Who wrote genesis?

[cubinity]

We can accept what you say as a true statement of your ideas and opinions, or we can rip it apart saying that you have no choice but to believe what you've written because you are young/old/rich /poor/well educated/not educated or whatever.

One is usually better off just accepting what you just wrote without digging to deep into your background and allowing errors, mistakes, and outright blunders to potentially surface later.

The Bible is the same way. MUCH better off taking it at face value FIRST, and giving all the secondary chatter the short shrift rather than the other way around.

The "slippery slope" is doubting the words you are reading are worthy. I believe the Bible to be "inerrant and true' based on TESTING to see if it's true. All tests I've done so far have proven it true. So much so that "inerrant" is very likely and has far fewer negative consequences than considering it "full of errors".

Thank you so much for this response. It was written respectfully, and was very well articulated. I disagree with you, but I have gained substantial respect for you from your rhetoric. Thank you.

As wayseer pointed out, the issue does not start with our doubt of the Bible being inerrant, but our doubt in ourselves because we know we are errant.

Taking the Bible at face value would mean trusting my intuition fully. I did that, and it proved to be, at the very least, an inadequate way of understanding the Scriptures. By challenging what I, and my institution, believed the Bible actually said, I discovered what I am content is a better view of the truth I was looking for. That truth was evident in Scripture all along, but I couldn't see it this clearly until I began to doubt our conventional ways of interpreting it, and put on the glasses of an insider-skeptic.

 

[SkyWriting]

Genesis is not a history book. It is not a science book. It is not a geography book.

If you try to take it literally you will never understand it.

I find it to be a combination of all three and you really don't GET to understand it until you figure that out.

 

[SkyWriting]

Thank you so much for this response. It was written respectfully, and was very well articulated. I disagree with you, but I have gained substantial respect for you from your rhetoric. Thank you.

As wayseer pointed out, the issue does not start with our doubt of the Bible being inerrant, but our doubt in ourselves because we know we are errant.

Taking the Bible at face value would mean trusting my intuition fully. I did that, and it proved to be, at the very least, an inadequate way of understanding the Scriptures. By challenging what I, and my institution, believed the Bible actually said, I discovered what I am content is a better view of the truth I was looking for. That truth was evident in Scripture all along, but I couldn't see it this clearly until I began to doubt our conventional ways of interpreting it, and put on the glasses of an insider-skeptic.

It would be interesting to find out what you discovered as a better truth than accepting what you read at face value. I have better things to to than research your entire background before I accept what you've just posted. Yet you claim that is the best way to understand what you just said.
I reject your insistence that you don't mean what you say. And I don't have time to research your goals, intentions, and projected audience.

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

The "slippery slope" is doubting the words you are reading are worthy.

​

The slippery slope begins when you do not doubt - when you claim that the words on the page are all there is.
<snip>

You can plainly see that my words - you quoted - say no such thing.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm going to agree that a hard fundamentalist approach calls into question the validity of Christianity, or any religion for that matter.
When someone says they need the world to have been made in seven literal days or Christ didn't die on the cross, or that the flood had to have covered the whole Earth or Jesus didn't die on the cross, or even David had to have killed Goliath as a kid or Jesus didn't die on the cross, well, I get a little dizzy with the circular reasoning.
Now, I'm not saying these things aren't true, but needing them to be true taints the lens with which one sees true, and that person can no longer objectively evaluate or report on truth. The need drives the decision, and all of the "facts" presented by that individual are called into question by their subjective approach to truth.
Therefore, I find it meaningful to compartmentalize available information, and objectively as possible assess the correlations between two or more issues. Sometimes things are simply mutually exclusive.
For example, if Adam and Eve are not the first humans ever, but perhaps the first humans in this new cycle (as Noah and his family are the first humans in that cycle), or perhaps simply the first "Jews," or even just parabolic characters, the spiritual truths and the groundwork being laid can all still be quite true and relevant. But, if I need Adam and Eve to be the first people ever, then I most likely also really need the spiritual truths of my religion to be true, too. In which case, I would not be objectively evaluating either, and the validity of both can easily be called into question.

It seems Jesus was right on the topic of Faith then.

 

[cubinity]

It would be interesting to find out what you discovered as a better truth than accepting what you read at face value. I have better things to to than research your entire background before I accept what you've just posted. Yet you claim that is the best way to understand what you just said.
I reject your insistence that you don't mean what you say. And I don't have time to research your goals, intentions, and projected audience.

