Has the church got Genesis all wrong?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

quietthinker

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
11,942
7,795
113
FNQ
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Have you ever heard of Euhemerism? It's when a myth has a basis in history. Kind of what I would expect from history that had been orally transmitted for a while.

So anyway, if most of Genesis comes from the Edomites and Kenites... the names Adam & Cain look an awful lot like the names Edom & Ken.

The stories are similar too.

Adam gets kicked out of Eden. Edom is sent away from his his homeland because he sells his birthright.
Adam's wife leads him into sin. Edom marries a couple foreign wives and they turn out to be a problem (Gen 28).
Cain is sent out into the Wilderness to wander because of his sin. The Kenites live in the Wilderness of Zin.
The ground is cursed because of Adam's sin. The Kenites' descendants have sworn an oath against farming (Jer 35).

There's a non-zero chance that the stories of Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel recap the history of the Edomites & Kenites. In which case, they aren't the history of the beginning of mankind, just of the Edomites.

-Jarrod
The ultimate point of the scriptures is Jesus. The records outline a particular history. The genealogy at the beginning of the book of Matthew give you an idea.

The history of Scripture is helpful in understanding how ancient people saw, ie their view of God. They got it wrong most of the time even as we do today. Jesus is the guiding light; he gives a perspective unknown in ancient times; his perspective even seriously challenges how modern man sees God.

If it were not for the resurrection of Jesus, the account scripture gives becomes another in the narrative of the stories of the nations irrespective of whether it is myth or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
608
436
63
44
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The ultimate point of the scriptures is Jesus. The records outline a particular history. The genealogy at the beginning of the book of Matthew give you an idea.

The history of Scripture is helpful in understanding how ancient people saw, ie their view of God. They got it wrong most of the time even as we do today. Jesus is the guiding light; he gives a perspective unknown in ancient times; his perspective even seriously challenges how modern man sees God.

If it were not for the resurrection of Jesus, the account scripture gives becomes another in the narrative of the stories of the nations irrespective of whether it is myth or not.
I don't have much to argue with here, but I also don't understand why you're saying this right here, right now?
 

quietthinker

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
11,942
7,795
113
FNQ
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I don't have much to argue with here, but I also don't understand why you're saying this right here, right now?
To keep us on track.
Decoy, sleight of hand, misrepresentations, outright lies easily snow the unsuspecting. Most, in my view are unsuspecting of God's agenda. They tend to superimpose their own views onto God and call it God's.
 

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
608
436
63
44
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The ultimate point of the scriptures is Jesus. The records outline a particular history. The genealogy at the beginning of the book of Matthew give you an idea.
Ok, I think maybe I understand what you're getting at now. Are you saying that this would make the genealogy in Matthew wrong?

If so, that... isn't a problem for me. The genealogy in Matthew is already wrong... well, either Matthew or Luke must be unfactual, because they give different genealogies. Luke's appears to be an actual genealogy.

Matthew seems to have something else in mind with the genealogy in chapter 1 of his gospel. I don't think he was trying to write a history there.
 

quietthinker

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
11,942
7,795
113
FNQ
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Ok, I think maybe I understand what you're getting at now. Are you saying that this would make the genealogy in Matthew wrong?

If so, that... isn't a problem for me. The genealogy in Matthew is already wrong... well, either Matthew or Luke must be unfactual, because they give different genealogies. Luke's appears to be an actual genealogy.

Matthew seems to have something else in mind with the genealogy in chapter 1 of his gospel. I don't think he was trying to write a history there.
I think he was showing that God's ultimate purpose is Jesus. God is Spirit and how do you relate to a Spirit? We have no reference points but we do have with Jesus.

Asking Jehovah's Witnesses to witness to Jehovah is virtually an impossible task for them to answer. The closest one can get is the description God gives of himself when he passes Moses, who incidentally needed to be hidden in a crevice so he was not overwhelmed. Any idea how he described himself? Sound similar to the characteristics of Jesus?

Yup, Jesus is The Man; it is he who the Spirit witnesses to when he comes. Anything else is evidence of being short changed.
 

