG–U.S.June 28, 2011

They discuss the documentary hypothesis as well as the Tablet theory. They agree with me that the toledoths are signatures at the end of sections rather than titles at the beginning as traditionally held, and that Moses likely worked off written records to put the book of Genesis together.

 

[Calminian]

Let me go through these one by one. Since we are like minded in many respects, I'm going to hold out the possibility that I can persuade you on this one.

Hi Cal,

Well, my greatest doubt in the tablet theory is, "Where did they come from?" We read of Abraham and we read of Isaac and Jacob and the 12 patriarchs and never is there any mention that anything is being recorded. Then the 12 patriarchs and Isael and their immediate families are relocated to Egypt. Where were these tablets?

Yes you are correct. Historical Israeli writings are not mentioned, be it these 11 sections in Genesis, nor any other writings whatsoever. So then, you have concluded that since they are not mentioned, they did not exist, they themselves, nor any writings, in Israel. That' seems a very unreasonable position to take.

But I would think you would agree that the God has been very particular about what He to be in the sacred scriptures. I think you and I would also agree that the ancient israelites did have writings, be it families with writings perhaps there were some public writings available to them. It's now well known that the initial JEDP hypothesis was wrong and that writing did take place in biblical regions before Abraham's time. So we can certainly conclude that the Israelites, like the cultures around them, were just as advanced. Actually you and I would probably agree that men were quite advanced from the very beginning unlike evolutionary models suggest.

Now you say, where are they?, but perhaps you really mean, why doesn't the Bible mention them? Well, first, this isn't an argument for their non-existence. Think of all the things in Israeli culture from that time that are not mentioned in scripture. But I don't really see the relevance.

Perhaps you're assuming, if these writings existed, they would have been the only writings the Israelis had and therefore deserve mention. But this would also seem to contradict the good evidence we have the writings were prevalent in those days. It's my conjecture that the particular writings Moses used were not yet set apart and compiled by Moses. God knew about them, and had His hand on them, but they were just a small portion of a myriad of writings the Israelites kept. I would surmise that Moses compiled Genesis sifting through many ancient historical documents. And God of course superintending the whole process.

Perhaps you're also assuming that if they existed, everyone would have known they were inspired. I highly doubt that would have been the case either. The israelites were much like people of today, not knowing the difference between the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Thomas, and not believing God really inspired any of them.

But now what about your explanation for the origin of the book of Genesis?

Understand, I could turn this same argument toward your explanation. For we are told that God gave the laws to Moses. We are told that God have farming instructions to Moses. We are told that God gave Tabernacle building instructions to Moses. But strangely, nothing in scripture is mentioned about God giving Moses a detailed historical account of his ancestry. If it really happened, it would seem odd for this not to be mentioned.

Certainly they weren't circulated in Egypt because when Moses first approaches Pharoah with the request to let the Israelites go because their God has said so, his response is, "Who is this God that I should obey Him?"

So, since Pharoah didn't know about the hebrew God, this means the Israelites didn't have historical accounts of their lineage? I'm in modern america with access to google and I still don't know about all the gods people worship in the world, or even here in america. Why would we assume pharaoh would be familiar with Israelites religion? He didn't even know who Joseph was!

So, before I'm going to consider that maybe God didn't give to Moses the history of His creation to be written down to start the Scriptures, after all, remember it was Paul that said that the chief purpose of Judaism was the writing of the Scriptures, someone's going to have to convince me that there is a viable chain of evidence that these tablets existed.

I feel the same way. That's why I believe this this theory. Unlike JEDP, this theory actually is evidential.

The argument is very simple. Archaeologists have discovered writings in that particular area of the world that pre-date Abraham. The writing structures found matches the writing structures in Genesis. That's very good textual evidence, namely the toledoth signatures at the end of various sections (colophon phrases) identifying the author of those sections. It's also very interesting that the authors identified would have been contemporaries of that particular section, making the actual eyewitnesses. There's no way I can ignore that.