SkyWriting,

This is not an argument, but an explanation. I say that because tones are difficult to understand in writing sometimes.

Somewhere along the line, someone explained to me the difference between knowing ABOUT Jesus, and knowing Jesus. One is informational, and the other relational. One can be investigated, the other experienced. One argued, the other celebrated through testimony. One is religious, and the other the redeeming power of God.

The connection you have brought up between knowing the speaker more intimately and accepting what that person is saying is right on the money.

In my experience as an evangelist, I have never introduced a person to the saving power of Jesus Christ by arguments made about the validity of Christianity, the Bible or Jesus. In my experience, a junior higher with a decent education can successfully rebuttal any of those arguments and perpetuate a logic that keeps herself outside his relationship with our Savior. Likewise, I have encountered many Christians who get everything right about their faith except the part where they actually have a relationship with Jesus, which is unfortunate because the relationship is the best part. However, through the process of relationship (that is, building rapport and getting to know more intimately the person with which I am speaking) I have found that there is nothing more important for me to do, nor anything more compelling in communicating the Gospel. So, knowing the person is not only not mutually exclusive, but it is essential for connecting with what they are really saying, and helping them connect with what you are trying to tell them. This is as true for our neighbors as it is for our Savior.

For so long as Christians, in my opinion, try to make Christianity about codifying morality and telling people what to believe about God, it will fall somewhere short of the Bible's goal. What Jesus rejected about the religious in his parable was that he never knew them, not that they never knew the right things about him. What was compelling about the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan was not the morality or doctrine of the people, but the loving condition of their hearts that created the intimate relationships described. "You have heard it said... but I tell you..." is all about relationship, not morality or doctrine, in my opinion.

In the end, I am not sharing on this site to convince you I'm right. I am only making an effort to extend my relational voice, in hopes of relating with my fellow believers and being known more fully by them. I mean this with the utmost respect: If you have better things to do, by all means, go do them. I don't want to be a distraction from that which is meaningful in your life, so I will not be offended if you place me on your ignore list. I have certainly had to make that choice with a few people myself. However, if you want to continue to discuss the Gospel relationally with me and others, it would be my pleasure to see you continue to do so. As is true in every situation, the choice is entirely yours to make.

God bless you and your ministry,
Cubinity

 

[cubinity]

It seems Jesus was right on the topic of Faith then.

Yes, he was. Children are relational, not rational. Getting to know them is the secret to their heart, not structuring their lives through codified morality or placing expectations on what information they can memorize and repeat to others. I think, if I am understanding your reference correctly, we are making similar points here, just from different perspectives.

 

[SkyWriting]

SkyWriting,
This is not an argument, but an explanation. I say that because tones are difficult to understand in writing sometimes. Somewhere along the line, someone explained to me the difference between knowing ABOUT Jesus, and knowing Jesus. One is informational, and the other relational. One can be investigated, the other experienced. One argued, the other celebrated through testimony. One is religious, and the other the redeeming power of God. The connection you have brought up between knowing the speaker more intimately and accepting what that person is saying is right on the money. In my experience as an evangelist, I have never introduced a person to the saving power of Jesus Christ by arguments made about the validity of Christianity, the Bible or Jesus. In my experience, a junior higher with a decent education can successfully rebuttal any of those arguments and perpetuate a logic that keeps herself outside his relationship with our Savior. Likewise, I have encountered many Christians who get everything right about their faith except the part where they actually have a relationship with Jesus, which is unfortunate because the relationship is the best part. However, through the process of relationship (that is, building rapport and getting to know more intimately the person with which I am speaking) I have found that there is nothing more important for me to do, nor anything more compelling in communicating the Gospel. So, knowing the person is not only not mutually exclusive, but it is essential for connecting with what they are really saying, and helping them connect with what you are trying to tell them. This is as true for our neighbors as it is for our Savior. For so long as Christians, in my opinion, try to make Christianity about codifying morality and telling people what to believe about God, it will fall somewhere short of the Bible's goal. What Jesus rejected about the religious in his parable was that he never knew them, not that they never knew the right things about him. What was compelling about the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan was not the morality or doctrine of the people, but the loving condition of their hearts that created the intimate relationships described. "You have heard it said... but I tell you..." is all about relationship, not morality or doctrine, in my opinion. In the end, I am not sharing on this site to convince you I'm right. I am only making an effort to extend my relational voice, in hopes of relating with my fellow believers and being known more fully by them. I mean this with the utmost respect:
If you have better things to do, by all means, go do them.I don't want to be a distraction from that which is meaningful in your life, so I will not be offended if you place me on your ignore list. I have certainly had to make that choice with a few people myself. However, if you want to continue to discuss the Gospel relationally with me and others, it would be my pleasure to see you continue to do so. As is true in every situation, the choice is entirely yours to make.God bless you and your ministry, Cubinity

I repeat: It would be interesting to find out what you discovered as a better truth than accepting what you read at face value.

