James Brown

As the Internet kids say these days, "Cool story, bro." Do you have a lick of evidence for any of this beyond "If it's in the Bible then it must be true"?

You apparently missed all the questions I asked earlier in the thread, questions that arise if we assume that everyone from Adam to Moses wrote their own life's histories in the same style and language. Such as:

James Brown

Speaking and Writing are two different things. Writing is much more difficult than talking. Toddlers can talk to each other; does that mean a two-year-old can pick up a pen and phonetically sound out what he's saying, jot it down, then hand it to another two-year-old for her to read? Animals verbally communicate with each other all the time; do you see elephants easily transcribing their life histories on animal skins?

For most of human history, the majority of people have been illiterate, meaning they didn't know how to read and write. It's not because they were unintelligent. It's because learning to read and write takes time and resources which were better spent on survival. Only in wealthy societies such as ours has widespread literacy been possible.


You've said this before, which I find very curious. You state the the evidence for a young earth is that the Biblical genealogies don't allow for an old earth. And you state that the universe is about 15,000 years old. And yet the Biblical genealogies only add up to a 6,000 year-old Earth, according to Bishop Usser.

So how is it that both you and the good bishop use the same genealogies to determine the age of the universe, and yet your figure is two-and-a-half times larger?

mg01

Baseless accusations are easily constructed.

Homer put The Iliad together from the histories that were in his possession written by Achilleus, Agamemnon, Odysseus, and others.

See.

It's not enough to simply claim something that might or could be true, particular when there are a great deal of indications to the contrary. You need positive evidence and to show why Mosaic authorship better explains the facts from the text rather than just ignore them.

Nowhere in the Pentateuch is authorship contributed to Moses. The verses in Exodus where Moses is writing things down are easily understood in context as referring to the laws delivered to him by Elohim/Yahweh. There is no indication that is would be reasonable to extend this to the entire text.

The Pentateuch as a whole shows indications of multiple sources woven together in multiple steps by individuals/groups. There are theological, linguistic, and geographical conventions associated with each source that fingerprints them. There are consistent transitions between stories that indicate a final redaction of the underlying sources. There are anachronistic references to cities, trade routes, camels, king lists (Gen 36), that did not exist in the proposed time of Moses. Moses's name itself is a suffix and his birth story and narratives share elements of other mythological heroes. Deuteronomy gives internal evidence of having been produced in the time of Josiah.

While you may could use this to explain Gen 1 & 2, what about the rest of the Pentateuch? What about even in a single narrative where the usage switches several times?

Given JamesABrown's (humorous) elucidation of just some of the problems with this idea here , here, and elsewhere, do you still think this is really plausible?

You don't really think this do you? Do have a library card?

Indeed this is the defense commonly cited to reconcile the two accounts, and may have in fact been the intention of the editor who placed the two sources back to back. However, as indicated above, it ignores the discrepancies in the details.

Are there no boundaries to apologetics? You are defending the idea that Moses did indeed prophesied his own death (couldn't have any gaps in the text could we), but also that Philo's explanation is an adequate explanation of how it actually happened? Does the fact that the author would have written a solo death scene and explicitly state that "no one knows his sepulchre unto this day" not tell you something?

(BTW, ever notice how often "unto this day" appears?)

Speculation doesn't count for much. Where is this stated?

More speculation. What about the absence of writing in the sparse settlements that have been found that pre-date later larger settlements with writing. Because we don't find writing we should assume that just means we didn't find it? How far back does that speculation extend? Should we assume neanderthals had writing, we just haven't found it? What about the clear development and progression of writing systems that have been found which indicate a time of origination? Should we assume that just because the early civilizations of the the Indus, Yangtze, Nile, Tigris and Euphrates rivers were just figuring out writing systems, that fully developed writing writing was alive and well even before the proposed time of Noah? Are you going to also assume that the other civilizations learned writing from these early Hebrews?

Obviously, since nothing of it has ever been found given. Never mind the fact that the oldest script attributed to anything culturally considered Hebrew is 10th century. Using the infallible logic you've already demonstrated, it must have existed otherwise Moses would have had no language to use. This makes sense to you?

Special pleading based on speculation with nothing to back it up except the idea that it has to be true, otherwise Moses couldn't have been the author.

Despite all the reasons given that are in conflict you still think this is the best explanation? That maybe "liberal theologians" are ok with them, but "True Christians"^(TM) who read the ESV know better?

What is your criteria for this? How do you tell the difference between a conversation between Moses and Elohim/Yahweh that has been redacted and one that has not? What about the name changing in the middle of a conversation already mentioned? A schizophrenic Moses is a better explanation that a later editor?

Really? Still? After everything presented? Are you paying attention?

