Has the church got Genesis all wrong?

[rwb]

Jethro wasn't a Midianite.

He was a Kenite, and because he was a priest he was living among the Midianites. Kind of like how the priests of Judah were actually Levites rather than Jews...

If it is true that "The Kenites were the elder branch of the tribe of Midianites", then would not Jethro have been a Kenite from the tribe of Midian?

 

[rwb]

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?

You give no reference that we should believe "Moses" compiled Genesis from older material" that may have come to him through Edomites/Kenites/Midianites, rather than from God. The Bible speaks as though all that is credited to Moses was given him from God, who instructed him to write it down. (Ex 17:14; Nu 33:2; and especially Joh 5:46)

 

[Wick Stick]

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.

I don't see anything here that contradicts what was said. ???

 

[Wick Stick]

If it is true that "The Kenites were the elder branch of the tribe of Midianites", then would not Jethro have been a Kenite from the tribe of Midian?

Midian is a nation, and there are tribes within Midian. Archaeology shows this (source: Midian, Moab and Edom (Sawyer)). The Bible repeatedly mentions people as being "Midianites" but then calls them by a different tribal name (as happens here).

The Kenites are ethnically Edomites. Genesis 36 shows Reuel as a son of Esau. In 1Samuel 15, the Kenites are living among the Amalekites. Amalek is another son of Esau.

The territory of the Edomites and the territory of the Midianites overlap. It's not far-fetched for an Edomite to be priest "in Midian."

 

[St. SteVen]

Midian is a nation, and there are tribes within Midian. Archaeology shows this (source: Midian, Moab and Edom (Sawyer)). The Bible repeatedly mentions people as being "Midianites" but then calls them by a different tribal name (as happens here).

The Kenites are ethnically Edomites. Genesis 36 shows Reuel as a son of Esau. In 1Samuel 15, the Kenites are living among the Amalekites. Amalek is another son of Esau.

The territory of the Edomites and the territory of the Midianites overlap. It's not far-fetched for an Edomite to be priest "in Midian."

I just remembered this bit that I had in my notes about Edom.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edom

Edom was an ancient kingdom in Transjordan located between Moab to the northeast, the Arabah to the west and the Arabian Desert to the south and east. Most of its former territory is now divided between Israel and Jordan.

The destruction of Edom uses the same exaggerated language descriptions as hell in the Bible. Yet none of it lasted forever as it clearly says. And you can certainly pass through it today. For this prophecy to be taken literally it would need to be a smoking tar pit today with a bypass to get around it. Compare verse ten below. (Revelation 14:11)

Isaiah 34:8-11
For the Lord has a day of vengeance,
a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause.
9 Edom’s streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!
10 It will not be quenched night or day;
its smoke will rise forever. From generation to generation it will lie desolate;
no one will ever pass through it again.
11 The desert owl and screech owl will possess it;
the great owl and the raven will nest there. God will stretch out over Edom
the measuring line of chaos
and the plumb line of desolation.

 

[Wick Stick]

You give no reference that we should believe "Moses" compiled Genesis from older material" that may have come to him through Edomites/Kenites/Midianites, rather than from God. The Bible speaks as though all that is credited to Moses was given him from God, who instructed him to write it down. (Ex 17:14; Nu 33:2; and especially Joh 5:46)

I did in other posts here. The main reference is Exodus 18, but it also pulls in other verses in Exodus and Judges 1.

 

[rwb]

I did in other posts here. The main reference is Exodus 18, but it also pulls in other verses in Exodus and Judges 1.

Why should I believe your references rather than the Bible? I'm just a bit confused about what this thread is attempting to prove??? Sorry!

 

[Wick Stick]

I just remembered this bit that I had in my notes about Edom.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edom

Edom was an ancient kingdom in Transjordan located between Moab to the northeast, the Arabah to the west and the Arabian Desert to the south and east. Most of its former territory is now divided between Israel and Jordan.

The destruction of Edom uses the same exaggerated language descriptions as hell in the Bible. Yet none of it lasted forever as it clearly says. And you can certainly pass through it today. For this prophecy to be taken literally it would need to be a smoking tar pit today with a bypass to get around it. Compare verse ten below. (Revelation 14:11)

Isaiah 34:8-11
For the Lord has a day of vengeance,
a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause.
9 Edom’s streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!
10 It will not be quenched night or day;
its smoke will rise forever. From generation to generation it will lie desolate;
no one will ever pass through it again.
11 The desert owl and screech owl will possess it;
the great owl and the raven will nest there. God will stretch out over Edom
the measuring line of chaos
and the plumb line of desolation.

