It is traditionally believed that Moses first wrote this down (the Torah is the "five books of Moses"):  manifestly the story had an oral source who must ultimately have been Adam.  Equally,  the story must derive ultimately from revelation (how did Adam know?  - God must have told him!).  But a story of such great significance cannot have been treated as a subject for free invention:  the oral tradition must have been a "controlled" one,  using the terms of Richard Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" (2006).  The evidence for this is the recurrence all over the Middle East of (from some points of view) essentially the same stories,  and even in the same terms.  Stories in the controlled oral tradition are not changed very much (and only for very compelling reasons),  and not very often.

Now,  I can produce good evidence that the final editors of the canonical biblical text treated their sources with great respect,  taking the attitude that their job was to transmit,  not modify,  their sources.  They only selected and integrated their sources,  they didn't materially modify them.

I currently conjecture that the three divisions of the Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im, Kethuvim) represent the age of the canonical text,  with the canonical text of the Torah being complete by the time of (say) Elisha,  that of the Nevi'im essentially complete (except for Ezekiel) by the time of Jeremiah,  and that of the Kethuvim completed shortly after 444BC (see Neh.8:18).  The obvious evidence for this is the chronological nature of the divisions:  manifestly not arbitrary.  In this conjecture Moses could easily have decisively shaped the oral tradition (and may even have produced some written material),  and the final editor may not have done too much,  except condense his material.

Lastly in this survey,  who would be a representative "P"?  (This is easy:  Ezekiel or Ezra!)  But who would be a representative "J"?  Who is this "Yahwist"?  I have never seen a good answer to this question.

Why couldn't the Yahwist have been Moses himself?  Certainly at the time of Moses many creation narratives were already elaborated in Canaan,  Mesopotamia and Egypt:  the Hebrews would certainly have had their own,  elaborated to a similar extent.  The material was certainly there for Moses.  And the Tetragrammaton was (implicitly) revealed to Moses himself in the crucial and central Ex.3:14.

My proposal is that it was Moses who decisively shaped the oral tradition (and may even have produced some written material), and the final editor may not have done too much, except condense his material.

I would have to say that we cannot know the answers to those questions.  When it comes to the "Q" source, I would observe that it seems plausible that there was some common source behind Matthew and Luke.  However, I see no reason to be certain that this common source was written as opposed to oral.  If it was an oral tradition, it would be long lost with no realistic hope of finding evidence for it beyond what we already have. 

Now as for the "J", "P", "E", "D" approach I am personally 49% for it.  It does explain some aspects of the Pentateuch.  However it would require an amazingly talented editor.  Also, there are places where it is not possible to determine which strand a particular passage belongs to.  Further, once one starts with this division of sources it can get extreme, such as "J1" versus "J2" or "P1" versus "P2", etc.  I personally see nothing that could not have been assembled by an amazing writer with a variety of sources available that he reworded at times and compiled from various oral traditions, for the most part.  I doubt that this person was Moses, but I would place this unknown writer within a reasonably close time frame to the Israelites moving into the land of Canaan.  It seems more the work of a settled people than a wandering one.  A final editor might have polished it a bit more at some later time, but I do think it is ancient, late 2nd millennium BCE, in basic origin. 

Thanks William.  You express more or less my opinion. 

As you say,  the "Q" hypothesis was supported and articulated by Streeter in 1924 as a reasonable explanation for the similarity of Matthew and Luke (but not Mark),  but elaboration in later hands has multiplied complexity (and drawn Mark in too!).  Incredibly,  in my view.  The same sort of thing seems to have happened with "P", "J" etc,  as you point out.

Like me,  you also depart from the consensus view in putting the composition of the Torah (if not the canonical text,  which I think everyone agrees is late - perhaps 5th or 6th or 7th centuries) early:  perhaps earlier than the Ugaritic texts from the tell at Ras Shamra,  perhaps indeed several centuries earlier.  But then,  why not use Occam's Razor and revert to the traditional view,  that Moses was the originator?  Obviously it was compiled by a later hand than Moses since Moses' death is included,  and there are a number of other obviously late interpolations,  but what precludes Moses from having,  as I said, "decisively shaped the oral tradition"?  In particular,  does the shape of Gen.1 go back to Moses?  Does the shape of Gen.2-4 go back to Moses?  If not,  why not?  And,  conversely,  why is it that you think that these texts might not be as recent as the consensus assumes?

Occam's Razor deprecates complexity in speculation that cannot be explicitly justified.  I prefer to hypothesise a three stage process:  a prehistoric oral tradition that was itself very rich;  an historic oral tradition in which recognised leaders authoritatively formalised previous tradition,  probably with at least some written records;  and a final creation of the canonical text,  again involving authoritative editors.  I have avoided using the word "redactors",  which I consider too loaded.  The progress from step 2 to step 3 must be fuzzy,  since it presupposes the development of scribal expertise,  and the Hebrew script clearly developed greatly over the millennium prior to the establishment of the canonical text,  and I think this progress is itself interesting.  Nevertheless,  keeping things simple,  I think that this 3-stage process can be justified in detail and is worth discussing.

Chris, I will concede that there was an individual we now know as Moses, and that he was a remarkable leader.  However, the much of the Torah seems to me to have been written in response to the movement into the promised land, as friendly groups were allied with those moving in.  The accounts seem to me to have a "we were all there" type of quality while providing far too much detail for everyone to have been involved.   The accounts have to be ancient, to my mind, but also subsequent to the death of Moses and the entrance into the "promised land".  Just not too much later, maybe one or two generations would be all.

Bilbo:  I think everyone is agreed that St. Paul is most certainly NOT the "priestly" writer.  I can't be bothered to give chapter and verse on this at present.  Perhaps you would elaborate your opinion?

William,  please can you quote chapter and verse to back up your assertions.  I think that subsequent interpolations in the Torah are clear,  but that large parts of the text could well have an early oral tradition (or even perhaps some texts) going back to Moses himself underlying them.  Were these traditions later,  whose authority would they have?  Joshua's legacy was equivocal,  so they could not have postdated him,  and if they were really Joshua's why are they called books "of Moses"?

It seems to me that the history of the Greek canonical texts of the Christians shows how important verifiable authority was to the faithful - and the Christians got this attitude from the Jews!  I simply do not believe the persistent implication of pseudonymity,  and I think the evidence backs me up.

Chris, my "assertions" are my opinions, not hard fact.   I tried to convey that in my response. 

Now as for chapter and verse citations, I will have to review the accounts.  I do recall having noted in one paper I did some years ago that the wandering Israelites appeared on both sides of a region that they could not get into and that should not have been possible to go around.   I noted this as a reason to suspect that there were at least two groups that merged in the "Promised land".  Likewise there is a covenant renewal ceremony recorded as being held in the Promised land, but in an area that is never listed as being conquered.  The numbers departing Egypt in the exodus are far too large to be believable as sustainable in one group. 