While we're at it, let's also suppose Adam had a playstation and a 60 inch plasma tv in the garden as well. He had to have something to do with his time after he finished naming all the animals and before Eve showed up. After all, if there was light, electromagnetics must have existed so why not electricity?

Do you not recognize that language and writing are two different things? There are plenty of extant cultures with language and no writing.

Yea, because blindly trusting the 6000 year old earth claimed in an ancient book by unknown authors is a much better way to learn things instead of direct inquisition of nature by independent methods.

What criteria should we use for selecting which ancient book to use?

Of course! Don't you see! That's why it took 40 years! He was encumbered by all those tablets! The people were complaining about having to carry them all!

Not according to text which gives a very specific itinerary. (Which is later repeated in Deuteronomy and was likely the list used for structuring the stories by the redactor in the first place.) Do you even know your own sacred book?

There's actually another list that could be considered a third, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

Where in the text is this explained, or is this muti-layered speculation your invention?

Right, because facts that are contrary to your position must be ignored.

And just how is this "obvious" exactly". What specifically about the Torah do you consider indicative of Mosaic origin?

Again, despite all the facts to the contrary which you dismiss and fill in the gaps with speculation rather than evidence.

So we know the text is correct, because the text tells us it's correct? Completely bulletproof logic.

Remind me again why we should use this text as authentic instead of other ancient texts? How do you know it was Elohim that created the earth out of the void and not Atum from the Nu? Or was it the result of a union between An and Ki before Enlil showed up?

Knowing the language only helps to understand what the text says, not what it doesn't. How does this justify speculating it's existence prior to it's discovery? Or the assumption: if language, then writing?

Again, you unreasonably extend the handful of specific instances of narration where Moses is indeed instructed and obediently writes what he is told to the entirety of the Pentateuch.

Is this an admission that personal belief is necessary for the acceptance of the text as written? Isn't belief in this context synonymous with faith, that is, accepting something without evidence?

This is actually the first thing you've said that makes any sense. Faith requires neither logic or evidence. The apparent application of either is necessary only to quell the cognitive dissonance that arises when considering acceptance of the text in light of reality. It becomes not a tool to justify the belief itself, but to justify why the belief is held. That's why arguments of this type fail when presented to others. It's not others they are constructed for.

Your comment, "...unless you personally just don't want to believe that...", implies that you do want to believe. That pretty much ends any real discussion by confirming the above. All you are talking about are reasons you use to justify your belief. Something completely different as to why you believe in the first place.

Except that it's not. Predictions from the DH are supported from the text. This has been repeatedly pointed out above. Each of the JPED sources has consistently identifiable fingerprints throughout. P uses "be fruitful and multiply" and uses Elohim, avoids narrative details but is completely obsessed over details concerning the temple and worship. E stories are northern centric, never mention the ark, loaded with puns. J uses Yahweh, southern centric, never mentions the tabernacle. D is basically Deuteronomy, and lacks the JPE fingerprints (except for a few bits that are actually contiguous with Numbers) If you have a better explanation than a schizophrenic Moses please let us know. What about the doublets and triplets? JPED accounts for them all. Was Moses senile as well? Or was Abraham a complete creature of habit who repeatedly relied on the same tricks?

Not only do we not have any declaration of authorship by Moses, we also do not have any mention of Moses's scribe/secretary/historian, but it's ok to speculate one existed?

When did Moses aquire such a scribe? When he was found by the pharaoh's daughter? Later at the bush? Was it before or after the reed sea incident? Or once they made it to the wilderness/dessert? At what point did it occur to him that what was happening should be written down? Also, who had the tablets when Moses was being raised in the house of Pharaoh? Did that person assign the scribe and explain to Moses it had to be recorded?

Ezra is a popular choice as the final redactor. Some go with Barauch. So by the 5th century or so, your idea of compositional history merges with others.

As an endpoint for the Torah, not really. However there's still that minor issue of whether or not Ezra's sources went back only 4 or 5 centuries, following not long after the appearance of Israelite culture in the Levant, or 35 centuries, following the creation of the universe.

Exactly.

Nail, meet Hammer.

rhutchin already admitted it was a matter of having faith in what he wanted to believe was true. You can't expect true honesty when reality is set aside for wishful thinking.

.

rhutchin

OK. That's a good point. I'll go with Adam being smart enough to create the first alphabet and spell words.


There are a couple methods out there to treat the genealogies. Ussher took the genealogies to be physical father-son relationships. Others treat the genealogies as other than physical father-son relationships allowing for gaps in generations between the names listed. The latter method can get up to 15,000 years more or less.

rhutchin

Within the context of what we have, we get the results I have described. No one says you gotta believe it.

rhutchin

Gee. All you had to do was point us to some redactions, especially ones that make a difference.

mg01

You're just making this up aren't you?