Oh! I think it may have been at one point. The Edomites were big into mining copper and smelting bronze... they may have created the world's biggest slag pit in the middle of their nation...

Archaeological report on Edomite Slag pits

Also, the weather there is literal hell-on-earth. The combination of being very close to the equator and located in the lowest elevation on earth produces some gnarly temperatures. It's like 135 degrees in the summer there.

 

[Wick Stick]

Why should I believe your references rather than the Bible?

You should believe the Bible. I have made SO many references to the Bible here. But perhaps you should not put quite so much faith in the traditions of the Jews as regards the interpretation of the Bible.

I'm just a bit confused about what this thread is attempting to prove??? Sorry!

I started this thread hoping for a dialogue about Genesis where traditional interpretations and academic interpretations could be discussed side-by-side. The ideas presented here aren't my own, though I do find them compelling.

I suppose if I have any thesis here, it would be what I said in post #38. That is, Genesis is not just the history of one nation (Jacob/Israel), but the history of two nations/brothers, one elect and the other not. It is Jacob & Esau, Israel & Edom, Abram & Lot, Cain & Abel. They are the sheep and goats, the wheat and tares, the true Israel and the false Israel later in the Bible.

I think that interpretation lays a different framework for understanding the rest of the Bible than if we just hyperfocus on a single, chosen nation of Israel. And it explains why elect Israel so often acts un-elect throughout the Bible. They're a mixed group in need of sorting.

 

[rwb]

You should believe the Bible. I have made SO many references to the Bible here. But perhaps you should not put quite so much faith in the traditions of the Jews as regards the interpretation of the Bible.

You'll have to show what traditions of the Jews you fear I may be putting so much faith in???

I started this thread hoping for a dialogue about Genesis where traditional interpretations and academic interpretations could be discussed side-by-side. The ideas presented here aren't my own, though I do find them compelling.

I suppose if I have any thesis here, it would be what I said in post #38. That is, Genesis is not just the history of one nation (Jacob/Israel), but the history of two nations/brothers, one elect and the other not. It is Jacob & Esau, Israel & Edom, Abram & Lot, Cain & Abel. They are the sheep and goats, the wheat and tares, the true Israel and the false Israel later in the Bible.

I think that interpretation lays a different framework for understanding the rest of the Bible than if we just hyperfocus on a single, chosen nation of Israel. And it explains why elect Israel so often acts un-elect throughout the Bible. They're a mixed group in need of sorting.

Maybe I'm a little dense, but I just don't get why a Christian would want to use academia rather than the Bible alone to understand both redemptive and human history??? I've never doubted that Genesis is the historical record of beginnings of not only the nation of Israel, but the beginning of humankind. The focus is very much on God's chosen nation and their direction and interactions with nations surrounding them. In reading the history of Israel it becomes clear that Israel was never wholly pure, there have always been the non-elect among and around them. I would argue the Bible gives us a historical record for not only God's chosen nation (Israel), but also a historical record of creation and how sin and death through sin entered in for all humanity. But at the same time tells mankind how we can be freed from this bondage of death, and that is not limited to one nation alone, but to every nation of the earth according to grace through faith.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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?

Well until Israel was born as a nation after Jacob had his twelve sons, there was no Israel.

I forget where but it was said Moses called for the writings that were brought with them in the Exodus. I think it is safe to assume (and this is an assumption) that the writings that made it to Scripture were from the lines spoken of in Scripture. They could have used papyri, vellum, skins, tablets, steils, and the oral traditions which put history into a sing song manner.

We see little to nothing of the history of Ishmael in Scripture (Isaacs brother) nor do we see any history of Esau (Jacobs brother). Scripture is the dealings of God through history as He sees it to be written.

 

[Wick Stick]

Maybe I'm a little dense, but I just don't get why a Christian would want to use academia rather than the Bible alone to understand both redemptive and human history???

The truth is the truth regardless of where one finds it.