So now I have to make a choice. I could believe God merely dictated the Genesis account to Moses and had him place in the account 11 colophon phrases, for no particular reason, being that those individuals didn't actually author anything. Or I can believe that God moved Moses to identify the writings that were inspired, and compile and translate them into Genesis with whatever editing was necessary. The later seems more plausible to me. In fact, it seems obvious to me.

Abraham, as far as we can tell, didn't even know the one true God before He called him out of Ur of the Chaldeans, so where would Abraham have gotten these tablets that he held onto and handed over to Isaac, who then handed them to Jacob, who then gave them to one of his sons and held them in the Hebrew clan for 400 years until Moses got them and decided to write a book. Frankly, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

If you look at much of the material in Genesis, it's very basic genealogies. Genealogies were very important to people back then, whether they were believers in the true God or not. I would say these records were much more important to them, than to modern people. Whether they embraced their ancestors religion or not, it would seem odd for them to discard passed down writings. And does it really make sense that Abraham would leave without at least taking some literature, especially literature that pertained to his lineage?

Here's the next big question: Did Noah have these tablets on the ark? How did they get from Adam to Moses after the world wide catastrophic flood that broke up just about everything? They certainly didn't just float around on the water for someone to pluck out of the sea.

Considering Noah was one of the 10 authors that left a toledoth signature, I would certainly think he would have brought his writings with him? Heck I'll even go out on a limb and speculate that he wrote it during his stay on the Ark! And Doesn't it seem reasonable he also would want to take with him historical literature of his ancestry, especially one authored by Adam, the first man? And as a man of God, don't you think he would have wanted to preserve literature of the creation week?

The flood, if we believe the account as the biblical narrative tells us, pretty much breaks up any idea of handed down historical documents from pre-flood people to post-flood people.

If there was no Ark, yes. I do think the purpose of the flood was to erase the pre flood culture from the entire earth. But of course this would not include the writings of Adam and Noah and the author of the creation account. Why would God want to erase those histories, only to then give them to Moses directly?

Let me know if I've persuaded you.

PS, just one other side note. Shem was also one of the authors according to the colophon phrases in Genesis. If the ages and genealogies really are correct in Genesis, he would have been alive at the time Abraham was alive. In fact, many believe he was actually Melchizedek whom Abraham paid tithes to. He (Mel) obviously knew much about the true God. Could he really have been Shem? Seems plausible. And if he was certainly he would have had Adam's and Noah's writings, in addition to his own. Could he have passed copies to Abraham? And if he did, would Abraham have kept them around?

That's just a side theory of mine. I'm not putting this out dogmatically, just showing the all the possibilities of how these writings could have ended up with Moses.

 

[Keachian]

Exactly. This is why this should be a dead theory. Apparently JEDP actually did start out with the premise that writing didn't go back that far, at least in that area of the world.

If it did hold that supposition then it changed which is what theories do, theories change to account for all the evidence.

Except for the tiny problem that there is no claim that Jesus personally penned the gospels.

I don't believe there is a claim that Moses wrote the whole of the Torah.

Here you go. See the passages listed below. To argue for a late authorship of the pentateuch is futile apart form arguing against inspiration. Moses was given instructions on how to build the tabernacle. If those instructions were authored hundreds of years later, how did it ever get built?

Because Moses was told how to build the tabernacle and just did it...

Perhaps you'd have to allegorize that portion of scripture as well.

Watch as I use no appeal to allegory.

Perhaps you believe the torah was written and then lost, and rewritten, but there's no evidence for this. The fact that the hebrews took stewardship of the torah serious is an understatement.

There's no evidence for this either, in fact this verse that you use supports the idea that it was lost at some point;
2 Chronicles 34:14 "...Hilkiah the high priest...found the book of the Law of the Lord as it had been given through Moses."

Now as I see it there are four main groups that the rest of the verses you supply can be grouped into.

Moses given instructions and not necessarily writing them down:
Leviticus 1:1 "The Lord called to Moses from the Tabernacle and said to him, 'Give the following instructions to the Israelites...'"
Leviticus 6:8 "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Give Aaron and his sons the following instructions...'"
Joshua 1:7-8 "...Obey all the laws Moses gave you."
Joshua 22:5 "...obey all the commands and the laws that Moses gave to you."

