Jose Fly
New member
We'll see. I'm not too optimistic.
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
We'll see. I'm not too optimistic.
:darwinsm:
Whoever wrote Genesis 1 and 2 wrote two creation accounts with different orders and methods of creation.
Jesus wasn’t here to correct erroneous interpretations of history.
Wrong.
To be a Christian, the only requirement is that you confess Jesus Christ as Lord and savior.
Therefore, your conclusion is invalid.
So now you're questioning the authorship of Genesis? That's a really lame excuse to get out of answering my questions above, which still need answering.
Now you have to prove, based on your assertion above in this post, that Moses did not write Genesis 1-2. If you can do that, then you might have a case to make.
Which is more likely?:
1. Jesus being wrong about what Moses wrote (which Jesus claims as something to be believed)
2. You being wrong about what Moses wrote
And here's another question for you:
In Exodus, did Moses write that God created in six days, and rested on the seventh?
Yes, as a follower of Jesus Christ, I do not want people to be turned away from the gospel by unreasonable and unscriptural ideas.
You are welcome. What are your motives?
Yes they do.
And the words of the first creation story clearly say that man was created after the plants and the animals.
And the words of the second creation story clearly say that man was formed before the plants and animals.
So words saying they are both literal history are literally indefensible.
I understand you want to use that position as a way to deny the words of Genesis 1 and 2, but you are wrong.
Sin exists, from whatever source, and it separates God from man.
Your having a need, based on your presuppositions about sin, does not change the words of Genesis 1 and 2.
They are stories that are obviously not literal history, as they are literally incompatible with each other and the evidence that God has given us in creation.
They do have truths, among which are:
God is the creator and
God cares for people and
Man and woman should be partners.
Jose Fly
New member
That's one.
There's more.
Why aren’t you?
The text is anonymous.
How silly.
I don’t have to prove who did not write an anonymous book.
And where did Jesus state definitively that He believed Moses wrote Genesis 1 and 2?
The text is anonymous.
The Torah was referred to as Books of Moses, but that does not mean Moses wrote it all. We know parts of the Torah were not written by Moses. You are aware that the Torah includes the death, burial, and mourning of Moses in addition to declaring that no such prophet has risen since?
Deut 34 Then Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab, at the Lord's command. 6 He was buried in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor, but no one knows his burial place to this day. 7 Moses was one hundred twenty years old when he died; his sight was unimpaired and his vigor had not abated. 8 The Israelites wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days; then the period of mourning for Moses was ended. 9 Joshua son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands on him; and the Israelites obeyed him, doing as the Lord had commanded Moses. 10 Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. 11 He was unequaled for all the signs and wonders that the Lord sent him to perform in the land of Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his servants and his entire land, 12 and for all the mighty deeds and all the terrifying displays of power that Moses performed in the sight of all Israel.
I know you have adopted the tradition of Moses writing the entire Torah as a doctrine. But it is a only a tradition.
Do you think Moses wrote about his 30 day mourning period and the fact that no such prophet had arisen since?
You made the claim that Moses did not write the book of Genesis.
I rest on the claim of the Talmud that, except for the last 8 verses of Deuteronomy which describe Moses' death, which was written by Joshua, Moses wrote the first five books.
The obligation is therefore yours (onus probandi) to establish your position as the better position.
Let me repeat, since you didn't seem to read it.
Jesus said:
For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” - John 5:46-47 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John5:46-47&version=KJ21
I never made that claim.
Agreed.
Duh.
That Moses was a prophet like no other is not in dispute, so what's your point?
Then you need to establish that that tradition is wrong.
It is possible that he did so, as God could have told Moses what will happen (no, I'm not saying God knows the future, I'm saying that God's ability to predict things is beyond our comprehension) to him after he died.
I don't dispute that a prophet has not arisen who was like Moses.
Nor would it go against my beliefs that Moses could write that "Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face," as, keeping in mind that God is the one who gave Moses (assuming it's Moses who wrote) the information he needed to write the five books, God had used Moses to do mighty things that He would not need to ever do again, and considering that God was writing a much larger story that went beyond what Moses wrote.
What Moses did in his lifetime was such that no other prophet would need to do.
Lon
Well-known member
Back on topic, Genesis, Moses tells us, is literal Exodus 20:11 (The Bible itself says so). Anybody trying to say different isn't listening. I realize a good many Catholics get caught up in what science (fallible men) says. I'll question fallible men WAY before I question Moses and, as you said, it is also a good reason for the Reformation. Matthew 4:4 is literal. There is no 'wiggle' room for me and most Protestants.
Discussion then, is to take one's foundational suppositions and try to convince the other they are the right ones.
Lon
Well-known member
For either one convinced of Foreknowledge or omnicompetence, I think it amounts to the same thing that the front is united by all Protestants and a good number of Catholics on this point.
JR writes:
You made the claim that Moses did not write the book of Genesis.
Before we go further and I respond to the rest of your post, please quote my saying that.
I think you have read into my posts something that was not said.
I am sure that you want to doublecheck and be sure you are honestly representing my posts.
You made the claim that Moses did not write the book of Genesis.
Before we go further and I respond to the rest of your post, please quote my saying that.
I think you have read into my posts something that was not said.
I am sure that you want to doublecheck and be sure you are honestly representing my posts.
Imagining all Protestants are united on this point is inaccurate.
Simply google “who wrote Genesis” and the first thing to pop up is
Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as Exodus, Book of Leviticus, Numbers and most of Book of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars increasingly see them as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC.
Book of Genesis - Wikipedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Book_of_Genesis
6days
New member
Many of us trust Jesus over Wiki... apparently not all of us.
Not unless you've got a newly-revised Bible. The old versions don't have Moses saying anything at all like that. Anybody trying to say different is adding their own ideas to the text.
We don't add to scripture, as fallible men do, claiming that Moses wrote that Genesis is literal. He never did that. I'll question fallible men WAY before I question Moses[/quote]
You took the word of fallible men who told you that Moses said Genesis is literal. The two different creation stories and the notion of mornings and evenings without a sun make it clear why Moses didn't say it was literal.
But it doesn't say that Genesis is literal. It's a rebuke to those who would add that to what Moses wrote.
That's quite false. Protestants, as a group do not accept the modern revisions that would have Genesis be literal history.
I trust Jesus over Wikipedia too.
But I don’t presume to attribute to the Savior things that He did not say.
And my comment was about Lon’s wildly exaggerated claim that all Protestants are united on something they are not.