Old Earth vs. Young Earth Creationism

If true, what difference would it make, since it is God's record anyhow? Moses is usually given credit for Genesis.

 

I'm just answering your questions. First you ask for evidence, then you say it doesn't matter. Then why did you demand evidence??

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.

 

Actually there is no "present tense" in Hebrew but perfect and imperfect action verbs.

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.

A Practical Grammar For Classical Hebrew; Weingreen, 1959; Oxford press; page 90 (My Hebrew textbook, Calvary University; KCMO).

but then the author goes on to indicate doubt with no definitive conclusion..

 

Since Moses was verified by Jesus as true, it seems fine if he wrote Genesis.

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.

 

Thanks

 

Moses did write Genesis. That's not in dispute. The question is, did Moses get the historical accounts directly from God via dictation, or did he have historical records to draw from? That why I was quoting Morris.

“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.

 

No matter how Moses received the knowledge, was of god and fully inspired and accurate in all that it described!

 

The thing is you don't know. So why would we try to make a claim there was a book? I see no other written material before the flood, and I doubt there was a need for writing then.

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"??

 

Because the Bible says there's a book, the book of the histories of Adam. That we know for sure, because it's in Scripture. Now you can speculate why Moses wrote about this book, but there is:

Gen. 5:1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam.​

I believe he's giving a source reference.

Yes, no one is arguing these points. Some Scripture came from special revelation. Did you happen to read the Morris quote? It lays this out pretty succinctly. Hard to misinterpret. I mean just read it.

Just out of curiosity, why is the Tablet Theory so outlandish to you?

 

You sure about this? I'm not sure modern scholars are onboard. But surprise me.

 

Moses probably handled Genesis in same fashion Luke did in his Gospel, by using sources, and also having direct revelation from God Himself. So oral and written testimony and direction by God Himself in the finished end book unto us.

 

Yeah, I mean, I think it's the most natural inference one can make.

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

 

You can believe what you like. The so called book talked about is apparently the one being given, and imagining some previous one is as you say, belief.

I do not think men needed to write before the flood.

 

Adam could read and write. He was made perfect. He was not some stone-age guy of Darwin's depraved imagination.

 

Well you say, "needed" which is an interesting choice of words. Not sure I get the argument your'e making. You don't think they needed to write. So, after the flood they did need to write?

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.

 

Maybe he feels that if Moses used source materials in writing genesis, not as inspired as God telling it to Him directly by "mouth?"

 

Well then what does that say about the rest of the inspired books that were not given via direct revelation? Are the Gospels not as inspired? Is Acts not as inspired?