Limited scope verses:
Exodus 17:14 "Then the Lord instructed Moses, 'Write this down as a permanent record...'"
This is for the record of a battle, such that Joshua might know that God is promising to destroy Amalek
Exodus 24:4 "Then Moses carefully wrote down all the Lord's instructions."
This is for a covenant that is broken in chapter 32
Exodus 34:27 "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Write down all these instructions, for they represents the terms of my covenant with you and with Israel.'"
Is limited to the Ten Commandments as per v28
Deuteronomy 31:9 "So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests."
This could be limited to just v10-13

Referencing something which may or may not be the whole of the Torah as we have it today (I'll explain why in a bit):
Deuteronomy 31:24-26 "When Moses had finished writing down this entire body of law in a book..."
Joshua 8:31-34 "He followed the instructions that Moses the Lord's servant had written in the Book of the Law..."

Now, why I believe that these may or may not be referencing the whole of the Torah as we have it today, there are a few reasons for this, first of all as I don't believe that Moses wrote down all of it he likely passed it down verbally in which case it was likely that there were some additions of this content at a later date, I also believe that there was more than one "book" to come out of Sinai these probably were redacted at some point, there were also familial stories which were also passed down verbally, to me this would include a lot of the Patriarchal corpus in Genesis, these also are not limited to being written down. I'd also say that the want to update the language of God is also a driving factor and that this has happened, after all this was what Erasmus was doing when he constructed the first Greek critical text to be published as an addition to his new Latin New Testament, this is also what Jerome, Sixtus and Clementine were wanting to achieve with their versions of the Vulgate as well.

New Testament References to Torah using Moses as a colloquialism:
Matthew 19:7-8 "...why did Moses say a man could merely write an official letter of divorce and send her away?", they asked. Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted divorce...'"
Matthew 22:24 "Moses said, 'If a man dies without children...'"
Mark 7:10 "For instance, Moses gave you this law from God..."
Mark 12:24 "...haven't you ever read about this in the writings of Moses, in the story of the burning bush..."
Luke 24:44 "...I told you that everything written about me by Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must all come true."
John 1:17 "For the law was given through Moses..."
John 5:46 "But if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me because he wrote about me. And since you don't believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?"
John 7:23 "...do it, so as not to break the law of Moses..."
Acts 26:22 "...I teach nothing except what the prophets and Moses said would happen..."
Romans 10:5 "For Moses wrote..."

 

[miamited]

Hi cal,

Thanks for your well thought reply and I understand your position. By the way, before we go any further let me assure you that I read the article and I have read of this 'theory' before. So, now that you do know that I have read it hopefully we can move beyond your continued insistence that 'just for giggles' I read the article. Oh, and no, I don't subscribe to the JEPD 'theory' either. As you will see as you continue reading, I subscribe to the theory that the Scriptures, all of them, are the oracles of God given to mankind through the nation of Isreal, who for this very purpose my God raised up Abraham.

My single greatest 'doubt' in this theory is this:

How did these supposed writings get from the hands of Adam and the generations from him to Noah, through the flood. That mankind was created with a knowledge of writing and speaking to one another I have no doubt. In the account of the tower of Babel we are clearly told that everyone, up to that point, shared the same language. I believe that if people can talk to one another that they will very quickly learn to communicate in some written form. So, I don't doubt that God created man with certain abilities. There are certain basic functions of the human brain that were given by God at the point of creation.

For example: There have been tests done on birds who were raised from the egg without parent birds and yet when the time comes for them to migrate they instinctively head south. There have been further tests where similarly raised birds are put into a closed space with no way of knowing which way to orient to a compass and yet when it comes time to migrate they will orient themselves to the south. They cannot see the sun or stars or anything outside of the room which might give them some indication of which way is south. These same birds are then turned in a different direction and within moments they reorient themselves to the south.