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
56
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm pretty sure that isn't in the Bible. Are you getting that from somewhere else?

You're putting too much into the word "now" in this verse. Jethro had been a priest of God for many years before this.

I think if you look at the word "know" closely, you'll find that the Hebrew has this as perfect tense (usually translated in past tense but apparently not this time).

The sense of the verse is more like "now I have seen it!" rather than "gosh darn I didn't know that!"

Jarrod
The sense of the verse is exactly what it says, Now I Know,

not now I have seen it, or gosh darn he didn't know that. He was a preist of Midian. Before he converted.

(Exodus 2:16, Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters. They came to draw water and filled the troughs to water their father’s flock.)

Jethro directly says the LORD is more greater than all the other gods.


 
Last edited:

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
5,319
2,367
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The genealogy in Matthew is already wrong... well, either Matthew or Luke must be unfactual, because they give different genealogies. Luke's appears to be an actual genealogy.

Matthew seems to have something else in mind with the genealogy in chapter 1 of his gospel. I don't think he was trying to write a history there.
Luke’s genealogy of Jesus differs from Matthew’s, but the difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s account can be resolved when realizing that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, whereas Matthew traced the line through David’s son Solomon. (Matt 1:6-7)

Luke apparently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.

Both Matthew and Luke indicate that Joseph was Jesus’ adoptive father (Matt 1:16; Luke 3:23)
 

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
8,622
3,909
113
68
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't think Judaism has a problem with this. Judaism prioritizes tradition over truth. I kinda hate how that sounds, but unfortunately I think it's true.

The problem is for those who hold to the idea that Genesis is literal. It isn't obvious in my original post, but it calls into question a few parts of Genesis. I'll probably make another post to explain that more.
I recall hearing something about how stories would be told to make themselves look good.
Loyalty was more important than factual accuracy. Which today would be called false reporting. (lies)

cc: @BeyondET
 
Last edited:

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
56
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@Wick Stick and @BeyondET
Didn't Abram come from the same general area as the Kenites?
Might be a connection.
As far as Jethro goes, he had afew names and titles. It appears he was Kenite for some time then a Midianite, called Reuel. Or the other way around.

Numbers 10:29
Then Moses said to Hobab, the son of Moses’ father-in-law Reuel the Midianite, “We are setting out for the place of which the LORD said: ‘I will give it to you.’ Come with us, and we will treat you well, for the LORD has promised good things to Israel.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. SteVen

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
608
436
63
44
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@Wick Stick and @BeyondET
Didn't Abram come from the same general area as the Kenites?
Might be a connection.
Abraham begat Isaac begat Esau begat Eliphaz begat Kenaz... who is the father of the Kenites. So Abraham precedes the Kenites by a few generations.

The Bible says Abraham is from Ur, and while we're not completely sure which Ur (there are at least two cities named Ur), they are both a long ways away from where he ended his journey in the south of Judah near Hebron and Beersheba.

The Kenites crop up in several places, but they seem to be nomads, and are often among other tribes. They're always in the south end of Judah. They are found near the Edomite capital (Num 24), living among the Amalekites in the Wilderness of Zin, a group of them joins with Israel in the wilderness and helps them fight the Midianites and Amorites, then invade Canaan proper.

Eventually, Caleb's family (they're Kenites) is awarded the city of Hebron as their portion. Which was where Abraham lived, so we've come full circle.

-Jarrod
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. SteVen

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
608
436
63
44
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As far as Jethro goes, he had afew names and titles. It appears he was Kenite for some time then a Midianite, called Reuel. Or the other way around.

Numbers 10:29
Then Moses said to Hobab, the son of Moses’ father-in-law Reuel the Midianite, “We are setting out for the place of which the LORD said: ‘I will give it to you.’ Come with us, and we will treat you well, for the LORD has promised good things to Israel.”
The nationality of Jethro and his descendants is a little confusing. They're referred to as Kenites, Midianites, and Cushites (Num 12) in different places, and Reuel is also listed as a son of Esau (Gen 36).

Either the Bible is wrong about some of this, or there is some way that all of these are true.