Now all of these objections can be overcome if the accounts are a "we were there" type of story for a generation or two after moving into the "Promised land".  Relatively few were actually involved in the experiences, and the accounts might be a compilation of multiple groups experiences, but "we were all involved".

William:  it really is chapter and verse I am interested in.  Opinion is abundant,  but opinion closely argued from the texts is much rarer.

I suspect that the texts are both more reliable and remember older events than they are usually credited for.  Bear in mind that complex events are simplified in such accounts as these;  probably heavily simplified.  But the way the texts are written deliberately leaves traces of the simplification so that the underlying complexity is still (faintly) visible.  Why for example does Kipporah say to Moses "Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me" (Ex.4:25;  a text still heavily debated).

600,000 "men" (plus children: what about women?) is mentioned at Ex.12:37.  This number is large,  but is easily generated by 4 surviving (and breeding) children per family and a generation time of 30 years.  We know that there have "always" been Jews (Israelites) in Egypt,  so it may well have been that the number was actually fluid with large numbers at certain events with many "visitors" from the region (including both Canaan and Egypt).  But the accounts themselves must have originated from the time in question to have had any authority.

Throughout the Torah the Hebrew (Masoretic) text of the Jewish Publication Society has many footnotes: "meaning uncertain".  These are of individual words,  of clauses,  of sentences and of passages.  The text itself is almost entirely unequivocal,  but the meaning of the text is often simply uncertain,  and even where the individual words and grammar are well understood the text may be ambiguous.  To me this speaks of an ancient text faithfully preserved.  But the usage of words changes over time so that where the text is certain the meaning may not now be.  Moreover,  the original authors were themselves subtle;  they expressed themselves often exceptionally briefly,  and,  we have to assume,  intending the remaining ambiguities.  Their confidence bespeaks authority. 

Chris, I agree with the antiquity of the Torah.  Parts of it seem to me to be true memories, corrupted over time but still memories of an actual event.  Other parts, such as Genesis 14, seem like they might be almost direct copies from some official source.  However, it has been quite a while since I did any active research in this area, and my notes and papers are not readily available without searching. 

Now if you wanted to discuss something I am currently working on, then I can provide detailed chapter and verse.  Such a topic might deal with King Aretas and Paul, Paul's prison epistles, dating the gospels or Nero's persecution of he Christians.  I am working towards the Nicaea Council at present, and it  will be linked in with these other events but I am not there yet.  I have to keep explaining the common theme behind all these occurrences, but one thing does unite them all. 

So right now I am awaiting the arrival of a couple of books and am busy translating a couple possibly relevant articles.  I really don't want to go back to dig up something that is not currently relevant for an online discussion that is not directly relevant.  Sorry, but if you really want more input for some special reason, let me know and when I find the time I will look.  But if it is just curiosity I really don't have the time.

I am revising my book on the Psalms (see my publications on RG),  and dating the Torah is of great importance to me.  But there is no rush ...

Dating the Gospels is also of great importance to me for other reasons:  I'll ask another Question about that and would appreciate chapter and verse from you.

Chris, no problem with chapter and verse on the gospel datings right now.  I am reviewing some material on Nabataea just to be certain that I am not missing something, but I am very confident with what I have.  In brief, Mark and John circa 57 or shortly thereafter, Matthew 66-67, Luke/Acts 68-70.  I am pulling material that is basically ignored as irrelevant, but I find that it makes many things very understandable.

I also think  that the dating which William supports with regard to Moses's account of Genesis is generally accepted now.

Thanks Elena.  But I would very much like more detail.  Please.

I am preparing a conference paper for British Patristics - London (two days left), but have a look on 'Academia' (google my name). I have an article there about how Gregory of Nyssa saw Genesis. There is bibliography attached. Good luck!

Thanks Elena:  no rush!  Gregory is very interesting,  and I will read your paper with attention,  but it has little bearing on my Question:  Gregory is far too late!  As a disciple of N.T.Wright I am suspicious of the second and third century Christian developments:  I fear that syncretism with Greek thought fatally degraded the properly Jewish view of the Hebrew texts that Wright shows that Paul had.  (Against that,  I know there was still a good historical knowledge,  as witnessed by Jerome's achievement.  Still.)

The writer Annie Dillard would probably agree that the writer was thoroughly familar with baseball's idiomatic phrasiology in the decription of the first moments being simliar to the finest seats at the game.  The masterful "In the big inning" sets the entire stage for what becomes first grand slam - God said  "Let there be Light!"  Will there ever be a bigger inning? I doubt it, and God knows the score, so play ball       

Hello,

The question on dating of Genesis is a difficult one, and may even be nervous, for some. The over-100-years old hypothesis about JEDP is still accepted by many, however more, and more people reject it.

I had an article about similar aspects of dating Genesis, at: Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 10/2007; 21(1):106-126. (Primeval History in the Persian Period?). May be helpful. (avaliable at ResearchGate).

with my best regards

Łukasz

The real answer is that we do not definitively know. However the traditional ascription to Moses is very old. Nevertheless, language changes, events that were immediate later require amplification to make sense to subsequent generations, and stories preserved in other traditions may well be added to bring completion. But that Genesis 1-3 are from a single hand and the JEDP hypothesis crashes when applied to it. The three chapters are chiastic as reflected in the changing use of names for God. In Genesis 1 the term is 'elohim' which was used to characterise the totality of the divine, and in chapter 3 'YHWH' the name Moses received by revelation as the God of his people, but in between  he uses 'elohim-JHWH' (did J and E sit down together to produce this chapter?). I suggest the very clever and subtle creator of these stories (some of which were probably originally folk stories of his tribal group) is deliberately suggesting that their tribal god JHWH was identified with the sole divinity. And that would be an important message for a leader drawing his people not only out of Egypt into a promised land but out of the polytheism of Egypt into monotheism.

Thanks very much for your comment Łukasz,  and the reference to the paper,  which I found very clear,  very well written,  and very persuasive.

But unfortunately,  wrong.  You say that "the First Creation Story did not influence any biblical passage ... because in [the Persian period,  when the biblical texts were composed] there was no First Creation Story in existence".  You give extensive (circumstantial but very persuasive) evidence for this,  but your (2004) paper seems to have been overtaken by events.  In particular,  Korpel & de Moor's 2014 book "Adam, Eve and the Devil" directly address the same issue,  demonstrating that,  notwithstanding the lack of attestation to Genesis themes and names in Hebrew literature,  exactly the same themes (and even names) are attested by the closely cognate Ugaritic literature,  which is unequivocally dated some thousand years earlier than the Persian period you are concerned with.  I think this comprehensively demolishes your position! (Sorry!)  In particular they show that your bald statement, "The motif of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil has no parallel ... in ... other ancient civilizations which could have had any contact with the Jews" is categorically wrong.  You can see my extensive review of Korpel & de Moor's book on my RG page.