Did Yahweh Elohim tell him to do it or did he come up with the idea on his own? Adam names the animals, gets bored, then invents writing so he can document what it's like. Or was it after Eve showed up and got them getting kicked out, Perhaps that gave him something worth documenting and inspired him. Since it was just him and Eve, who was Adam's audience and what was his reason for doing so? Is it really reasonable to think that the very first person on earth, who actually hung out with and talked to Yahweh Elohim himself, lived for 930 years, in all that time, the person who invented writing, only wrote a couple of chapters of text worth remembering. "We were created, messed up, had kids, they messed up, the end."

(BTW, Adam means "man", Eve means "life", as in "mother of all". These etiologies are revealing to anyone familiar with myth. Similarities are unavoidable with enough exposure.)

Also, why did Cain need a mark? Didn't Adam and Eve know who he was?

Do you mean to say that from the begats, we have 15,000 on the upper end, and 6,000 on the lower, a 60% margin of error? How exactly does one treat a genealogy as "other than physical father-son relationships"? How does one tell the difference in whether it's a direct relationship or some other more metaphorical meaning where we should insert extra time? How do you determine how much extra time to insert? Is there a relationship between how much time to insert and the desired result?

You should really think about these things first.

No, What you are getting are the results you want...

and this is why. You have faith, you have no need facts right?

Do you seriously think all that is needed to overturn the DH is an opportunity to dismiss a couple of verses? Do you not realize what the fact that it's possible to identify multiple sources running through the entire length of the Pentateuch implies? How would you propose to dismiss the full length of, say J for instance, by picking at single verses? The DH started with Wellhausen, though built on previous ideas (surprise), and has evolved through iterations of discoveries. It describes how multiple narratives were woven together as a whole, it doesn't revolve around single transitional verses.

James Brown

Ah, but remember? Adam also has to invent writing, and writing utensils, and the physical medium that can retain the writings for the multiple centuries until Moses can get a hold of them. And then Adam has to bequeath all that learning to Cain and Abel, so that they can record their final conversation for posterity's sake. And then the knowledge has to be handed down to Seth, and his son, and his son's son, and so on down through the generations.

Here's a weird example. In Genesis 5, we read that a man named Kenan (one of several children of Enosh) became the father of Mahalel, along with other sons and daughters. So per your Tablet Theory, Kenan was the only one among his brothers and sisters who was entrusted with this knowledge of literacy. Kenan inherited a growing stack of tablets from his father along with the writing tools, spare blank tablets, etc. along with the charge to keep the record up-to-date, because someday someone is going to condense everything into a compact readable form. Kenan looks over the course of his life, then sits down and writes: (For being members of such sinful generations, these folks certainly weren't vainglorious, were they?) Then Kenan chooses Mahalel to be the keeper of the family tablet pile. Kenan teaches Mahalel the alphabet that Adam invented whole cloth, plus how to write, plus how to make more tablets, and the legacy (and the tablet pile) continues. The other sons and daughters of Kenan apparently don't deserve any literacy education.

Is that how you think it came about? Not just once for Kenan, but dozens of times, for each member that Genesis lists between Adam and Moses?

The history of writing.


What is the reason that you and others insert gaps into the genealogies? There is no indication in Genesis that there should be gaps. What is it that's making you conclude that the genealogies are missing anything? Why not, as Biblical inerrantists continually tell me, just accept the Bible for exactly what it says?

davidstarlingm

I think I covered all the "discrepancies" in my post. The translation used in the ESV does away with a great deal of potential confusion.

I definitely agree that these are two different accounts; one describes a process and the other describes an event. It is even possible that they have different textual bases, given the different name for God used (although this could also be an indication of the distinction between God as creator Elohim and God as personal I AM). However, this doesn't automatically mean that they disagree. The literary loop of 2:4 and 1:27 essentially claims that they are complementary accounts; one would need to find contradictions to disprove this.

It is certainly possible that a given relationship where one individual is listed as "father of" or "son of" another individual is not a single generation. We know that Matthew used this literary device to omit the names of wicked kings from the genealogy of Christ. We also know that Levi is called the "son of Abraham". If the text merely says, "Tom begat Joe, Joe begat Bob, and Bob begat Sam," we do not know whether Tom, Joe, Bob, and Sam represent four generations or represent four notable leaders in patrilineal descent stretching over twenty or thirty generations.

However, Ussher didn't use the "general" genealogies in constructing his timeline. He used the ones that say, "Tom was 45 years old when he begat Joe. Joe was 22 years old when he begat Bob. Bob was 50 years old when he begat Sam." These genealogies provide specific dating from one person to the next, so we know how long it took. This type of record is given from Adam to Jacob, and the rest of the dates accumulate from there. So unless the genealogies are just flat wrong, then you cannot fit more than 3990-4010 years between Adam and Christ.

mg01

Fixed.