Old Earth vs. Young Earth Creationism

[dad1]

No, I use what the bible says, and what all OT scholars agree to. There were oral or written records, just as the bible says at the beginning of every main section of Genesis.

Yes there were some records. That does not mean Moses in Egypt or the wilderness read them. Nor that they were written ones.

]And I will assume you don't have a complete understanding of the meaning of "allegorical." An allegory is NOT a metaphor. An allegory is when a narrative (a story) is told but not every single detail is recounted. It is an abbreviated telling of what happened without giving every minute detail.

OK. Lots of details are there, but I guess being only a few chapters we would not call that minute detail.

Genesis is such an abbreviated telling of origins, but not every detail is given. Genesis tells us WHAT God did, but He did not tell us HOW he did it, WHEN he did it, etc.

True, was this supposed to lead to some point?

 

[dad1]

"This is the history of the generations of . . . "

תלדות (toledowt)

"History, in ancient times, being based on genealogies, the phrase became a title for a history; so Genesis 2:4, "these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth"; as the history of a man's family is "the book of his generations," so that of the world's productions is "the generations (not the creation, which had been previously described) of the heavens and the earth." "Generations" is the heading of every chief section of Genesis (probably they were original family memoirs preserved and used by Moses under inspiration in writing Genesis)."

Fausset.

God gave the original records. He also gave Moses info. There is no way to show that there was some writings or stories that constituted a 'book' that Moses read to get his info. That is speculation.

 

[TCassidy]

True, was this supposed to lead to some point?

Yes. That you misunderstood "allegory."

 

[dad1]

Yes. That you misunderstood "allegory."

It seemed like you were talking about the actual real creation record as something less than the literal word of God to man about how He created the heavens and earth.

al·le·go·ry
ˈaləˌɡôrē/
noun

1. a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

 

[TCassidy]

It seemed like you were talking about the actual real creation record as something less than the literal word of God to man about how He created the heavens and earth.

al·le·go·ry
ˈaləˌɡôrē/
noun

1. a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Not all details are included in the narrative. Some are hidden.

You may want to include the entire definition: Merriam Webster:

Definition of allegory

plural allegories
1 :the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence.

 

[church mouse guy]

Looking at commentaries I did not see one that said Adam wrote it, just that the book was a record of his kids. Since some of those kids were born after Adam died...sorry.

"This is the book of the generations of Adam…
An account of persons born of him, or who descended from him by generation in the line of Seth, down to Noah, consisting of ten generations;"
Genesis - Chapter 5 - Verse 1 - The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible on StudyLight.org

Apparently, the word "book" also means "writings." I don't understand why you think that the Egyptians were more advanced than the Jews?

 

[Deacon]

Apparently, the word "book" also means "writings." I don't understand why you think that the Egyptians were more advanced than the Jews?

History, account, document, book: the translation accommodates our modern understandings - books as stacked and bound paper (or velum) didn't pop up 'til New Testament times.

The phrase shows up quite a few times in Genesis... and continues in the rest of the Torah, and was used as a verbal (or for us a written) marker.

Rob

 

[church mouse guy]

So although people may walk like Egyptians, I don't think that Egyptians were anything but sinful and their own writings deciphered in the 18th or 19th century omit this entire incident. Assuming that Adam could write as Genesis says, I have to agree that his writings stopped when he died 5,000 years ago and yet his descendants continue to multiply. As for as your comments on textual criticism, I personally have no idea how old the surviving texts of Genesis and the other writings of Moses are but I assume that they are much like the New Testament records in that respect. It is interesting to note that Egyptians do remember their battle of Kadesh in 1274 B.C. with the Hittites in which the Egyptians were nearly wiped out except the Hittite army lost discipline and began looting the Egyptian camp and were unable to regroup to demolish the Egyptian reinforcements who arrived by sea. If I recall correctly, the Hittites left a manual about how to train horses to be ridden and some think that they were the first in the ancient world to ride horses.

 

[BobRyan]

It says the earth had no form, and was empty. Here you're saying the earth had form and was full of water.

It says water covered the surface of the deep.

1. Water existed
2. the surface "of something" existed
3. The deep existed

There is no "And on day 3 God created water"
there is no "and on day 4 God created the surface of the deep"

Which means God created all of that on some other day - before day 1 when it already was there

 

[dad1]

Not all details are included in the narrative. Some are hidden.

You could say that about the whole bible, psalms, parables...etc.

From what is revealed we know creation is real. The flood was real. Who gives a flying fig about Moses supposedly drawing on some mysterious imagined records or not?

 

[dad1]

It says water covered the surface of the deep.

1. Water existed
2. the surface "of something" existed
3. The deep existed

There is no "And on day 3 God created water"
there is no "and on day 4 God created the surface of the deep"

Which means God created all of that on some other day - before day 1 when it already was there

False. The water was part of the heavens and earth created the verse before.

 

[dad1]

History, account, document, book: the translation accommodates our modern understandings - books as stacked and bound paper (or velum) didn't pop up 'til New Testament times.

The phrase shows up quite a few times in Genesis... and continues in the rest of the Torah, and was used as a verbal (or for us a written) marker.

Rob

The Hebrew word was generations. No written anything involved.

 

[TCassidy]

You could say that about the whole bible, psalms, parables...etc.

Yes, it is a common literary device.

From what is revealed we know creation is real.

Yep.

The flood was real.

Yep.

Who gives a flying fig about Moses supposedly drawing on some mysterious imagined records or not?

Then why are you participating in this discussion?

The Hebrew word was generations. No written anything involved.