I think something else is going on.  I think these names and themes from the canonical Creation story were avoided by the composers of the narratives that lie behind the canonical text because of their (to the Hebrew mind) poisonous pagan connotations.  It is only when the "company of the prophets" found a way of normalising them that they started to be mentioned.  And who were these shadowy "sons of the prophets" mentioned occasionally in the texts (1Sam.10:5; 2Kings 2:15; 4:1 etc)?  What did they do?  It seems to me that the texts are complex,  maintaining reference to multiple (probably oral) sources.

Dear Chris,

Thank You for kind words. I still - however - prefer late dating of Genesis, despite disagreement by many (or few) colleagues. Here we differ, and this is inevitable in humanities. I do not see my hypothesis ‘demolished’. Some scholars propose different explanations. If it is more convincing to the readers, better for the authors. I believe that in research Popper’s view is valid: the better is such an explanation, which resolve more unknowns, and creates less additional problems.

Łukasz

Dear Łukasz:  no problem with disagreement,  but what do you say to Korpel & de Moor's new information?  Theories are fine,  but when they are confronted with data they may be falsified (in Popper's terms)!  I think your proposal is untenable as it stands,  however attractive it may be from various points of view.

I would like to see an early dating of Genesis,  or at least an acceptance that the underlying oral traditions are ancient.  But I really want to know where the evidence leads,  and therefore to test whatever evidence is presented.  It seems to me that your piece elaborating the view of a late Genesis must be wrong in the light of the evidence from Ugarit.  This is very interesting,  because then we have the phaenomenon that the Hebrew texts by themselves support a late dating (as you rather elegantly show),  but the other data shows that those arguments must be wrongly directed.  This also tells us something about the texts!  But what?

Dear Chris,

1. I do not know Korpel & de Moor's book.

2. As far as I know the text from Ugarit, we can expect to find there names similar to that known from the HB. (See similar argumentation by famous Dahood’s commentaries on Psalms).

3. Similar names, even attested 1000 years earlier are not arguments for (direct) dependence, are only the evidence of usage of similar names. Do You think it is enough to have similar (or even the same) names to claim that one is a direct borrowing from another? I don’t.

4. You said: ‘I would like to see an early dating of Genesis‘ isn‘t it an open declaration of your will, instead of scholarly interest to evaluate the fact. I do not care (like/dislike) any dating. I try to gather all data I know, which lead me to the conclusion about the dating of HB: the earliest piece of written text is the song of Deborah (dated ca. 9th cent. BCE), the next centuries witnessed ritual (e.g. Psalms, blessing, etc.), legal (some part of law e.g. concerning rituals) and prophets. The turning point was Babylonian exile with the ritual organized without temple, which made the texts more important. Then 5-4 century the historiographical corpus (DtrH) was written. The Hellenistic period, as witnessed in Egypt (Manetho) and Babylon (Berossos), was very productive in new literature. In this cultural context (3-2 cent BCE) I see the final redaction of the HB, including writing of large parts of Genesis (using same earlier stories). [By the way, I do not buy the arguments about oral transmission, because it is impossible to prove and disprove its role, and I see HB as the effect of the work of highly educated clever literati, instead of popular story-tellers.]

Łukasz

Dear Łukasz,

I do recommend Korpel & de Moor's book:  until your library gets it have a look at my review (on Research Gate).  They make a sustained argument about the origin of the ideas;  very interesting.

Sure,  I admitted what I would like to see,  but tried to emphasise that the evidence is critical,  just as you say!  Everyone has an attitude to the data,  they wouldn't be interested in them if they didn't!  "Know thyself" is the old dictum:  scholars ought to know what their attitudes are so that they take care to discount them!

Do you know Richard Bauckham's excellent work on oral tradition ("Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", 2006)?  He also cites lots of literature.  Note that the importance of oral tradition is supported by the fact that the texts that finally solidified out of it was indeed the work of the leaders - sophisticated literati,  as you say.  But also steeped in the tradition. 

I am interested that you date Deborah (Judges 5) as 9th century:  certainly the poem is earlier,  and indeed David quotes it (Ps.68).  I presume it is the text,  not the poem,  that you date?  You make a series of interesting statements in that paragraph,  please can you point to the books that justify them?  I will look for Dahood.

Thanks for your replies,  very stimulating

Chris

Thanks Chris.

I see that the book You are referring to shows the myth similar to the Eden story. OK. What does such a similarity proves? It proves that the account about a nice-place equated with supernatural abode was known already in 13th century. Fine. I have no doubt that in ancient Near East the literary / religious / sapiential traditions were widely know, and transmitted over the cultural (ie.: linguistic) frontiers. The HB authors did not work on the desert (I know how ambiguous and funny it sounds). ☺

By the way, have a look at Philippe Wajdenbaum’s book (Argonauts of the desert) – he shows, and is not the first and the only one, the parallels between Greek tradition and HB. In his opinion such parallels point to the possible Greek influence on Hebrew writers, i.e. in 5th, 4th century or later.

On orality there is obviously a huge literature. I am aware of this. The same was also true for the Homeric poems, and Parry and Lord works on memory and oral poetry. It is a well-known fact, that people (illiterate) can compose, and then transmit texts, even long texts. It does not prove however that Iliad and Odyssey were composed by blind-oral-poet. There were not. The composition, and literary features in both poems point to the written form of composition (see Patzeck). Such a written composition obviously was surrounded by literary and poetry tradition of earlier times, and this is why We can see some ‘oral-like’ features in Homer’s works. But now we are sure: Homer (or, whoever he was) wrote the poems, what means it was possible only in the time of developed literacy. And this cultural habit – the writing – can be dated. Similarly most (not all of course) of HB texts originate in ink. So, can not be older than development of alphabetic writing. We can estimate literacy by the number and types of epigraphic data in our disposal. That is the anchor for my dating.

I date Judges 5 to the 9th century because I see its context in early Israel’s history (by Israel I mean the Northern state, with the capital in Samaria). This state was created at the turn of 10th and 9th century, and only then literature was needed for propaganda purpose. I do not see enough epigraphical sources older than this period to hypothesis any written text before 9th century in Israel and Judah.

This is part of my own research. Some text I published in English other in Polish. I can recommend especially very stimulating works of Giovanni Garbini. I thing the current state of the art can be found in Mario Liverani’s (Israel’s History and History of Israel). Recently there was advertising a good synthetic book by Ernst Axel Knauf (Equinox Publishing).