The Bible is NOT that easy to understand. Why not take all the help you can get? There isn't a sensible reason to disregard archaeology, or the study of the Semitic languages, or of recorded history. These should inform our understanding of Scripture. Yet the church regards these with hostility.

You'll have to show what traditions of the Jews you fear I may be putting so much faith in???

It's more the whole of the church than yourself specifically, though I assume you hold traditional views.

There is the idea that God dictated all of the Torah to Moses on a mountaintop... that's a Jewish tradition that started with Philo of Alexandria in the 1st century AD. Now certainly God told Moses certain things (and the Bible documents when it happens)... the purpose is is not to deny this. But this tradition has become a hindrance to understanding what IS written in the Bible.

There is the idea that Genesis is a chronological history. Now it's true that the compiler has attempted to arrange things chronologically. But reading it as an unbroken chronology invariably results in error. The book makes far more sense when viewed as a series of independent documents.

For instance, one of those sections is "the book of the generations of Adam" and it's from Gen 2:5 through 5:1. When viewed as a continuous chronological account with the bit before it (the generations of the heavens and the earth - Gen 1:1 through 2:4), it must be interpreted as the beginning of mankind. But when viewed as a stand-alone document, it appears to be the story of the foundation of the nation of Edom. The same story is repeated in clearer and more concise language in Gen 36 (and would slot in perfectly after 36:8).

I've never doubted that Genesis is the historical record of beginnings of not only the nation of Israel, but the beginning of humankind. The focus is very much on God's chosen nation and their direction and interactions with nations surrounding them. In reading the history of Israel it becomes clear that Israel was never wholly pure, there have always been the non-elect among and around them. I would argue the Bible gives us a historical record for not only God's chosen nation (Israel), but also a historical record of creation and how sin and death through sin entered in for all humanity. But at the same time tells mankind how we can be freed from this bondage of death, and that is not limited to one nation alone, but to every nation of the earth according to grace through faith.

But you see, it probably isn't the beginning of all mankind. And that view in particular has become a stumbling-block to the church. The modern church evangelizes with a literal Genesis and Young Earth viewpoint that are increasingly untenable in the face of mounting archaeological evidence for human pre-history extending far, far, far beyond the timeframes calculated by Bishop Ussher. The church is losing credibility, because it doesn't even understand its own book. And that's a shame.

 

[ScottA]

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.

If God used a donkey and even Nebuchadnezzar...or for that matter, any of us, why question His use of a father-in-law who was not of Israel?

 

[rwb]

The Bible is NOT that easy to understand. Why not take all the help you can get? There isn't a sensible reason to disregard archaeology, or the study of the Semitic languages, or of recorded history. These should inform our understanding of Scripture. Yet the church regards these with hostility.

I agree, I often use Bible commentaries and Bible concordances, as well as Bible dictionaries, but why would I want help in understanding the Bible from secular sources? Archaeology can be of value, but as long as there are new discoveries the information changes. Unlike the Word of God which God intended would remain the same forever. Of course, there is a problem due to the many translations all differing. But even knowing the translations don't always agree, I am still more inclined to use Christian sources rather than secular ones, that often have a bias against the Bible.

I find the best way to discover truths from the Word of God is to study it, praying that through the Holy Spirit my eyes and mind would be open and able to know. After all we do read:

Galatians 3:22 (KJV) But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

It's more the whole of the church than yourself specifically, though I assume you hold traditional views.

I believe what I've learned from the Word of God, as I study through the power of His Spirit in me.

There is the idea that God dictated all of the Torah to Moses on a mountaintop... that's a Jewish tradition that started with Philo of Alexandria in the 1st century AD. Now certainly God told Moses certain things (and the Bible documents when it happens)... the purpose is is not to deny this. But this tradition has become a hindrance to understanding what IS written in the Bible.

How is believing God spoke to Moses and instructed him to write down what He told him, a hindrance to understanding what IS written in the Bible?

There is the idea that Genesis is a chronological history. Now it's true that the compiler has attempted to arrange things chronologically. But reading it as an unbroken chronology invariably results in error. The book makes far more sense when viewed as a series of independent documents.

I don't find the Bible to be in chronological order.