You missed the second part of the sentence:
I have better things to do than research your entire background before I accept what you've just posted.
Likewise, people need not to have a biblical scholars background to understand what God wants us to learn from scriptures.

And your comment
"...that a hard fundamentalist approach calls into question the validity of Christianity, or any religion for that matter."
is both contrary to my experiences in life and logic for that matter. I can't imagine how people who don't hold to the fundamentals of their religion have a higher validly in your eyes than those who do.

I feel that's a flawed conclusion, so good luck with that.

Fundamentalism | Define Fundamentalism at Dictionary.com

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, he was. Children are relational, not rational. Getting to know them is the secret to their heart, not structuring their lives through codified morality or placing expectations on what information they can memorize and repeat to others. I think, if I am understanding your reference correctly, we are making similar points here, just from different perspectives.

Children are also illiterate, and unable to research the "true meanings" of what is told to them. So they come to God on faith and in love as He calls them or as they see Him.

 

[wayseer]

I find it to be a combination of all three and you really don't GET to understand it until you figure that out.

What do you mean?

 

[SkyWriting]

<snip>
The Consensus holds that the Six-Day Creation was written to honor the Sabbath, not the reverse. If Moses knew anything about it, he was the first man who did.

Fortunately for the world, majority opinion has no direct influence on the facts or the truth.

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by revanneosl

Genesis is not a history book. It is not a science book. It is not a geography book. If you try to take it literally you will never understand it.
​

Sky - I find it to be a combination of all three and you really don't GET to understand it until you figure that out.

What do you mean?

I mean that the Bible is a history book, scientifically accurate, and geographically correct. Once you figure that out, then the door opens to even more insights that are beneath the natural literal understanding and adds further dimensions to what one reads. Otherwise, you miss the language puns, the humor, the depth, and the wisdom of what God has provided for us.

 

[SkyWriting]

Taking the Bible at face value would mean trusting my intuition fully.
<snip>

Opposite my definition - taking the Bible at Face value - means to me trusting that God is speaking to me plainly. God does not trust my natural intuition so it is best that I don't either.

 

[SkyWriting]

<snip>..
There is the other glaring bit of evidence - how could Moses write about his death?

Oh you mean "was he the final author?".
The evidence suggests that he was not the final author.
I've never read anyone who claimed that any book in the Bible
was 100% authored by one specific person.

 

[cubinity]

I mean that the Bible is a history book, scientifically accurate, and geographically correct. Once you figure that out, then the door opens to even more insights that are beneath the natural literal understanding and adds further dimensions to what one reads. Otherwise, you miss the language puns, the humor, the depth, and the wisdom of what God has provided for us.

I am conflicted by what appears to be a contradiction. SkyWriting has argued well the superiority of taking the Bible at face value, but here has promoted even more insights beneath the surface. I assume this is somehow not contradictory to SkyWriter, so I'm asking for an explanation of reasoning.

This is my reasoning: Language puns, humor and the depth of the author's message require some cultural context to be understood, and that context is not usually provided explicitly in the text, so further research may be required, rendering a face value reading obsolete. How does a reader of the Bible get such context when only taking the text at face value? How can the reader be confident he or she is interpreting the text as the author likely meant it?

 

[cubinity]

I repeat: It would be interesting to find out what you discovered as a better truth than accepting what you read at face value.

The simple answer: unadulterated curiosity.

You missed the second part of the sentence:
I have better things to do than research your entire background before I accept what you've just posted.
Likewise, people need not to have a biblical scholars background to understand what God wants us to learn from scriptures.

I realize I may have misinterpreted your motives in writing that statement, and I apologize if I did. My past has shaped me, and how I approach my faith. I believe that is true for all of us.

I'm thankful we don't need scholarly backgrounds, and made a similar argument myself in my thread titled "The Best Theologian...Ever!"

And your comment
"...that a hard fundamentalist approach calls into question the validity of Christianity, or any religion for that matter."
is both contrary to my experiences in life and logic for that matter. I can't imagine how people who don't hold to the fundamentals of their religion have a higher validly in your eyes than those who do.