PS. In the ’70 Tom Thompson published the book (and soon after there was a book by J. Van Seters), claiming that patriarchs were not historical figures. It was shock for many, and many scholars rejected this opinion. Now, I do not know serious scholars in the field who reject Thompson’s conclusions. Similarly, consensus soon (I hope) will be reached to see the Exodus and Joshua as the fiction. [Obviously there are many political and religious aspects of this debate, however they are influencing scholarship from outside.] I think the date of Genesis is a similar case. Many of us date it traditionally, but for new generation of scholars new hypotheses are also acceptable.

Best,

Łukasz

Hello Chris and Lukasz,

the discussion above is quite interesting, not necessarily because of its content (I do support a later dating of Genesis, and recent work on the oral tradition does seem to point towards a much less stable way of collective remembrance than was initially stated in the 60 and 70). However, what intrigues me is why this seems so important to Chris. Why would an earlier dating of Genesis be more 'likeable"? Do you believe that the Genesis-story should come from very very ancient times to contain any truth? Like "the older, the more true"? ... In that case, I would like to point out that you are overlooking the intrinsical eschatological value of christianism : the truth is in front of us! Hence it doesn't really matter if Genesis 2 stems from 6th or 12th century ... what is of theological (though not historical) importance is : how do you interpret it, today!

Good luck with finding a solution!

Talitha

Dear Talitha,  dear Łukasz,

Bauckham's work (building on substantial foundations by others) underlined the importance of the "controlled oral tradition".  He was addressing the problem of the origin of the Gospels in the first century,  but obviously his point assumes what I shall call the controlled orality of Jewish practise.  Now the interesting thing is that such practise is equivalent in functional terms to a text - but of course no text will ever be found subsequently. This immediately complicates the options of future historians trying to reconstruct the period.

And the essential point here,  Talitha,  is that it really is a question of history.  Both the Jewish and the Christian writings are predicated on what happened.  It is of prime importance to all of the authors of the canonical texts that they are transmitting to us their knowledge of what they saw (hence the "Eyewitnesses" in Bauckham's title).  You are mistaken about the eschatalogical dimension of the Gospel being "intrinsic",  Talitha:  on the contrary,  it is extrinsic,  being predicated on the fact of the Resurrection that Easter morning in AD30.  "If Christ is not raised then of all men are we the miserablest" is how Tyndale translated 1Cor.15:19 in 1527.  If you tear away the foundations then are we all plunged into solipsism.  Have you stared into the abyss?

The reason that I put this so baldly is that I am encouraged by,  and rely on,  the beautiful historical work of N.T.Wright in his monumental "The Resurrection of the Son of God" (2003).  It seems to me that this work has changed the game.  It turns out,  when you look coldly at the evidence,  that the Gospel writers were telling us the truth.  Which of course,  as usual,  raises more questions than it answers.  What does it mean?

You seem to have it fixed in your mind, Łukasz,  that the Hebrew texts were later than the Greek.  On the face of it this seems manifestly false.  Now it is perfectly clear that (almost) all the witness to the Hebrew script is ink-based,  and I accept that Homer was literate,  but I remember Karen Armstrong's thesis in "The Great Transformation" (2006)  that all the civilisations appear to be linked somehow,  making decisive philosophical moves in synchrony (Jeremiah/Confucius/Buddha/Plato).  Note that Homer and Elijah are also synchronous.  Of course the Hebrews always wrote in ink - so far as the witness we have says.  But the unvocalised right-to-left script bespeaks a lithographic technique,  which must long predate the Greek alphabet!  In any case,  the acrostic form of Ps.34 (and others),  taken up so heartrendingly by Jeremiah,  shows that David was already playing with the alphabet in the 11th century.  And I note that a scholar of the stature of Robert Alter allows that "[Ps.18] may have been composed by him [David]" ("The Book of Psalms", 2007).  By the way,  Ps.18 is also a very old poem.

On the song of Deborah,  Łukasz,  I believe with you that the written text dates from the Northern Kingdom period,  but I guess that the poem is much earlier.  Thanks for the book suggestions.  Clearly it will take some time to widen my reading,  but I greatly appreciate the pointers.

I think,  by the way Łukasz,  that the dismissive way you comment on Korpel & de Moor's work ("It proves [only] that the account about a nice-place equated with supernatural abode was known already in 13th century") is rather incautious.  Their work should be considered carefully.  I repeat:  it directly contradicts your statement in you 2004 paper that "The motif of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil has no parallel ... in ... other ancient civilizations which could have had any contact with the Jews".  This contradiction has some wide-ranging implications,  and ought to change your mind in at least some ways.  It changed my mind.  I like books that change my mind.

By the way,  Glenn,  I liked your comment about "the very clever and subtle creator of [the Gen.1-3] stories":  the more I look at these stories the more I am impressed by their sophistication. 

But I can't understand why you then - to my mind - degrade your point by referring to the "folk stories of his tribal group"?  Why say "tribal group" instead of the more ethnographically neutral "people"?  Are you intending to imply "primitiveness"?  The texts belie you. 

Again,  why "folk stories"?  Everything we know about the oral tradition - and our knowledge has advanced dramatically in the last decade or so - says that the stories told could in certain circumstances (surely satisfied for existentially important stories like these)  be very tightly controlled.  Nothing at all approaching the indeterminacy of content suggested by "folk stories". 

Thanks Chris, let me clarify. I do not identify 'tribal' with 'primitive'. Rather it was used to indicate that there were multiple groups within Canaan where Egyptian writings suggest small city states and itinerant groups rather than a formal national state. I am comfortable with calling them a 'people' as long as that does not suggest an ethnic separation from other Semitic people of the region. 'People' is not necessarily neutral.

Nor would I disparage 'folk stories' as you seem to do. The tradition of the story teller as the transmitter of beliefs through narrative is very powerful in many cultures. I note that 'folk' is cognate with 'people'. While oral traditions do allow variation in details I believe them to be very conservative in maintaining the essence of a narrative. If a storyteller departs too far from the tradition the recipients who all have heard the stories many times (that is why they are folk tales - they are owned by the people) will bring them back into line. Therefor, for me, folk tale carries no suggestion of 'indeterminacy of content'. There is a distinction to be made between folk tales as told amongst the people and official narratives as transmitted by a priesthood and fixed in written narratives. Egypt clearly had the latter, as did other prominent nations of the time. The 'Apiru, as the Egyptians called them, may well have had writing and, therefor, writings but as originally clan based nomadic people without a priestly class or court, and later oppressed, I would not expect these to have been very extensive. I suspect that, raised in the court of Pharaoh, Moses would have seen the value of consolidating the stories of his people into written records.

One of the things that the writings incorporated in Genesis do is provide an 'official' history for an emerging nation. I contend much is early, some Mosaic, though it has all been later redacted for audiences distant from the events. 

