Genesis Redux

The first chapter of Genesis is not a treatise in natural history. It is a poetic prologue to a sacred history in the form of a hymn, a liturgical poem exalting God for creating order out of primal chaos.

The overview in chap 2 agrees completely with the details in chap 1. Again, chap 2 does not need to list things in any specific order because it is not necessary to repeat chap 1.

For instance when chap 2 recaps that 'God (had) created the animals' and it is listed after mentioning the creation of man, it is not implying that God created Man first and animals after.

The Bible is actually replete with examples of events that are covered in more than one passage without every single detail being repeated in each.

Compare the four Gospels.

Compare the books of Samuel and Kings with the Chronicles.

Compare the OT prophets with the OT historical books.

Compare Acts with the Epistles.

If you follow what it commands, yes it would. Thats what interests me, that people would follow the Bibles commands as opposed to anything else.

One of the things that does annoy me is how people will drift in and out of historical absolutism and poetic license when it is convenient. [note I'm not annoyed with your post!]. You are unlikely to get the same story from the same person let alone from different people of all the different faiths. Thats all well and good from an abstract cultural perspective, but it is a barrier to going deeper into the mysteries of the universe with people who are absolutist about the Bible one minute and then wishy washy poetical the next. It's like if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. For some people, all they have is the Bible.

jstark wrote:

Do you have a link to that thread?

I think this is probably the one referred to.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1641090#1641090

jstark Wrote:

Quote:

If you follow what it commands, yes it would. Thats what interests me, that people would follow the Bibles commands as opposed to anything else.

Interests you how may I ask?

One of the things that does annoy me is how people will drift in and out of historical absolutism and poetic license when it is convenient. [note I'm not annoyed with your post!]. You are unlikely [snip snip]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by if you are ot a believer things are not going to work out well for you. Do you mean while you are alive? Once you are gone?

real life wrote:

The overview in chap 2 agrees completely with the details in chap 1. Again, chap 2 does not need to list things in any specific order because it is not necessary to repeat chap 1.

For instance when chap 2 recaps that 'God (had) created the animals' and it is listed after mentioning the creation of man, it is not implying that God created Man first and animals after.

It seems like using scissors to make puzzle pieces fit, but I can live with it for now.

real life wrote:

The Bible is actually replete with examples of events that are covered in more than one passage without every single detail being repeated in each.

Compare the four Gospels.

Compare the books of Samuel and Kings with the Chronicles.

Compare the OT prophets with the OT historical books.

Compare Acts with the Epistles.

The four Gospels are four separate accounts, Genesis was supposed to have been written by one person. I would expect more consistency. I give credit to the fact that it is rather old and a translation of a translation, etc.

Kind Regards

Yes, Genesis is generally considered by orthodox Christian and Jewish belief to have been written by Moses.

However, the events in the early chapters were, of course, not within his lifetime, so it is very possible and not generally considered outside of orthodox belief that he may have used sources and compiled them into the book that we now see.

Scripture makes mention of the fact that " Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians" and as part of the royal family would have had access to all that was known within that culture and other ancient cultures that existed in that day.

Moses' forebearers including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph all spent time in Egypt and were known by the Pharaohs and kings of their respective time and it is not unlikely that their versions of various events could have been recorded by the Egyptians and extant in the histories that Moses could have accessed in his day.

[snip snip]

[The Discovery Channel] concluded that the Hebrews were given permission from the Pharoah to settle in Egypt, but eventually relations soured and armed conflict sprung up between the Hebrews and the Pharoahs and that 'Moses' was an Egyptian, not a Hebrew, who adopted the outlawed Aton (or 'sun disc') religion that Ahknaton created centuries before. The program also concluded that the Pharoah was in his 80's, his first-born son an adult serving as a Regent who was killed by Moses in a battle, and that the Hebrews fled from Egypt via a shallow, reed-filled swamp north of the Red Sea, a 'sea of reeds' ('yam suph' in the Hebrew) that Egyptian chariots could not pass through.

As the Hebrews migrated to the Middle East, the Aton religion would have merged with other local religions like Zoroastrianism and eventually evolved into Judaism.

The interesting thing about that theory is that it would make Ahknaton Abraham, the supposed founder of the Jewish religion.

jstark,

Exodus 2: 11-5 does not state that it was Pharoah's son that was killed by Moses.

Moses saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew and Moses killed the Egyptian and hid his body in the sand.

I have no clue as to where the DC channel came up with it was Pharoah's firstborn son.

I would think that if it had been Pharoah's son that was killed by Moses, the Bible would have stated that. It seems a rather important point, don't you think?

Did you read that Bible passage? It says nothing of a battle. Moses was watching Hebrews at their hard labor. There is nothing of a battle going on here.

So, now God did not part the Red Sea either?

Exodus 14:16

Raise your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea to divide the water so that the Israelites can go through the sea on dry ground.

Where in the world do you get that it was a sea of reeds and the Egyptian chariots could not enter. How can that be mistranslated?

The problem is that the biblical account never refers to the Red Sea by name. In fact, nowhere in the entire Old Testament Hebrew text is the body of water associated with the exodus ever called the "Red Sea." Instead in the Hebrew text the reference is to the yam suph. The word yam in Hebrew is the ordinary word for "sea," although in Hebrew it is used for any large body of water whether fresh or salt. The word suph is the word for "reeds" or "rushes," the word used in Ex. 2:3, 5 to describe where Moses' basket was placed in the Nile. So, the biblical reference throughout the Old Testament is to the "sea of reeds" (e.g., Num 14:25, Deut 1:40, Josh 4:23, Psa 106:7. etc.).

Now the simple fact is, we do not know exactly what body of water is referenced by yam suph in Scripture, which is the origin of much of the debate. The translation "Red Sea" is simply a traditional translation introduced into English by the King James Version through the second century BC Greek Septuagint and the later Latin Vulgate. It then became a traditional translation of the Hebrew terms. However, many modern translations either translate yam suph as "Sea of Reeds" or use the traditional translation and add a footnote for the Hebrew meaning.

This gives rise to various opinions for the route of the exodus based on landmarks mentioned in the accounts. Historians have not positively identified the cities of Ramses and Pithom mentioned in the Exodus account (1:11), but many locate them in the Nile Delta near an archaeological site identified as the store city of Ramses. The route of the escape is then generally identified, at least in the early stages of the flight from Egypt, to be south from the store city of Ramses in the eastern Nile delta to the Bitter Lakes region. (see -note-) These are shallow lakes and marshy areas just to the north of the Gulf of Suez. The crossing of the sea would then be across these lakes and marshes, the yam suph where the miracle of deliverance occurred.

[snip]
IMO this is just man trying to explain away a miracle because of either their inability or refusal to accept what the Bible says.

1. Would you allow that the Bible could be man trying to read a miracle into an account of the creation of a nation of people?

2. Wouldn't it be best for Christians and secular historians both to get the facts right? And by this I mean the actual God's honest truth, not things that simply "work".

3. Why does new information regarding the history and origin of the Bible threaten Christian belief? Why do Christians feel the need to be defensive on the issue?

4. Why is it at all necessary for God to have parted the Red Sea? Is that important to the spiritaulity or moral teachings of the Bible. Why couldn't the Hebrews have trudged through a swamp to escape the Egyptians?

I believe the Bible to be true. I believe the Bible to be inspired and breathed by God. I believe the Bible to be under God's divine protection. So, no I would not allow that the Bible could be man trying to read a miracle into an account of the creation of a nation of people. I would allow that it is man trying to put a worldy definition to a miracle because of man's inability or refusal to accept God's divinity.