If true, what difference would it make, since it is God's record anyhow? Moses is usually given credit for Genesis.
Old Earth vs. Young Earth Creationism
Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by evangelist6589, Nov 14, 2017.
Page 7 of 9
-
It's up to you to decide if this topic interests you or matters.
It interests me because Genesis is God's word and therefore we should look at Genesis the same way we look at other inspired writings. As Henry Morris points out:
“Visions and revelations of the Lord” normally have to do with prophetic revelations of the future (as in Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc.). The direct dictation method of inspiration was used mainly for promulgation of specific laws and ordinances (as in the Ten Commandments, the Book of Leviticus, etc.). The Book of Genesis, however, is entirely in the form of narrative records of historical events. Biblical parallels to Genesis are found in such books as Kings, Chronicles, Acts, and so forth. In all of these, the writer either collected previous documents and edited them (e.g., I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles), or else recorded the events which he had either seen himself or had ascertained from others who were witnesses (e.g., Luke, Acts).
If God did give us Genesis the same way he gave us other inspired books, then we should acknowledge the textual evidence he provided. -
Also the first several verses in Genesis are involved with the "waw consecutive" which truly complicates the issue of the sequence and timing of events.
There are conflicting descriptions of the "waw consecutive" depending on the individual grammar.
but then the author goes on to indicate doubt with no definitive conclusion.. -
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
When I read this it simply seems to mean...this is the record of the sons of Adam.
I do not see any need to either invoke some actual so called book that Moses read out in the wilderness, nor to think Adam or some unknown person wrote a book. I do not see why you see a need to have this be the case. -
Verse 2, "And the earth . . . " The waw is prefixed to a noun making it a disjunctive.
Verse 3 and following the waws are prefixed to verbs making them consecutives.
God said . . .
God saw . . .
God called . . . -
-
“Visions and revelations of the Lord” normally have to do with prophetic revelations of the future (as in Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc.). The direct dictation method of inspiration was used mainly for promulgation of specific laws and ordinances (as in the Ten Commandments, the Book of Leviticus, etc.). The Book of Genesis, however, is entirely in the form of narrative records of historical events. Biblical parallels to Genesis are found in such books as Kings, Chronicles, Acts, and so forth. In all of these, the writer either collected previous documents and edited them (e.g., I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles), or else recorded the events which he had either seen himself or had ascertained from others who were witnesses (e.g., Luke, Acts).
The evidence seems to be that Genesis was written exactly the way other biblical narratives were written. That's my only point. -
-
John got his stuff from angels and heaven, Not a book. Paul seems to have got stuff that way also. The folks Jesus inspired to write the gospels had no book to copy from. Not sure what you mean by " written exactly the way other biblical narratives were written"?? -
Gen. 5:1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam.
I believe he's giving a source reference.
Just out of curiosity, why is the Tablet Theory so outlandish to you? -
The phrase "these are the history of" and a name are used over 10 times in Genesis. The consensus of scholarly opinion is that the phrase refers to pre-existing writings being edited into Genesis by Moses. Under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, of course.
-
-
-
I particularly like Curt Sewell's take on Wisman's Hypothesis. Wiseman argued the toledoth statements were colophons (summary signatures at the end of each section). This really worked well until until some snags arose with Ishmael and Esau's toledoth, but Sewell has some interesting insights on those. I think he solves the mystery.
The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship
True Origin
Curt Sewell © 1998-2001 by Curt Sewell -
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Adam could read and write. He was made perfect. He was not some stone-age guy of Darwin's depraved imagination.
-
And now you're saying Moses didn't write Genesis as one account? Rather he wrote several books? Is that what you're saying? That would seem odd, and very unusual in the OT. Do you believe this is true with the other toledoth statements in the rest of the OT, they are all separate books?
I'm still not getting why you're so opposed to historical records theory. Something about it is odious to you, I just can't figure out what it is. -
-
Page 7 of 9