Hello again,

I keep following your discussion, though it is not directly related to my field of study (I work on Special Needs Cathechesis) - As my actual interests go to theological anthropology, I scrutinize these texts over and over to try to see how they can be interpreted so as to take into account the lives of people with (intellectual) disabilities. So, I am NOT into history (though it has always been a passion). At the same time, all these fields are related - and maybe a better understanding of the era in which these stories have seen the light, can help us to understand what they mean today, which is - I believe- the only reason why we read them. Thus, them being official stories of emerging nations is not going to help us to be who we meant to be today ...

(I donot agree with you, Chris, our faith is intrinsically eschatological. We could argue that the meaning of our life can be understood only extrinsically - H. Reinders argues in that way, and I tend to follow him there- but christianism is in itself eschatological, it is an essential and independant element of our faith.)

Thanks Glenn, Talitha,

I like your understanding of "folk tales", Glenn. I only quibbled because very often these words are used in different ways.  I am also heartened since you seem to aggree with my proposed scenario,  where the Genesis narratives really are Mosaic in important ways.

You are right of course Talitha: we only read texts we are interested in.  But it is the truth that sets us free,  so that it is incautious to assert that any particular truth will "not help us be who we are meant to be".  One may or (in most cases) may not be interested in this or that truth,  but invariably it is a very good thing that someone is interested!

My point was not that eschatology is not essential - of course it is!  Your parents obviously thought it essential when they chose your name,  Talitha,  and you rightly agree with them.  But ontology must necessarily underpin eschatology (and my puns on the Latin "esse" are deliberate).  Genesis is an essential precursor to Revelation:  when Paul refers to the God who called those things "which be not as though they were" [τα μη οντα ως οντα; ta me onta os onta, Rom.4:17] he is explicitly (and literally) citing Genesis ontologically!  I said before that eschatology was "predicated on the fact of the Resurrection that Easter morning in AD30",  and this very verse of the Roman epistle bears me out.  But perhaps I should not have used the word "extrinsic".

I am not familiar with Reinders,  please elaborate.

Hello again,

thank you for your answer, Chris. 

Hans Reinders is professor in Ethics at the Amsterdam Free University and author of Receiving the Gift of Friendship: Profound Disability, Theological Anthropology and Ethics, Eerdmans, 2008. He has written has written extensively on the theological and philosophical foundations of caring for cognitively impaired persons and in my view he is as important in Europe as Hauerwas is in the USA. He has of course written on the concept of imago Dei, and my interest for the Genesis-story stems from this concept and its interpretation - so yes, ontology underpins eschatology, this is exactly the reason why these stories remain of extreme importance. But exactly because of the eschatological dimension of our faith, the meaning of the Genesis story might be revealed today, and is not necessarily hidden in the past. Revelation didn't stop on Eastermorning, did it? (by the way, I would not have used a precise dating (AD30) ... I believe historicism and concordism are both to be avoided when interpreting the Holy Scripture).

However, I don't think my state of mind is helping you to see clear on the history of the Creation accounts ... so I better leave you specialists to it! 

Oh,  I'm not a specialist!  I am a materials scientist with wide interests.  Thanks for the book title.  When I have time I'll chase it down. Friendship is one of the Gifts,  deeply important.

I think all "ism"s are to be avoided in hermeneutics.  But the existence of historical data is ontologically important.  I follow J.A.T.Robinson's dating ("Redating the New Testament", 1976) when I assert AD30;  it is possible that it was actually AD33.  But it was definitely something!

Eschatology points to the end,  as Genesis points to the beginning. Narrative presupposes the flow of time,  with a beginning and an end.  Biblical narrative is of the highest quality,  and is always aware of the urgency of righteousness and judgement.  And meaning is always in the present,  you are right.  Consequently,  revelation pervades the present and gives meaning to the past,  as well as giving hope for the future.

I couldn't agree more, Chris!

Genesis points to the beginning, but this can never be considered independantly from its telos. We read the Genesis-story now because we hope it might give us some indication on what the meaning of our being here is all about. Ethicist read the Creation-story to discover the sens of the uniqueness of human being - we call this uniqueness imago dei (Gn 1, 26-27). The important thing here is that God confirmed the uniqueness of his relation with human beings in giving himself in the man Jesus and in sending us his Spirit. Genesis and telos are related ... and here we are again with eschatology, because, as christians, we believe our ultimate telos is eschatlogical. I am not sure I would say "it points to an end" , but rather : it points to "the last things" ... whole shelves of books have been written about ta eschata, I quite appreciate the notion of "the events by which everything else is assessed". 

We're getting further and further from the topic of your initial question ... 

Just so Talitha!

But we are not as far off topic as you think.  The way history is valued lies underneath the Question.  There is an important strand in today's theology,  the Bultmannish strand,  that considers the historical Jesus out of reach.  I consider this deeply mistaken and philosophically corrosive.

You distinguish between the "end" and the "last things".  But "end" in the English bible nearly uniformly implies "end times".  So in "but he that endureth to the end shall be saved" (Matt.10:22), "end" renders "τελος" (telos) in the Greek. "Beginning and end" (Rev.21:6) renders "αρχη και το τελος" (arche kai to telos).

I think one should word "ultimate" things quite carefully.  You say,  "as Christians, we believe our ultimate telos is eschatological".  N.T.Wright has shown that we now look at the eschaton through 16th century spectacles,  and no longer understand what the New Testament writers were actually saying.  I think your statement is actually meaningless as is obvious when you translate into English:  "We believe our ultimate end is the end times"?  I know what you are trying to say,  but talking about basic things you are not basic enough. You should say, "Our ultimate end [that is, purpose] is love" since God is love and at the end he will be all in all (1John 4:8; 1Cor.15:28).

I think that as Christians we affirm that our narrative, from Beginning to End,  is not mythical:  it is real.  That is,  it is,  properly speaking,  historical. 

Hello Chris!

 I plead guilty! Of course I should have said "purpose" - 

The quest for the historical Jesus has outgrown its' "bultmannish" strand, wouldn't you say so? At least Crossan's third quest does no longer take Bultmann as its' main reference. My historical reference is James Charlesworth - in my eyes his work on biblical archeology give us a better insight in Early christianity leading to a better understanding of the Gospel. Again : what do you want to know about "the historical Jesus" that is going to make you a better person?

I don't have to time to work on this, but your knowledge of greek could be helpful : how do telos and teleios relate to one another (how did you get the greek characters in your text?) Because, if they are semantically related as I think they are, there is notion of "achievement' (perfection) not be ignored when talking about telos (purpose). God's love is indeed at the beginning and the end of our christian narrative, and it is his love that gives sens to our lives (before, now and at ta eschata - when everything will be assessed- I am not sure ta eschata refers to a precise moment in time. We understand it that way, I agree, but we should never confound eschatology and futurology!)