But you see, it probably isn't the beginning of all mankind. And that view in particular has become a stumbling-block to the church. The modern church evangelizes with a literal Genesis and Young Earth viewpoint that are increasingly untenable in the face of mounting archaeological evidence for human pre-history extending far, far, far beyond the timeframes calculated by Bishop Ussher. The church is losing credibility, because it doesn't even understand its own book. And that's a shame.

Don't you mean according to secular sources viewing Genesis as the literal beginning of human history, and believing the earth is young is "increasingly untenable"? The mounting evidence for a young earth for many Christians comes from the Bible, not by Bishop Ussher. The Church is not losing credibility, but I agree the church (small c) certainly is. And yes that is a shame. But just because so many calling themselves church have wondered far from the truths found in Scripture is no reason to turn to secularist without faith to tell us what education has taught them to believe the Bible should say.

 

[St. SteVen]

Oh! I think it may have been at one point. The Edomites were big into mining copper and smelting bronze... they may have created the world's biggest slag pit in the middle of their nation...

Archaeological report on Edomite Slag pits

Also, the weather there is literal hell-on-earth. The combination of being very close to the equator and located in the lowest elevation on earth produces some gnarly temperatures. It's like 135 degrees in the summer there.

Very interesting, thanks.
With that in mind, what do you make of that prophecy?

/

 

[Wick Stick]

I agree, I often use Bible commentaries and Bible concordances, as well as Bible dictionaries, but why would I want help in understanding the Bible from secular sources? Archaeology can be of value, but as long as there are new discoveries the information changes. Unlike the Word of God which God intended would remain the same forever. Of course, there is a problem due to the many translations all differing. But even knowing the translations don't always agree, I am still more inclined to use Christian sources rather than secular ones, that often have a bias against the Bible.

Concordances are fantastic. That's what I was referring to by "studies of the Semitic languages."

Archaeology... what they dig up doesn't change, it's just the conclusions that are drawn from it, and as a whole archaeology is VERY slow to change viewpoints, to the point that is sometimes a weakness of the discipline.

Bible Dictionaries and commentaries invariably have a theological bias, because they come out of some particular church/denomination/movement. I have come to actively avoid them.

Finally, a source being "academic" doesn't necessarily make it "secular." The vast majority of people who are interested in Biblical history are there because they come from a Christian background.

How is believing God spoke to Moses and instructed him to write down what He told him, a hindrance to understanding what IS written in the Bible?

That... isn't quite what I said. I was talking about the belief that God dictated EVERYTHING to Moses.

The Bible tells us when God dictates something. When it doesn't say God dictated something, it seems reasonable to me to assume that isn't what happened. That happens to be the case for the entire book of Genesis.

I don't find the Bible to be in chronological order.

But you think Genesis is chronological.

Don't you mean according to secular sources viewing Genesis as the literal beginning of human history, and believing the earth is young is "increasingly untenable"? The mounting evidence for a young earth for many Christians comes from the Bible, not by Bishop Ussher. The Church is not losing credibility, but I agree the church (small c) certainly is. And yes that is a shame. But just because so many calling themselves church have wondered far from the truths found in Scripture is no reason to turn to secularist without faith to tell us what education has taught them to believe the Bible should say.

What I mean is... the pre-history of mankind for most parts of Asia and Europe has been pretty well re-constructed by archaeology, and it goes back waaaay further than the dates that traditional Christianity has tried to calculate using the numbers in Genesis.

Like, take the region around Mount Ararat, for instance... that seems like a region of interest. For that area, we know about the kingdom of Urartu, preceded by the Nairi tribes, preceded by the Shupria, preceded by the Trialeti-Vanadzor culture, preceded by the Kura–Araxes, preceded by the Shulaveri-Shomutepe-Aratashen culture. That takes us back to the 7th millennia BC, which is well before the time frames traditionally assigned for Noah's flood, and even earlier than the date for a young-earth creation.

It strains credibility when we claim the earth was created in the 4th-5th millennia BC, when we have physical evidence unearthed that creates a continuous record going back further than that.

 

[Wick Stick]

Very interesting, thanks.
With that in mind, what do you make of that prophecy?

There is some wild stuff in there that seems impossible... One verse mentions unicorns in the KJV. The demon Lilith appears in another verse.

But then there's other stuff that seems entirely plausible. Like, the Dead Sea does generate bitumen ("pitch") which washes ashore there already. The area is volcanic, there is a fault line that runs straight through the middle of it (the Great Rift valley), causing hot sulfurous springs.