For instance, Numbers could just be referring to him as a Midianite because he lived in the region of Midian, rather than him being an actual descendant of Midian. Archaeologists have proposed that "Midianite" may be an appellation that was applied to ALL nomadic peoples in northeastern Arabia and the Negev.

The term "Cushite" was used historically for anyone with dark skin, so this could be true in this sense.

And if the Kenites were a priestly tribe, then he could have been called Kenite simply because he was a priest.

-Jarrod
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. SteVen

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
2,577
994
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The church views Genesis as a single, literal, historical, chronological, mostly first-hand account stretching from the beginning of the universe to the beginning of the nation of Israel. The academic community disagrees. It sees Genesis as a compilation of works, some of them mythological, and cobbled together well after-the-fact. Who is right?

Here, I'd like to explore some of the ideas coming from academic disciplines - archaeology, anthropology, Assyriology, Biblical criticism, and comparative religion.

Idea #1 - The Kenite Hypothesis

When God laid the foundations of the earth, and made the clouds its garments, and when the morning stars sang together (Job 38)... Moses wasn't there. When Noah brought the animals into the ark 2-by-2, and the door was shut and the fountains of the deep broke forth... Moses wasn't sitting in the crow's nest taking notes. And when Abraham met the LORD of all creation and cut a covenant in which he was promised to become a father of nations... Moses was absent.

But Moses writes about all these things. How did he know? He must have got information from someone else. But who?

The Kenite Hypothesis supposes that the whole religion of Moses - the worship of Yahweh - comes from the Kenites, along with many/most of the foundational documents that make up the book of Genesis. That's a big claim. Why?

Exodus 3:1 tells us that Moses married the daughter of Jethro, who was "The Priest of Midian." In Judges 1, we find out that Jethro was not a Midianite, but a Kenite. 1Ch 2:55 tells us that his descendants included 3 clans of scribes. It seems likely that a clan of scribes had written records. And Moses, as the son-in-law of the priest... he had access. He lived as part of their tribe for 40 years.

When Moses encountered God on Mt Horeb, it was in their territory. When he was sent back to Egypt to liberate his people... it was as a priest, like his father-in-law. Once the Israelites come out of Egypt, Moses marches them straight back to that same mountain, and before they meet God... they meet Jethro. Upon the meeting, Moses himself says, "the God of my father was mine help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh." (Exodus 18) It seems that the father in question was Jethro, and so the God in question is the God of Jethro.

The rest of Exodus 18 is worth a read. Moses does obeisance to Jethro. Jethro blesses Moses. Jethro offers sacrifices for Moses and Aaron (who won't be anointed priest for about 12 more chapters). Jethro gives Moses the Israelites whole system of judges, and...

Exodus 18:14 - So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said.

And this continues with the later Kenites. They seem to have allied themselves to Israel in the wilderness (Judges 1). When each tribe of Israel sent a spy into the Promised Land (Numbers 13), the representative for Judah... Caleb... was actually a Kenite (Judges 1). When Judah had been conquered, Caleb and his family were allotted cities alongside the Jews, including Hebron, which then became the first capital of Judah. The first Judge of Israel in the book of Judges, Othniel, was a Kenite (Judges 3).

Other parts of the Bible seem to confirm a southern origin for the Lord Himself. Habakkuk 3 says "God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran." But Teman is the region of the Kenites, and Mt Paran is a stronghold of Edom; not Israel. The Kenites are one of the tribes of the Edomites (Genesis 36, Numbers 24). In Zechariah 9, the Lord is seen to come from Teman on whirlwinds. The whole book of Job is set in the land of Uz, again a part of Edom. Job's friend Eliphaz comes to comfort him, and Eliphaz is also from Teman, the Kenite homeland.

Archaeology lends support to the idea as well. In the 1970's, inscriptions were found at Kuntillet Ajrud (in the Sinai peninsula) that refer to "Yahweh of Teman."

But this creates a problem. If the history that Moses delivered to us comes from the Kenites, then how can it be the history of Israel?

The claim that all-of-the-things that come to us from Moses and Israel, really come from Jethro and his Kenites, isn't so easily dismissed.
Well it all depends on whether you believe what Jesus says about what came from Moses...

Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

John 1:45
Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
 

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
608
436
63
44
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well it all depends on whether you believe what Jesus says about what came from Moses...

Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

John 1:45
Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Honestly, neither of those statements requires that every word was written by Moses.

Moses is allowed to use source material.
 
  • Love
Reactions: St. SteVen

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,762
3,786
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The church views Genesis as a single, literal, historical, chronological, mostly first-hand account stretching from the beginning of the universe to the beginning of the nation of Israel. The academic community disagrees. It sees Genesis as a compilation of works, some of them mythological, and cobbled together well after-the-fact. Who is right?

Here, I'd like to explore some of the ideas coming from academic disciplines - archaeology, anthropology, Assyriology, Biblical criticism, and comparative religion.

Idea #1 - The Kenite Hypothesis

When God laid the foundations of the earth, and made the clouds its garments, and when the morning stars sang together (Job 38)... Moses wasn't there. When Noah brought the animals into the ark 2-by-2, and the door was shut and the fountains of the deep broke forth... Moses wasn't sitting in the crow's nest taking notes. And when Abraham met the LORD of all creation and cut a covenant in which he was promised to become a father of nations... Moses was absent.
Genesis is a literal, historical chronological first hand narrative.

Moses was the editor of Genesis not the author. there were the parchments, tablets, stiels and oral accounts that Moses relied upon under the inspiration of God to put Genesis together.
 

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
608
436
63
44
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Moses was the editor of Genesis not the author. there were the parchments, tablets, stiels and oral accounts that Moses relied upon under the inspiration of God to put Genesis together.
Seems we agree there.
Genesis is a literal, historical chronological first hand narrative.
If there were another plausible interpretation, would you be willing to consider it? Or is this too foundational to your faith for such a discussion to take place?
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. SteVen

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,762
3,786
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Seems we agree there.

If there were another plausible interpretation, would you be willing to consider it? Or is this too foundational to your faith for such a discussion to take place?
I am always willing to consider ideas. However they must be rooted in actual fact and not mere speculation. Plausibility does not mean it is reality.
 

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
608
436
63
44
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I am always willing to consider ideas. However they must be rooted in actual fact and not mere speculation. Plausibility does not mean it is reality.
Ok, I'll try not to belabor the point. Here are the ideas:

Moses compiled Genesis from older material.

That material likely came to him through the Edomites/Kenites/Midianites, rather than the Israelites. This point cannot be proven, but its more than speculation - it finds support in Scripture.

This being true, it necessitates that Genesis is not ONLY the history of Israel. Genesis ought to be viewed as the joint history of two nations, two brothers - one son of promise who inherits, and one who despises his birthright and defiles himself with foreign wives. And it isn't just Jacob & Esau - it's Isaac inheriting while Ishmael is banished, it's Lot leaving Abraham to dwell in Sodom, it's Keturah and Midian being sent away with gifts, it's Ephraim being preferred over his brother Manasseh, it's Adam being kicked out of Eden, and it's Cain being banished to the Wilderness.

So what is the theological endgame of all this? The point is that the thing that differentiates between the two is belief. Besides this, the two are the same - of the same heredity, having the same God, living in the same places, even traveling together as a mixed group. Israel wasn't ever a homogenous group.

Jesus arrived and said that the sheep needed sorting from the goats (Matt 25), that the wheat and tares had been planted together (Matt 13), that the true children of Abraham are the ones who act like Abraham (John 8), and that we can tell them apart by the fruits they bear (Matt 7).

Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Mr E and St. SteVen

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
8,622
3,909
113
68
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus arrived and said... that the wheat and tares had been planted together (Matt 13)...
It just occurred to me that, as you wrote, Jesus said this. Meaning this isn't from the Apostles in reference to the church.
This is as you point out, in reference to Israel.
 

rwb

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2022
3,362
1,444
113
72
Branson
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Kenite Hypothesis supposes that the whole religion of Moses - the worship of Yahweh - comes from the Kenites, along with many/most of the foundational documents that make up the book of Genesis. That's a big claim. Why?