However, even if I believe the narrative to be real, I would not say that real equals historical. If you want me to accept everything the Bible says as historically true, I am out of this discussion. The Bible (and certainly the Genesis story) was never meant as an historical account of what actually happened. You cannot "peep over the hedge" of Eden and pry into Paradise to see Adam and Eve. The truth of the Genesis story is a spiritual, theological truth, and as such it is very real. (spiritual does not mean unreal, on the contrary.) The things it refers to (called ta prota in systematic theology) cannot be accounted for inside the framework of our time. That is what creationism wants people to believe - in my eyes, it is a dangerous ideology. 

Hi Talitha! 

(Greek characters:  I cut and paste from the Unbound Bible.  Which is brilliant!  Works for Hebrew too.  And you can see,  and search on,  the LXX and apocrypha as well as the canonical texts.)

I am absolutely not a creationist.  But I think the canonical text emphasises repeatedly that it considers itself a "historical" text,  in the sense that it insists on "eyewitness" sources.  Clearly,  in this sense the first Creation account cannot be "historical" since eyewitnesses did not exist.  It must be revelation (and I think the text shows that the authors recognised this).  But did it happen?  In a manner of speaking,  yes it did!  The beginning really happened - everyone now believes in the Big Bang (but only since the demonstration of the cosmic microwave background in 1967!).  Did Adam and Eve exist?  The biologists firmly believe in at least Eve (from mitochondrial evidence,  although on this see e.g. the "Eve 'n' Steve" paper of Slate & Gemmell, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19, 2004, 561;  as White et al say, "in biology things are seldom simple": Molecular Ecology 17, 2008, 4925). 

Of course,  how we read the accounts is up for grabs (and the authors of the originals were self-consciously ambiguous) .  But my fundamental point is that spiritual reality is always underpinned by its concrete referents.  Otherwise,  as I said before,  you slide inexorably into solipsism.  You are badly mistaken to say that "The Bible was never meant as an historical account".  You only have to read Josephus,  who was deliberately syncretistic,  to see that the first century Jews certainly believed that these things happened!  Even Philo,  the most explicitly Platonic of the Jewish philosophers,  did not relinquish his grasp of historical reality.  And of course,  for Paul the historicity of the events was primary.

On the relation between τελος ("end") and τελειος ("perfect"),  I'll have to dig a bit.  But I do entirely agree that " we should never confound eschatology and futurology",  as you say.

You ask, 'what do you want to know about "the historical Jesus" that is going to make you a better person?'  Good question!  Which makes your point very well.  Nevertheless,  if my faith is not underpinned by fact then at some point I will be unable to overcome the perception of futility that permanently threatens to overwhelm me.  It is precisely the concrete referents that enables me to maintain my grip on reality.  You put the question personally,  and I answer personally.  But this is a philosophical response of general validity.

In my opinion Crossan has lost it altogether.  His position has been extensively and devastatingly critiqued by N.T.Wright.  I don't know Charlesworth.

Hello again Chris!

(mondays are the days I work on my PhD thesis, but I quite enjoy this theologico-philosophical conversation to change ideas?!) 

I read some of Wright's articles and he is indeed a leading scholar when it comes to NT studies. (I mean New Testatment and not Nicholas Thomas of course ...) Charlesworth is a biblical archeologist. I quite enjoy JPMeyers as well. I do understand your point for the need to underpin faith by facts, but at some point, you would have to let go, don't you think? Pascal put it quite rightly when he came up with "le saut de la foi" (how does that translate in english : faith's jump ?) There might be no linear continuity between the factual truth and the spiritual truth. 

One of my dogmatic's professors warned us against concordism (here are the -isms again). I couldn't agree  with you more: yes Creation happened - but I don't think the Genesis story should be read as a parallel or a presage to the big-bang theory. Concordism (prof Jerôme Lejeune is one of its most prominent defenders) has it that God's light coincides with the explosion of light of the big bang - but if someone comes up with a plausible alternative theory next week, where does that leave us? (the alternative exists already) Archeology and biology and genetics seem to point to monogenestic origin of men. Fine, this seems to coincide with the Adam and Eve story. But would it have changed my faith if polygenetic theory had the upperhand? Not for me - I would still see God as the loving origin of life, which is what the Bible teaches me. 

I understand what you say about the historicity of the Bible, and yes, there are historical parts in the Bible, but the authors of the Gospel weren't journalists, they were not just relating the events - they were making a point, trying to convince, helping others to believe. This is true as well for parts of the Old Testament. (Wisdom, Job, psalms, ...) I am not sure at all that the authors/editors of the Genesis story thought they were writing history. As far as I got it, they were trying to make sens of a catastrophy : the deportation to Babylone. It is not because first century readers interpreted the story as an historical account that that is what it was meant to be. 

And here of course, we are back to your original question : who wrote the original stories? And I would add not "when", but WHY ?!

Excellent Talitha!  (And I am currently trying to avoid writing a difficult paper on quality assurance ...)

We would translate Pascal's "le saut de la foi" by "the leap of faith",  and immediately think of Kierkegaard's "Fear & Trembling" (1843).  But you must realise that they were both thinking about something much deeper than is usually thought.  Gustavo Gutierrez criticises Pascal's Wager (in his "On Job",  published in English in 1987),  but I am sure that Pascal would have readily assented to Gutierrez' (brilliant and profound) exposition of the gratuitousness ("disinterestedness") both of the love of God and the faithfulness of the faithful.  And Kierkegaard was primarily addressing the complacency of the burghers;  recognising that all honest relationships are essentially open,  that is,  neither side is compelled either by power (so much has always been obvious) nor by necessity.  Abraham's "leap of faith" was independent of the apparent necessities of rational or ethical considerations,  since these considerations, carried to their conclusion,  would have condemned his actions.  Putting this in mathematical terms,  all logical systems are necessarily open:  Gödel proved the Incompleteness Theorem for arithmetic in 1931,  underlining that all real things are ineffable in principle;  neither are relationships compelled by rationality.  This is what the "leap of faith" is about:  acknowledging the "impossible things" that God is determined to effect,  to "bring into being those things that are not".

None of which is to diminish the importance of rationality!  It is still the sine qua non. 

But you are confused to doubt the "continuity between the factual truth and the spiritual truth."  Truth is unitary (because God is one:  so far Leibnitz was certainly correct). People say that Christianity is "unfalsifiable" in Popperian terms.  But this is false!  If Newton's infinite and absolute time could be proved as conclusively as it has been disproved by the discovery of the cosmic microwave background,  then Gen.1:1 ("In the beginning ...") would be rendered meaningless and I would give up Christianity.  If it could be proved that Christ did not rise from the dead as conclusively as N.T.Wright has proved it (in "The Resurrection of the Son of God", 2003),  then to avoid being the "miserablest of men",  I would give up Christianity.  If the unreliability of the canonical text could be proved as conclusively as the Isaiah scroll from the Qumran has proved its reliability,  I would give up Christianity.