They received no training from a parent bird and yet they instinctively know, first that the weather or season is about to change, and secondly where they need to be going. It's fairly amazing knowledge that the birds seem to have in their brain without any outside 'learning'.

I believe that God also gave man some 'basic' knowledge with which he was created. Cain knew to grow food. Able knew to raise flocks. We very soon learn that men began to work with metal, which would surely mean that they had fire. Many of us seem to have this neanderthal idea of early man. I don't! Now, did they know to fashion metal and plastics and use electrical energy to fashion and drive computers? No! But it's a long way from designing many of the things that we have today and the basic skill of being able to communicate through some sort of written media.

My greatest objection to this 'theory', though is the chain of evidence. We have absolutely no indication that all this knowledge about the beginning of creation was handed from Adam to Seth or beyond in any written form. Was it spoken in conversation one with another? Maybe, and very possibly.

Now, my next objection is based on Paul's very words: That the chief purpose of being a Jew was that they were entrusted with the very oracles of God. I derive from this, and then studying the Scriptures and praying and poring over and considering in hours of time with God and His Spirit, and just asking the question often, why? How? That God raised up Abraham to begin, to start, to lay the foundation of, His written revelation to man. This would explain why the book of Enoch is not considered to be Scripture. It may well be a true account of Enoch's knowledge of the things of God, but it didn't come to us through the Jews. It is my understanding that all of the Scriptures, everything that we are to take to heart as the truth of God came to us through the Jew and this seems to be Paul's position.

So, finally, no, I disagree with you that this 'tablet theory' is somehow an easier and more logical way to explain how we got the knowledge of the beginning. I find it much easier to understand that God told Moses how He worked in the beginning and that it then became a part of Scripture and was handed down as an oracle of God through the Jewish line just as Paul seems to have understood.

I do have a question for you, though, and you don't have to answer it but I throw it out there as just a thought to ponder. You mention that perhaps you can persuade me in this. My question is: Why do I need to know? Why is it important to 'know' or 'believe to know' where Moses got his knowledge to begin the Scriptures? Why would you want to persuade me over to believe this 'theory'. As you have clearly stated yourself, you really can't 'prove' either position so on what basis then are you 'proving' to yourself that this 'theory' is more sound than another 'theory'. Just on its logicality? Why does it seem more 'logical' to you that somehow Moses, after a great flood and some 2,000 years wound up with some ancient written documents, than just 'knowing' that God told him what to write to begin the Scriptures? Personally, I find that a baffling logic.

Now, you write, to substantiate this 'theory' over the 'JEPD theory', and again let me be clear that I don't buy that one either:

The argument is very simple. Archaeologists have discovered writings in that particular area of the world that pre-date Abraham. The writing structures found matches the writing structures in Genesis. That's very good textual evidence, namely the toledoth signatures at the end of various sections (colophon phrases) identifying the author of those sections. It's also very interesting that the authors identified would have been contemporaries of that particular section, making the actual eyewitnesses. There's no way I can ignore that.

As I opened, I have no doubt that man was created with some knowledge of how to communicate through a written medium, so to 'know' that men before Abraham knew to write is a given by me. You say that the writing structures found match the writing structures in Genesis. Well, duh, if they were written about the same time, and again please remember that if we believe the Scriptures and the account of the flood, any of these writings are going to be no older than a couple of hundred years before Abrahams day, then why shouldn't the structures match.

One of the arguments that many have against the KJ version is that it is written in olde english. But, in the days that it was written it was the common everyday way that people spoke and so the KJ 'structure' matches the 'structure of other writings within a couple of hundred years. So, why would we find it so 'fascinating' that Moses wrote what he wrote in a similar structure to the way people 'in that area' according to you, also wrote?

Now, if you had some document that you could prove was written by Adam and it was majorly different than the way people wrote 'in that day' and 'in that area', then I'd say, Hmmmmm? But you are basing this 'conclusion' on the fact that the writing of Moses matches closely the writing of other contemporaries of that day and area. Well, my first thought is, Duh?