Actually the Hebrew word is תולדות and means a descent, a family, or a history (oral or written) and, like its Greek counterpart, is a cognate of the word for "birth" - in Hebrew יָלַד meaning "birth" or "to bear" and is often translated "begat."

 

[dad1]

Yes, it is a common literary device.

Yep.

Yep.

Then why are you participating in this discussion?

Actually the Hebrew word is תולדות and means a descent, a family, or a history (oral or written) and, like its Greek counterpart, is a cognate of the word for "birth" - in Hebrew יָלַד meaning "birth" or "to bear" and is often translated "begat."

So there is no record of anything being written or any need to write in the days before Babel. As for why I commented on the claim of some supposed writing Moses supposedly used to write Genesis, that sounds like a cop out. That sounds like a possible excuse to wave away the book as less than from God and true.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

So there is no record of anything being written or any need to write in the days before Babel. As for why I commented on the claim of some supposed writing Moses supposedly used to write Genesis, that sounds like a cop out. That sounds like a possible excuse to wave away the book as less than from God and true.

Unless, as has been argued, the use in Genesis of the phrase "these are the generations of"... or the "toledoths" is, in fact, the book of Genesis itself bearing witness of being multiple accounts in written form. It's very likely. Many Conservative, Bible-believing scholars understand it to be this way.
Henry Morris, hardly one looking for a "cop-out" to deny the inspiration of Scripture subscribed to, or at least highly regarded the theory.

It is not necessary (or even particularly Biblical) to assert that Moses simply copied the book of Genesis from rote dictation from God. In fact, I would argue, that the Biblical data implies otherwise.

It may "sound like a possible excuse" to weaken the inspiration of the book of Genesis to you, but, it isn't. It is a perfectly reasonable acceptable theory for anyone with a high view of Scripture and it's inspiration. It's not like that theory came straight from the pen of the Friedrich Schleiermacher's of the world.

You seem to be having a knee-jerk reaction to a theory which you think or fear opens the door to some form of Theological liberalism. Be at ease, this is not a Trojan Horse for liberalism.

 

[church mouse guy]

So there is no record of anything being written or any need to write in the days before Babel. As for why I commented on the claim of some supposed writing Moses supposedly used to write Genesis, that sounds like a cop out. That sounds like a possible excuse to wave away the book as less than from God and true.

Happy Thanksgiving!

One of the Young Earth Creationists said that in Genesis 5:1 the word translated in the KJV as "book" can also be translated as "writings."

Also one Creation site, Creation Ministries International, suggests that Moses compiled Genesis from clay tablets from various authors and comments this about Adam:

"As to whether Adam could write or not, in the light of Genesis 5:1, let us realize that he was created perfect in intelligence and lived 930 years. He was no Rousseauvian naked savage. Rousseau certainly got his Genesis garbled. Adam was an adult for about as long as Methuselah, the oldest patriarch, who was born as a baby and not created a man."

Who Wrote Genesis? Are the Toledoth Colophons? - creation.com

 

[dad1]

Happy Thanksgiving!

One of the Young Earth Creationists said that in Genesis 5:1 the word translated in the KJV as "book" can also be translated as "writings."

Also one Creation site, Creation Ministries International, suggests that Moses compiled Genesis from clay tablets from various authors and comments this about Adam:

"As to whether Adam could write or not, in the light of Genesis 5:1, let us realize that he was created perfect in intelligence and lived 930 years. He was no Rousseauvian naked savage. Rousseau certainly got his Genesis garbled. Adam was an adult for about as long as Methuselah, the oldest patriarch, who was born as a baby and not created a man."

Who Wrote Genesis? Are the Toledoth Colophons? - creation.com

One can assume whatever one likes I guess. However, I never saw anyone write a single thing anywhere ever before the flood. Never heard about someone being told, Like John was to write anything down. One thing we do know is that all the world spoke the same language. I didn't see any mention of Noah carrying writings or records onto the ark. So why would we assume any writing existed before this at all?

 

[dad1]

Unless, as has been argued, the use in Genesis of the phrase "these are the generations of"... or the "toledoths" is, in fact, the book of Genesis itself bearing witness of being multiple accounts in written form. It's very likely. Many Conservative, Bible-believing scholars understand it to be this way.
Henry Morris, hardly one looking for a "cop-out" to deny the inspiration of Scripture subscribed to, or at least highly regarded the theory.

It is not necessary (or even particularly Biblical) to assert that Moses simply copied the book of Genesis from rote dictation from God. In fact, I would argue, that the Biblical data implies otherwise.

It may "sound like a possible excuse" to weaken the inspiration of the book of Genesis to you, but, it isn't. It is a perfectly reasonable acceptable theory for anyone with a high view of Scripture and it's inspiration. It's not like that theory came straight from the pen of the Friedrich Schleiermacher's of the world.

You seem to be having a knee-jerk reaction to a theory which you think or fear opens the door to some form of Theological liberalism. Be at ease, this is not a Trojan Horse for liberalism.

Bottom line is there is no direct mention of any written material before the flood. No reason to assume there was any. If there was ancient Scripture why are the oldest copies very post flood? It seems apparent that there was no need for God to give us a record in writing till long after the flood.

 

[TCassidy]

Bottom line is there is no direct mention of any written material before the flood.

Except the verses which you have already been given but which you have apparently ripped out of your bible because they prove you wrong?

 

[dad1]

Except the verses which you have already been given but which you have apparently ripped out of your bible because they prove you wrong?

The record of generations of Adam do not mean that a written record on earth existed. It means God had a record. If you claim it was written prove it. I could prove John was told to write things. I could show that Israel had a written record of generations in Jesus day at the temple probably. I could show there were books of writings in the old testament.

I could not show that man even needed to write at all pre flood or that there were any written records. That is assumed.