But you are entirely right about concordism.  I did not intend to imply any sort of concordism,  but I did not say so explicitly.  There are lots of fashions in science of course - it was the fashion in the 19th century to believe (incoherently as well as wrongly,  as it turned out) in deterministic materialism.  But note that this was not at all necessary,  it was only a hypothesis that apparently fitted the relevant available data.  It saved the phaenomena,  provided you were restrictive about the phaenomena you selected as interesting!  There are lots of fashions today that also do not compel belief.

Nevertheless,  the canonical authors are explicit about their intention to give people persuasive evidence about the events they bear witness to.  We don't believe what the Bible says because it is the inspired word of God,  we believe it is the inspired word of God because we are persuaded that what it says is true.  There must be a ground to belief.  Where is the concrete referent?

If the authors of Genesis were spinning a story merely to make sense of the Exile,  they would lose all credibility in my eyes.  In fact we can demonstrate specifically that they were not doing that!  The work of Korpel and de Moor that I have reviewed on my RG page is one very persuasive demonstration among a number of others.  I find it hard to believe that,  had the ancient authors done so, what they would have come up with would have been very comforting to their people either.  People won't believe just anything you know,  even though one could pessimistically conclude the opposite from the current generation.  It was the fact that they could point to the old stories that was the basis for their comfort.  They were just as aware of solipsism in the fourth century as we are now.

Of course you are right,  the last editors of the canonical text,  which we know was finalised in the form we have it just after the Exile,  "were trying to make sense of a catastrophe : the deportation to Babylon",  and I think several of the Psalms (including Ps.118) were a result of this effort. It is true that "first century readers interpreted the story as an historical account",  but it also seems very clear to me from the text  that indeed "that is what it was meant to be". 

PS:  you say, "the authors of the Gospel weren't journalists, they were not just relating the events - they were making a point, trying to convince, helping others to believe."

Journalists don't "just relate events",  if they are any good they go and find out what the story is,  and then tell it to us!  Good journalists are doing their best to help us understand what they see.  What is incompatible in that with giving a true account of events?

Chris, I tend to believe that the gospel writers, just as the original writer of the Genesis accounts, did want us to see what they saw.  However, they also wanted to make certain that we saw it the way they wished us to see it.  They were not modern journalists, but rather people of their age.  The exact details were not as important as the overall message, and even more than some of the spin doctors of today (both liberal and conservative), either ignoring or embellishing points was acceptable practice to ensure that the desired message was delivered. 

The answer to the OP is :

G-d composed the accounts and Moses recorded as instucted.

between the years 2448-2488 AM (This being 5774-5 so 3286-3326 years ago.

based on it being explicit references in the 5 books of Moses and the Torah Mesorah tradition, 

of course Moses would have also been aware of much of what he wrote from his education.

Thanks Roger (sorry for delay!). 

But if this is the case why do David and Solomon seem unaware of the prohibition in Deuteronomy 17 of multiple wives for kings?  Moreover,  how could Moses have written Deuteronomy 34:6 (for example)?  It says, "to this day no-one knows where he [Moses] is buried."  This is not an isolated verses,  there are several others scattered through the Torah where the writer is clearly recording ancient history - not the work of Moses!  Things are not as simple as you claim,  and,  moreover,  it is by taking the text seriously that we know that things are not so simple.  Do you take the text seriously,  or do you simply impose your own ideas on it?

I am interested in what is really the case,  and your knowledge could be very helpful.

Hi Chris,

good questions. deserving more investigation then my initial response here, should you feel they are not an adequate answer.:

there was never a prohibition of a King taking more then 1 wife.

Jut like no prohibition of having more then 1 gold coin. (Just not to amass an amount that would cause poverty among the residents of the land via onerous taxes/duties i suppose, but it can be looked up, or we could ask someone that knows.)

just like no prohibition of having more then 1 horse. Just a great number, that would cause a return to Mizrayim. The reason explicit in the text.

Via the Oral Torah Moses received that came hand in hand w/ the scripture of the 5 books of Moses, we know or were able to set the Halacha for wives, the limit for a king is 30.

King David was well w/in the limit.

King Solomon due to his wanting to have peace (saving a life comes first with rare exception, as we are commanded 'to live by the 613 Mitzvah commandments'. For example it is no sin to drive on Sabbath to save a life. Even though prohibitions of completing a circuit and making a fire are involved.

The second good excuse King Solomon had to go over 30 was G-d granted him superior wisdom/Chachmah, thus he thought he was wise enough to deal w/ any of these 3 special prohibitions not to multiply wives, gold, horses.

Just like may intelligent educated people today think we are smarter /wiser/ 'know' the Bible is being figurative, when it has trended to prove factual.

Think of all the people , nations, places skeptics thought were fiction that have subsequently been discovered.

So to based on the RCCF we can now know the cretion account, and global flood account can be determined as the most probable actualities.

so 7 day creation thousands of years ago (5775 to be exact) instead of it really means billions as per  Gerald Schroder PHD and others...

I suspect in hind site deep time will be come to known as no more the factual actuality then a flat earth was.

Also consider how many the non Torah account has had to been revised, and I predict will keep being revised till consistent w/ the RCCF (Recent Complex Creation.).

Keep in mind popular science does not translate to the factual actuality or even the best factual valid science in many cases.

So we should not judge King Solomon using cherry picking hind sight for his mistake, for what we as a society have been, and or are, guilty of, multiple times over. 

Joshua the son of Nun, wrote the last several (7?) verses of the 5 books of Moses. It could have been decades before he did. Perhaps after securing the Land. So if no one knew during the first few decades where Moshe ben Amram was buried by then, on could say till this day, and by then evidence of a fresh burial site would have faded.

Hi Roger.  It seems to me that you do not read the Creation accounts correctly when you insist that Moses intends you to understand that the "seven days" are each "24 hour days". 

It seems to me that Moses was perfectly well aware of metaphorical usage,  as when he spoke of "the eyes of the LORD" (Deut.11:12),  which King David echoed (Psalm 34:15):  does God have eyes?  Obviously not,  since he created them!  But God certainly sees, as Moses said memorably in Psalm 90:  "A thousand years in your sight are like a day just gone past".  In the Creation account the sun was created only on the fourth day:  but the sun is God's timekeeper with the specific office of "marking the seasons, days, and years" (Gen.1:14),  so how long was the first day?  It seems to me that Moses intends us to answer this question with the correct "God knows".  In what way, taking the text seriously,  can we be more specific?

On the date of Creation,  and your dismissive remarks about "deep time",  I would like to know how you gloss the cosmic microwave background?

Hi Chris,

Good questions,

the 1 day is like a thousand years to G-d can be understood that each day of creation corresponds to 1000 years of human civilization.