Then you say, "Well, it's also very interesting that the authors identified would have been contemporaries of that particular section, making the(m) actual eyewitnesses." I'm sorry, but again I don't see the wonder in that. That God accounts to Moses the knowledge of Adam and his descendents or that some supposed written document came from Adam to give knowledge of the days of Adam, in either case Adam would have been the main player. By the way, and I don't believe the article covered it, but who are the selected authors that are being referred to here? I understand Adam is believed to have given us all the information up to his death which would have been the year from creation 930. Now, the final generation in Adam's line is Lamech and then he was the father of Noah after Lamech was 182 years old. This means that Noah was born in the year after creation of 1056. How is it that Noah's birth is recorded by Adam some 100 years after Adam was dead? Is there some noticeable change in the 'structure' between Methuselah and Lamech? Since, under your understanding, Adam couldn't have been the author of the last generation shouldn't we see some telltale sign of change in authorship there? If I'm missing something I'd be happy to consider any 'evidence' that you might have.

I kind of understand that when God called Moses up on that mountain for 40 days He sat him down and said something like, "Listen Moses, I'm going to tell you everything that has happened that has brought you to this place in time where you are now sitting before me on this mountain." Then God told him about Adam and Enoch and Methuselah and Noah and Shem and Ham, etc. And the reason that God would have given a different and more structured revelation of the generations from Noah is that they were still alive and upon the earth. Knowing who they were was important for us to continue to understand the building of the various parts of the world and the nations that existed then and today. All the generations before Noah just needed to be given so that we could track the time of the creation and so all that was need was so-and-son begat so-and-so begat so-and-so, etc. All those people were dead. They had all, everyone of them except Noah and his family, been swept away in the flood. The knowledge of them and their generations was of no consequence to Moses and the world as it existed as he sat on that mountain.

So, you see, there is really quite a logical reason that there is a difference in the 'structure' of the generations other than there being differrent authors. Unfortunately, I still find that the simplest and most logical understanding is that God began through Moses the written revelation of who He is and all that He had done by just telling Moses, "Look, this is how it all happened." That way we also can be assured that it is the truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[Calminian]

Hi cal,

Thanks for your well thought reply and I understand your position. By the way, before we go any further let me assure you that I read the article and I have read of this 'theory' before. So, now that you do know that I have read it hopefully we can move beyond your continued insistence that 'just for giggles' I read the article.

I had only mentioned that once. I figured you'd get to the article, but I meant no offense. Sometimes written words don't come off exactly the way we want them to.

My greatest objection to this 'theory', though is the chain of evidence. We have absolutely no indication that all this knowledge about the beginning of creation was handed from Adam to Seth or beyond in any written form. Was it spoken in conversation one with another? Maybe, and very possibly.

We don't have direct biblical evidence, but equally import is the fact that we have no biblical evidence that God gave these to Moses directly. We do have direct scriptural evidence that God directly communicated to Moses information about laws, about construction of the tabernacle, about farming practices, etc. If God mentioned all of those direct communications in scripture, why not anything about Moses' lineage? In that regard, from a direct scripture perspective it's a wash. But as I'll explain, there is very good indirect scriptural evidence that Moses worked from prior writings.

Now, my next objection is based on Paul's very words: That the chief purpose of being a Jew was that they were entrusted with the very oracles of God. I derive from this, and then studying the Scriptures and praying and poring over and considering in hours of time with God and His Spirit, and just asking the question often, why? How? That God raised up Abraham to begin, to start, to lay the foundation of, His written revelation to man. This would explain why the book of Enoch is not considered to be Scripture. It may well be a true account of Enoch's knowledge of the things of God, but it didn't come to us through the Jews. It is my understanding that all of the Scriptures, everything that we are to take to heart as the truth of God came to us through the Jew and this seems to be Paul's position.

I'm in agreement with you, and this is a very important point. What I'd like you to consider is that the tablet theory in no way contradicts this. In fact, I would use the book of Enoch make this very point. The portions of Enoch that are quoted in scripture are true, and were always true, even before being quoted. But the Spirit decided which portions would end up in scripture and which would not. Likewise, Moses through God's guidance decided which writings would end up in Genesis and which would not. Nothing is in jeopardy here. It's the very same principle.