Exodus 3:1 tells us that Moses married the daughter of Jethro, who was "The Priest of Midian." In Judges 1, we find out that Jethro was not a Midianite, but a Kenite. 1Ch 2:55 tells us that his descendants included 3 clans of scribes. It seems likely that a clan of scribes had written records. And Moses, as the son-in-law of the priest... he had access. He lived as part of their tribe for 40 years.

A little research yielded me this commentary that appears to dispel the Kenite Hypothesis.

Ellicott's Bible Commentary for English Readers
Judges 1:16


(16) The children of the Kenite, Moses' father in law.—It is difficult to disentangle the names Jethro, Reuel, or Raguel, and Hobab (Jg 4:11); but in my article on Jethro in Kitto's Bible Cyclopœdia I have shown that Jethro and Reuel are identical, the latter name ("friend of God") being his local title as a priest of Midian; and that he was the father of Zipporah and Hobab. When Jethro refused to stay with the Israelites (Ex 18:27), Hobab consented to accompany them as their hybeer or caravan-guide. He is well known in the Mohammedan legends as Schocib, but is confounded with Jethro.

The Kenites were the elder branch of the tribe of Midianites. They lived in the rocky district on the shores of the gulf of Akabah (Nu 21:1; 24:21; 1Sa 15:6). They seem to have been named from a chieftain Kain (Ge 15:19; Nu 24:22; Heb., where there is a play on Kenite and Kinneka, "thy rest"). They were originally a race of troglodytes or cave-dwellers. The Targum constantly reads Salmaa for Kenite, because the Kenites were identified with the Kinim of 1Ch 2:55. Jethro, they say. was a Kenite, who gave to Moses a house (Beth) and bread (lehem) (Ex 2:20-21). They identify Jethro with Salmaa, because in 1Ch 2:5 Salma is the father of Bethlehem. They also identify Rechab, the ancestor of the Rechabites—who were a branch of the Kenites—with Rechabiah, the son of Moses.

Went up.—Probably, in the first instance, in a warlike expedition.

The city of palm trees.—Probably Jericho (see Jg 3:13; De 34:3; 2Ch 28:15). When Jericho was destroyed and laid under a curse, it would be quite in accordance with the Jewish feeling, which attached such "fatal force and fascination" to words, to avoid even the mention of the name. The Kenites would naturally attach less importance to the curse, or at any rate would not consider that they were braving it when they pitched their nomad tents among those beautiful groves of palms and balsams, which once made the soil "a divine country" (Jos. B. J. i. 6. §6; iv. 8, § 3; Antt. v. 1, § 22), though they have now entirely disappeared. Rabbinic tradition says that Jericho was assigned to Hobab. From the omission of the name Jericho, some have needlessly supposed that the reference is to Phaenico (a name which means "palm-grove"), an Arabian town mentioned by Diod Sic. iii. 41 (Le Clerc, Bertheau, Ewald); but there is no difficulty about the Kenites leaving Jericho when Judah left it.

The wilderness of Judah.—The Midbar—not a waste desert, but a plain with pasture—was a name applied to the lower Jordan valley and the southern hills of Judea (Ge 21:14; Mt 3:1; 4:1; Lu 15:4). The Kenites, like all Bedouins, hated the life of cities, and never lived in them except under absolute necessity (Jer 35:6-7).

In the south of Arad.—Our E.V. has, in Nu 21:1, King Arad; but more correctly, in Jos 15:14, "the king of Arad." It was a city twenty miles from Hebron, on the road to Petra, and the site is still called Tell-Arad (Wilton, Negeb, p. 198). They may have been attracted by the caves in the neighbourhood, and, although they left it at the bidding of Saul (1Sa 15:6), they seem to have returned to it in the days of David (1Sa 30:29).

Among the people.—It seems most natural to interpret this of the Israelites of the tribe of Judah; hut it may mean "the people to which he belonged," i.e., the Amalekites (Nu 21:21), and this accords with 1Sa 15:21. For the only subsequent notices of this interesting people, see Jg 4:11; 1Sa 15:6; 1Ch 2:55; Jer 35. They formed a useful frontier-guard to the Holy Land.