This being year 5775 we are in the Erev Shabbos period (Friday afternoon) getting ready to take in the Shabbos (Sabbath ) that begins Fri Eve. Which will be the Messianic era of Knowledge of G-d, Torah, and world peace.

Of course prior to making the days and the Sun and orbits.. G-d planned how long they would be. This was what we call during the year of Tohu (Conception).

Also see the reference in the Recent Complex Creation of Rabbi Yehudah, referencing Rav in Talmud Chagigah 12 A. the length of a day was set on day one.

As to the CMB and natural observations are more consistent with the YeC/ RCCF then with deep time. See 'The Pearlman Spiral Cosmology Model, publication pending.

Best,

roger m.

Roger:  you are writing in a personal code!  Why bother?  No-one can understand you!  You cite an unpublished work!  What is the point?  The idea is to make an accessible argument that your correspondents (me,  for example) can appreciate.

It seems to me that your contribution is nonsense from start to finish.  You make a series of assertions resting on invisible assumptions which treat the canonical text with contempt.  You are determined to impose your prior ideas on the text. Why,  for example,  should Almighty God consider that his days of Creation should be relative to any period of "human civilisation",  as you assert?  This is the God  who "gives orders to the morning" and "leads out the Bear with his cubs" (Job 38:12,32),  who formed Leviathan to frolic in the sea for his pleasure (Psalm 104:26). He does things for his own purposes and for his own pleasure - who can know the purposes of God?  "Where are thy wise men",  says Isaiah,  "and let them tell thee now what the LORD hath purposed ..." (Isaiah 19:12).

in my prior post i neglected to mention a second understanding for the verse in Psalms a thousand years is like a day to G-d.

Recall on the day we would eat from the tree of knowledge we would be subject to death,

1000 years was a normal  full lifespan limit for our existence in our physical body then.

Hi Chris,

I think you are jumping to conclusions and should reconsider dismissing what I am trying to say, even if I have not done a good job being articulate enough.

So if you do not understand any point please ask.

As to the cosmology model, I have it figured out, but am waiting to publish it when i am ready.

No one is forcing you to take my word for it, but you can not completely dismiss what you do not know.

While i have asserted, but not proven in this forum NDT and Deep time are false, you certainly have not proved ID or YeC false.

In the mean time a healthy purely scientific attitude would be to keep an open mind, as a reasonable assumption is you do not know everything, and you do not know what I know.

On the other hand if you hold by the current conventional standard model, deep time with NDT I have considered what you know and ruled it out as being not just highly improbable, but impossible, based on known science.

best,

don't stop learning, be humble and ask,

roger

PS

Here is a link showing it is OK one can be a credentialed scientist, and not be constricted to NDT (neo darwin theory). Once one realizes NDT may not be true, or is false, one may realize, a recent complex creation (RCCF) is much more probable then deep time models.

Once one also realizes that there can be, (or is as I assert), a cosmology model, consistent with YeC-RCCF

http://ow.ly/Kape4

Dear Roger:  please note that I haven't mentioned evolution or Darwin.  I am a physicist!  It seems to me that the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) together with the gravitational singularity theorem of Hawkins & Penrose (and copious supporting data) shows pretty unequivocally that the Universe is about 13 billion years old or so.  No idea what you mean by "ID" or "YeC".

You are forcing the Biblical text to say what you want it to say,  not paying attention to what it actually says!

Hi Chris,

ID - Intelligent Design

YeC = Young Earth Creationism

I am happy to hear you are open minded on the biology - chemistry issues when it comes to origins theory and time lapse.

I think my including that might benefit others who may falsley assume NDT to be a fact.

Another common stumbling block are faulty assumptions radio metric dating precludes RCCF and YeC.

I am not the only one with a cosmology model that claims the natural observations can be reconciled w/ a recent complex creation.

i might be the only one with a model that claims the observations preclude deep time.

For the 'Pearlman Spiral'please keep an open mind till published.

In a few minutes i hope to edit and add a link to another's approach that has parts of the solution.:

best,

roger m.

OK i could not find the article I am looking for,

but this may be of interest to some readers:

http://creation.com/stellar-evolution-and-the-problem-of-the-first-stars

for now let me say it is my understanding there are scientists who question the standard model of an expanding universe.

the pearlman spiral demonstrates the universe is not expanding..

Hi Roger,  I am an academic.  I don't base knowledge on videos!   I absolutely don't believe you if you dismiss the age of the universe.  I have gone into this a little and am convinced by the depth of evidence that backs it up.  Your assertions appear spurious to me ...

Sorry

I have completed a research in which I clarified these numbers mentioned in the Book of Genesis..With Allah's help, I publish it and provide you with a copy of it.

Hi Chris, no need for Videos.

i wrote the book.

here is an excerpt with how we would approach key issues for any big-bang cosmology model, including consensus need address: www.academia.edu/44650180 Pearlman SPIRALon Keating Big Bang Checklist

If I may throw a spanner in the works; the 'days are a rhetorical device to aid remembering. First creation is without form and is empty (two important words), Then there are three days when God 'formed' the cosmos by separation (day-night / waters above and below with air between / dry land from water). There follow three days when God 'creates' (sun, moon stars / sea and air creatures / land creatures). And note the parallels: what is formed on day 1 is filled on day 4 / what is formed on day 2 is filled on day 5 / what is formed on day 3 is filled on day 6. Then God's work is complete as creation now has form and is filled with all its array.

Hi Chris,

sticking w/ pure science / physics, no doubt you can conclude my model is a valid one.

Know that the 'documentry hypothesis' is a great claim with no sound basis. From my limited, by solid perspective, wishful thinking by self-fools.

I define one day as the time it takes the Earth to make one rotation in relation to the sun.

Even prior to day 4 the proto-Earth would have been rotating in relation to the proto-sun.

As all (matter and or energy) was created hyper-dense early 'Day one'.

Then organized over the course of week one.

You cannot 'apply' contemporary scientific theorising to explain a narrative written when the universal cosmology was that there was a salt water ocean below, a fresh water ocean above held up by some form of roof with air in between and all the dry land gathered together in the middle of the salt water ocean. The author of Genesis is not trying to provide a scientific theory of how the earth came about but to introduce his only recently freed people to the idea that their God was a God of order and life. The idea that the earth rotated would have been totally foreign to him.

Hi C. G. C. do you assume too much? If as advertised, Moses duly recorded what was dictated by The One designer/creator aka G-d of Abraham, who alone had/has 100% perspective. Then to what extent Moses understood the one actuality, does not negate that His record (the 5 books of Moses taken in max avail context) does accuratley describe the one actuality. It does, which is why it has stood the test of time.

We will have a good laugh how overconfident so many, were so wrong, so often, yet did not even know, that we did not know. That is why it is important to be humble to advance the science. As hard for those they think they know it all to learn something outside their confirmation bias reinforced box.