Terry Mortenson and Bodie Hodge from Answers in Genesis put it this way.

The biblical doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture does not require us to conclude that all the books of the Bible were written by God dictating to the human authors. Dictation was one means employed, very often in the prophetic books (e.g., the prophet says, "The Word of the Lord came to me saying"). But much of the Bible was written from the eyewitness experience of the authors (e.g. 2 Peter 1:16) or as a result of research by the author (e.g., Luke 1:1–4). And just as Christian authors today can quote truthful statements from non-Christian sources without thereby endorsing their wrong ideas, so the Biblical authors could quote non-believers or non-biblical sources without introducing false statements into their divine writings (e.g., Joshua 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18, Acts 17:28, Titus 1:12, Jude 14–15). So it is perfectly reasonable to think that Moses wrote Genesis from pre-existing, well-preserved oral tradition and/or written documents from the patriarchs.
Unlike those who affirm Mosaic authorship of Genesis and divide the text by the toledoths, JEDP adherents divide the text on the basis of the names of God that were used and say that, at best, Moses simply wove these texts together, often in contradictory ways. However, most JEDP advocates would say that Moses had nothing to do with writing Genesis or the rest of the Pentateuch, which were written much later by many authors and editors.​

I do have a question for you, though, and you don't have to answer it but I throw it out there as just a thought to ponder. You mention that perhaps you can persuade me in this. My question is: Why do I need to know? Why is it important to 'know' or 'believe to know' where Moses got his knowledge to begin the Scriptures? Why would you want to persuade me over to believe this 'theory'. As you have clearly stated yourself, you really can't 'prove' either position so on what basis then are you 'proving' to yourself that this 'theory' is more sound than another 'theory'. Just on its logicality? Why does it seem more 'logical' to you that somehow Moses, after a great flood and some 2,000 years wound up with some ancient written documents, than just 'knowing' that God told him what to write to begin the Scriptures? Personally, I find that a baffling logic.

Ted, respectfully, my only reason for sharing is because I think this knowledge will make Genesis apologists better apologists. I think we're all striving to become better every day, and we are discovering more each day. I think you have a heart for this stuff and even a calling, and with the upmost sincerity I think a full understand of this issue will be a blessing to you and those you reach out to. That's the whole of my motivation.

As I opened, I have no doubt that man was created with some knowledge of how to communicate through a written medium, so to 'know' that men before Abraham knew to write is a given by me. You say that the writing structures found match the writing structures in Genesis. Well, duh, if they were written about the same time, and again please remember that if we believe the Scriptures and the account of the flood, any of these writings are going to be no older than a couple of hundred years before Abrahams day, then why shouldn't the structures match.

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

This is the whole point, and this is what persuaded me. Until this ancient structural writings styles were discovered, we were reading Genesis very inaccurately. And it's understandable why, since Moses and the other writers of the Bible did not employ these techniques apart from Genesis. You see that style is actually unique to Genesis. The whole issue of the two creation accounts stems from the understanding that Gen. 2:4 is a title and not a colophon phrase. When we understand that Gen.2:4a is a signature at the end of the account, the whole issue disappears.

Now you say, duh, in Moses' time they used those too. There's two problems with this. No, they really didn't use these structures in the rest of the Bible. It's pretty much unique to Genesis. Obviously Moses understood these structures, but it appears this style faded away and was't used much in his time, as reflected by his own writings.

But there's an even bigger problem. Colophon phrases were signature attributing certain writings to certain authors. Why would Moses put those in, if he received all of this information directly form God? It doesn't make any sense that I can see. These phrases can be translated, "this is the account of so and so." In fact that's exactly how the NIV translates them.

Gen. 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
Gen. 6:9 This is the account of Noah.
Gen. 10:1 This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s sons.....
Gen. 11:10 This is the account of Shem.
Gen. 11:27 This is the account of Terah.
Gen. 25:12 This is the account of Abraham’s son Ishmael, whom Sarah’s maidservant, Hagar the Egyptian, bore to Abraham.
Gen. 25:19 This is the account of Abraham’s son Isaac.
Gen. 36:9 This is the account of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir.
Gen. 37:2 This is the account of Jacob.