And geologically we know that the climate there has changed and it didn't used to be quite as hell-on-earth as it is now.

We know Edom/Idumea no longer exists. I guess I think it's fulfilled, and the language here is... rough to translate.

 

[Davy]

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.

Bogus Claim by Bible unbelievers, such are the modern day Textual Critics.

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?

Jude 14 reveals that Enoch, the 7th from the man Adam, prophesied about Christ's still future return with ten thousands of His saints. How did Enoch know that? God showed Enoch that. And only the Biblically illiterate doesn't realize that Christ Jesus existed in Old Testament times to reveal things to the Biblical Patriarchs. Jesus met Abraham in Genesis, which Jesus reminded the blind un-believing Pharisees about at the end of John 8.

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?

No such idea written in God's Word. That's just a theory by the modern un-believing Textual Critics.

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.

Moses' father in law truly was... of the people of Midian. You don't get to be a Midianite priest without being a Midianite. Moses' father in law was called a Kenite simply because he lived in the land of the Kenite peoples of Canaan.

Num 10:29
29 And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, Moses' father in law, We are journeying unto the place of which the LORD said, I will give it you: come thou with us, and we will do thee good: for the LORD hath spoken good concerning Israel.
KJV

Raguel the Midianite means his geneaology was of the Midianite peoples, which Midian was a son of Abraham and Keturah, NOT the Kenites (Gen.25:2).

The rest of your claim from archeaologists, and Textual Critics is bogus, and un-Biblical.

 

[Wick Stick]

Jude 14 reveals that Enoch, the 7th from the man Adam, prophesied about Christ's still future return with ten thousands of His saints. How did Enoch know that? God showed Enoch that.

Yes, Jude 1 quotes from the pseudepigraphal book of Enoch, which tells all about Enoch ascending to the third heaven and being given a tour of the heavens, and some prophecies.

And only the Biblically illiterate doesn't realize that Christ Jesus existed in Old Testament times to reveal things to the Biblical Patriarchs. Jesus met Abraham in Genesis, which Jesus reminded the blind un-believing Pharisees about at the end of John 8.

Jesus is The Word and existed in the beginning. (John 1:1) Yes, the Word of the Lord came to many of the Old Testament prophets. The Bible makes a big deal out of it when this happens. So much so, that it's reasonable to assume that if the Bible doesn't say so... that isn't what happened. And it doesn't say that this happened with regards to anything in Genesis.

No such idea written in God's Word. That's just a theory by the modern un-believing Textual Critics.

It IS a theory. And some (but not all) textual critics ARE non-believers.

But this idea DOES come from things in the Bible. The existence of Jethro, his status as a priest, and his covenant with Moses all come from the Bible. That Jethro gave to Moses the system of judges that was adopted comes from Exodus 18.

If you haven't read the whole topic here, look for the posts about Exodus 18... this chapter of the Bible goes to some lengths to impress upon us the importance of Jethro. Moses himself gives glory to "the God of my father" at the moment of meeting his father... Jethro.

Moses' father in law truly was... of the people of Midian. You don't get to be a Midianite priest without being a Midianite. Moses' father in law was called a Kenite simply because he lived in the land of the Kenite peoples of Canaan.

Num 10:29
29 And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, Moses' father in law, We are journeying unto the place of which the LORD said, I will give it you: come thou with us, and we will do thee good: for the LORD hath spoken good concerning Israel.
KJV

Raguel the Midianite means his geneaology was of the Midianite peoples, which Midian was a son of Abraham and Keturah, NOT the Kenites (Gen.25:2).

There's an argument to be made both ways. Like I said in another post, the Bible literally says that Moses father-in-Law was a Kenite... and a Midianite... and a Kushite. Either these are ALL true somehow, or the Bible is wrong about something.

Either way, this is just not an important distinction. Whether Moses got his information from the Midianites or Kenites, it sources back the same way... through the non-elect descendants of Abraham. Six in one; half dozen in the other.

-Jarrod

 

[St. SteVen]

Yes, Jude 1 quotes from the pseudepigraphal book of Enoch, which tells all about Enoch ascending to the third heaven and being given a tour of the heavens, and some prophecies.

This is an interesting comparative.

2 Corinthians 12:2 NIV
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven.
Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.

/