Because what we are looking for is relevance, not truth. We acknowledge that truth is what it is. Everyone is subject to truth, and experiences it in every moment. Truth is not something lost, needing to be found. It is not a secret maintained by one group, but withheld from everyone else. Truth is, and there is nothing that will change that, no matter how we describe it.

Fundamentalism is unwilling, in my experience, to make that distinction between relevance and truth. They are unwilling to identify that they are explaining the truth somewhat differently than others, but the truth will still be what it is regardless of whose explanation proves to be more accurate.

We are all expert critics of other people's explanations of the truth, but rarely do we turn that expertise against ourselves. We refute peer review from our critics, and we seek out people who agree with us. In this way, we miss out on a tremendous amount of opportunities for both relationship and accountability.

The more we promote the relevance of Christian faith, the less we have to defend its accuracy to the truth. Our needs are not structured in such a way that we prioritize accuracy over survival and relationship. Whenever Christians spend so most of their time trying to defend their beliefs as true, they lose relevance to the audience who identifies their highest priorities as survival and relationship.

That is the reason I can shrug and say, "These are my opinions. They may not be accurate." It is because my goal is relevance, and I see relevance as superior to accuracy.

I feel that's a flawed conclusion, so good luck with that.

I respect your feelings. I am at peace.

Fundamentalism | Define Fundamentalism at Dictionary.com

In the definition provided by your link, I found a few things about fundamentalism with which I struggle. First, it was a movement that took place in the 20th century, which is a shockingly late development for something that has supposedly been obviously true for nineteen hundred years. Second, it was developed in response to modernism, which was itself a movement with which the Biblical authors had no experience, so projecting a fundamentalist perspective on them seems at the very least irrelevant. Third, the movement assumed the authority to define which beliefs were essential to the Christian faith. While I am not denying the validity of their movement or their conclusions, I must ask: Who were they, and from what did they derive such authority?

 

[wayseer]

I mean that the Bible is a history book, scientifically accurate, and geographically correct. Once you figure that out, then the door opens to even more insights that are beneath the natural literal understanding and adds further dimensions to what one reads. Otherwise, you miss the language puns, the humor, the depth, and the wisdom of what God has provided for us.

Apart from the fact that your views are themselves an inaccurate concerning the accuracy of the biblical texts with respect history and science, I am left wondering at your definition of 'accuracy'.

But such does not mean I am in danger of missing the deeper meanings of the texts. The various authors of those texts were not writing texts books for science or history 101. They were writing in order to reveal God.

 

[wayseer]

Oh you mean "was he the final author?".

No - meaning Moses did not 'author' the Torah.

The evidence suggests that he was not the final author.

As one who apparently claims some expertise in this matter you might nominate just who did the authoring.

I've never read anyone who claimed that any book in the Bible
was 100% authored by one specific person.

An interesting choice of words. You might explain what you mean. What is an 'author' as far as your are concerned?

As far as I am aware, Paul 'authored' his genuine letters. Are you suggesting they were 'authored' by someone else? Or are you just playing with words for your own amusement?

 

[DoctorJosh]

Moses wrote the first 5 books in the Old Testament, but he had some help from God. Thus what Moses wrote also coincides with what Enoch wrote in the book of Enoch. Remember now, the book of Enoch was written by Enoch himself (the son of Adam and Eve). Now how the book of Enoch survived is most likely it was carried onto the boat with Noah, since it was the only book about God during that time up until Moses. It was as popular then as the Bible is today. They are still finding stone tablets (hence the skins and parchments have long turned to dust and were also destroyed by the flood) that have inscribed on them the book of Enoch. The sad thing is there is only so many Christian scientists and archaeologists finding these historical clues. They however have been found, which where the book of Enoch comes from today. Hope this helps. God Bless.

 

[wayseer]

Moses wrote the first 5 books in the Old Testament, but he had some help from God. Thus what Moses wrote also coincides with what Enoch wrote in the book of Enoch. Remember now, the book of Enoch was written by Enoch himself (the son of Adam and Eve). Now how the book of Enoch survived is most likely it was carried onto the boat with Noah, since it was the only book about God during that time up until Moses. It was as popular then as the Bible is today. They are still finding stone tablets (hence the skins and parchments have long turned to dust and were also destroyed by the flood) that have inscribed on them the book of Enoch. The sad thing is there is only so many Christian scientists and archaeologists finding these historical clues. They however have been found, which where the book of Enoch comes from today. Hope this helps. God Bless.

No - it more like something out of Hollywood.