Now, if you had some document that you could prove was written by Adam and it was majorly different than the way people wrote 'in that day' and 'in that area', then I'd say, Hmmmmm? But you are basing this 'conclusion' on the fact that the writing of Moses matches closely the writing of other contemporaries of that day and area. Well, my first thought is, Duh?

Again, Ted, I can only say, respectfully, you've misunderstood some things, and perhaps misunderstood the article I linked. The whole point was that this was not a contemporary writing style of Moses' time. It predated him. That's why the colophon phrase at the end of the creation account have been missed by so many.

Now yes, if this was merely a style that was popular in Moses' time and we saw these colophon phrases everywhere in the Bible, yes, I'd say you'd have a small point (though it sill would not be a compelling one). For there is an even bigger problem. These phrases are signatures attributing writings to particular named writers. That problem, for me, is insurmountable and for me completely precludes the direct revelation of Genesis to Moses from consideration.

Then you say, "Well, it's also very interesting that the authors identified would have been contemporaries of that particular section, making the(m) actual eyewitnesses." I'm sorry, but again I don't see the wonder in that. That God accounts to Moses the knowledge of Adam and his descendents or that some supposed written document came from Adam to give knowledge of the days of Adam, in either case Adam would have been the main player.

Because colophon phrases were not merely pointing out who the main player was in the narrative, but who the writing is attributed to. If a colophon phrase merely pointed out who the main player was, it would seem unnecessary.

The question I have is, why would Moses add a colophon signature to a section if indeed there were no writings he was working off? To me the biggest evidence that he was working off prior writings is the fact that all 11 sections have ancient signature phrases.

By the way, and I don't believe the article covered it, but who are the selected authors that are being referred to here? I understand Adam is believed to have given us all the information up to his death which would have been the year from creation 930. Now, the final generation in Adam's line is Lamech and then he was the father of Noah after Lamech was 182 years old. This means that Noah was born in the year after creation of 1056. How is it that Noah's birth is recorded by Adam some 100 years after Adam was dead? Is there some noticeable change in the 'structure' between Methuselah and Lamech? Since, under your understanding, Adam couldn't have been the author of the last generation shouldn't we see some telltale sign of change in authorship there? If I'm missing something I'd be happy to consider any 'evidence' that you might have.

Adam's signature appears in Genesis 5:1a

This is the book of the genealogy of Adam.​

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

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

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


One other things. I know you had mentioned the issue with the Flood. I addressed this in my last response, so I'll just paste that again.

Considering Noah was one of the 10 authors that left a toledoth signature, I would certainly think he would have brought his writings with him? Heck I'll even go out on a limb and speculate that he wrote it during his stay on the Ark! And Doesn't it seem reasonable he also would want to take with him historical literature of his ancestry, especially one authored by Adam, the first man? And as a man of God, don't you think he would have wanted to preserve literature of the creation week?

.......

If there was no Ark, yes [you'd be justified in believing all writings were destroyed]. I do think the purpose of the flood was to erase the pre flood culture from the entire earth. But of course this would not include the writings of Adam and Noah and the author of the creation account. Why would God want to erase those histories, only to then give them to Moses directly?​

 

[miamited]

Hi cal,

Once again, hello and no offense taken, but I just wanted to assure you that I had read it. Even though you did only say that 'just for giggles' thing once, you did in both of your responses to me encourage me to read it. So, I was responding just to let you know that I had and I wasn't just bringing up these objections to the theory without having read and investigated the theory.

Now, you say: We don't have direct biblical evidence, but equally import is the fact that we have no biblical evidence that God gave these to Moses directly.

Ok, fair enough, and as you have already said, there isn't really any 'direct' evidence for either position, but I think that there is just as much 'circumstantial' evidence. As I asked before, and now I would ask you to stop for a bit and really consider how long 40 days is. That's almost a month and a half. Consider yourself sitting down before the God of all that is, for 40 days. 40 days. Think of yourself just sitting where you are for 40 days. Mark today on your calendar and come back in 40 days and think to yourself, "I would have sat there in that chair for 40 days, what would I have done?" Because as far as we know this is what Moses did. He went to the top of the mountain and it's not like there's a big open space at the top for him to walk around and journey for 40 days, so for me, I'm thinking he pretty much just sat there for 40 days spending precious time with God.

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

Yes, we know that God somehow revealed to Moses how he was to build the temple, yet there is no evidence that Moses took pen and parchment up on the mountain and wrote it all down and then came back down with a written list of all these instructions. 40 days! That's a long time to talk about the weather and how things are going with the family and how the kids are doing in college, etc., etc. I believe that for 40 days God explained to Moses the purpose of His people Israel. That they were to write down all that He continually revealed through them for future generations to have and that just as with all the other Scripture, when Moses got the time to sit down and write it all down, the Holy Spirit brought to his remembrance all that God had told him on the mountian.

Is there any 'proof' of that? No! But there is as much circumstantial evidence as your theory and again, I will repeat, it does absolutely assure us that what Moses wrote down was, in fact, the truth. Part of the reason that so many deny the truth of God's word today as regards the creation account and the miracles is that so many deny that what each writer wrote down was really revealed to them through God's Holy Spirit what to write down. Everyone wants to believe that it's just some fables handed down over generations about how people in those days thought to relate to a god. The theory you espouse leaves open that same wedge of doubt. Mine doesnt'! What Moses wrote as the first of the written revelation of God to mankind was given directly from God to Moses during the days of their encampment in the desert. It also follows what I believe is the very purpose for which God raised up Abraham and the ensuing generations of Israel. As Paul says, their chief purpose was to write down, secure and protect the oracles of God so that our generations, when wondering, "Hmmmm, I wonder what religion is the truth of all things?" We could be assured that what the Jews brought to us was it.

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, so Abraham comes along about 1850 and Moses in the desert is somewhere near 2500 years from the creation event. I didn't do as exacting a reckoning of Abraham's generations. Now, the first issue is that the flood was about year 1560 from the creation and so any evidentiary writing that predates Abraham would likely be, at most, only 2-3 hundred years before his time. I mean nearly every scientist agrees that if there was a worldwide flood that all the previous civilizations would have been covered by tons and tons of sediment. Not something that the people thereafter would have spent much time digging through to find writings prior to the flood. Most young earth creationists believe that it was the buried flora and fauna of life before the flood that has produced the vast oil and coal reserves across the globe and this takes a lot more than picks and shovels to unearth. The second issue is the speed at which cultural shifts occur. Today we are accustomed to things changing overnight, but I believe history shows that as we go further back in time, cultural changes were very, very slow in gaining ground. Consider that the olde english of the KJ was probably the accepted language for some 500-600 years in Elizabethan England. That is a guesstimate and you are free to check and see how long the english actually wrote and spoke in the manner of the KJ english. So, now, let's go back another 3,000 years and consider how fast changes in writing style may have occurred. How many centuries do you think the Egyptians wrote using heiroglyphics(sp)? How many centuries do you think the Greeks and Romans wrote and spoke in the manner of the structure of the Illyad and the Oddysey? My point being that I'm not sure we can justify the thinking that says, "Well, because we have this writing in the same area 500 years earlier that is written like this writing 500 years later, that the writing date of the later must be earlier than we think." Do you suppose that there's even the slightest possibility that when Joseph and his brothers came into Egypt, that 450 years later, when their descendents left, that the people of Egypt were still writing with the same structure they had written when Joseph and the boys got there? Do we really believe that in those days 500-600 or even possibly one thousand years would necessarily mean that writing styles and structure should be different? Now, can they be? Well, sure we know that at some time Egypt went from heiroglyphic writing to sanskrit writing and so there must have been some changes over the thousands of years of the creation until now, but I don't think we should assume that every 500-600 year period should show some major changes in any cultures writing style and structure.

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

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

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted