Chance or by Design ?

Originally posted by SwissGambit

This proves nothing. Who said [b]Genesis could not be divided up into sections ?

That's all I was after. It is valid to think of Genesis as a conglomeration of Bereish it, Noach, etc. just as it is valid to think of Aesop's Fables as a conglomeration of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, Androcles and the Lion, etc.[quo s fables or Grimm's Fairy Tales.[/quote]Move goalposts around much? 😵[/b]

This is what I read in that article:

Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, but the books are in fact anonymous and look back on Moses as a figure from the distant past;[4] some traditions contained in Genesis are as old as the United Monarchy, but modern scholars increasingly see it as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC.[5]

Moses, is considered, from ancient times as THE AUTHOR, though strictly speaking the author is anonymous.

Now the article said "the author of Genesis". Did you see plural "authors" there ? I didn't.

Now, that this was derived from probably oral tradition pre-dating Moses's authorship is understood. The fact of the matter is that you still have ONE book with one traditionally ascribed singular person, Moses, as its author. It is granted that he may have compiled some oral traditions predating himself.

My opinion is that probably Adam passed on at least some part of this Genesis book. It could be that chapter TWO was what was passed down from the first man Adam, to his immediate descendents and onward. Though imbellishments probably occured as the account spread to other various cultures from according to thier mythic local needs.

I think you should just concede that Genesis is unique as most everyone else realizes. That doesn't mean you necessarily believe what is written there. But I think you should abandon the attempt to dumb down a book which is clearly in a class all its own.

No, Aesop's Fables are not in the same class with Genesis. Skeptical, wishful daydreaming.

Originally posted by SwissGambit

This proves nothing. Who said [b]Genesis could not be divided up into sections ?

That's all I was after. It is valid to think of Genesis as a conglomeration of Bereish it, Noach, etc. just as it is valid to think of Aesop's Fables as a conglomeration of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, Androcles and the Lion, etc.[quo ...[text shortened]... s fables or Grimm's Fairy Tales.[/quote]Move goalposts around much? 😵[/b]

So? You asked for another work that addressed issues important to mankind.

Aesop's fables do speak of LESSONS through animal stories.

It is not written as world HISTORY. Genesis is.

AND ... of the books of Aesop's fables that I have read as a child and subsequently to my own children, I do not remember many of the same origins being described.

Aesop's fables are neat, lasting, and good. The guy Aesop was probably African for African's have had stories of wisdom involving animals for a long time.

I think your main thrust at making Aesop's Fables about the same as Genesis of the Holy Bible, is vested interest in dodging accountability to God.

It is fallen EGO protection - "Oh don't you know Aesop's Fables is the same as the Bible ?"

Originally posted by SwissGambit

This proves nothing. Who said [b]Genesis could not be divided up into sections ?

That's all I was after. It is valid to think of Genesis as a conglomeration of Bereish it, Noach, etc. just as it is valid to think of Aesop's Fables as a conglomeration of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, Androcles and the Lion, etc.[quo ...[text shortened]... s fables or Grimm's Fairy Tales.[/quote]Move goalposts around much? 😵[/b]

Let us not confuse history with myth, as in the example of Davy Crockett (historical figure) and 'killed him a 'bar when he was only 3'. Saying 'Genesis is history' is at best only partially true.

The flow of geneology from Jesus Christ back down to Adam is seamless telling of human history. There may be gaps in the geneologies. But the link between the FIRST man in Genesis and Jesus Christ is not legendary. It is LEGAL.

Attempts to dumb down Genesis to Davy Crockett tales won't work on me. Sure, there probably is some EXAGERRATION about Davy Crockett. But Crockett also is a historical figure.

The geneologies of Genesis and Chronicles do not portray suddenly transcending time and space and moving into a mythic realm. They are the nitty gritty of legal documents discribing the lineage of important people.

Maybe they are not important to YOU. Maybe their unimportance to YOU colors your attitude. But to the keepers of the records of the Hebrew canon, they were important people in world Israel's history. And they were important people to world history to many of us who believe in the God of the Bible.

Originally posted by jaywill

Let us not confuse history with myth, as in the example of Davy Crockett (historical figure) and 'killed him a 'bar when he was only 3'. Saying 'Genesis is history' is at best only partially true.

The flow of geneology from Jesus Christ back down to Adam is seamless telling of human history. There may be gaps in the geneologies. Bu ...[text shortened]... were important people to world history to many of us who believe in the God of the Bible.

You poor bastard

Originally posted by EAPOE
You poor bastard

And the Lord shall be King over all the earth.
In that day it shall be—
The Lord is one, And His name one.

(Zechariah 14:9 NKJV)

Originally posted by RJHinds
And the Lord shall be King over all the earth.
In that day it shall be—
The Lord is one, And His name one.

(Zechariah 14:9 NKJV)

Oh dear you really are lost then!

Originally posted by EAPOE
Oh dear you really are lost then!

For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
(Matthew 7:2 NASB)

Originally posted by RJHinds
11. Thou shalt not feed the troll.

I'm not ready to join others in placing you in that category. But that may change. 🙂

Originally posted by jaywill
This is what I read in that article:

[quote] Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, but the books are in fact anonymous and look back on Moses as a figure from the distant past;[4] some traditions contained in Genesis are as old as the United Monarchy, but modern scholars increasingly see it as a pr s Fables are not in the same class with [b]Genesis. Skeptical, wishful daydreaming.[/b]

Now the article said "the author of Genesis". Did you see plural "authors" there ? I didn't.

That part came later.

Now, that this was derived from probably oral tradition pre-dating Moses's authorship is understood. The fact of the matter is that you still have ONE book with one traditionally ascribed singular person, Moses, as its author. It is granted that he may have compiled some oral traditions predating himself.

Unfortunately for tradition, it appears the book was written a bit too late for Moses to be the author.

I think you should just concede that Genesis is unique as most everyone else realizes. That doesn't mean you necessarily believe what is written there. But I think you should abandon the attempt to dumb down a book which is clearly in a class all its own.

Unique? I have not argued that it was not. Dumb it down? Also not argued. But if you insist that I must place it in a class all its own, it is going to have to be a lower class, because Aesop's Fables are not cluttered up with senseless mass killings and wonderful morally-inspiring tales like two daughters getting dad drunk and sleeping with him (I should hasten to add - on separate nights - lest I compound their sin by making it a threesome.)

Originally posted by jaywill

So? You asked for another work that addressed issues important to mankind.

Aesop's fables do speak of LESSONS through animal stories.

It is not written as world HISTORY. Genesis is.

AND ... of the books of Aesop's fables that I have read as a child and subsequently to my own children, I do not remember many of the same or ...[text shortened]... s fallen EGO protection - "Oh don't you know Aesop's Fables is the same as the Bible ?"

Aesop's fables do speak of LESSONS through animal stories.
It is not written as world HISTORY. Genesis is.

Again, you wanted something that spoke to important issues of mankind. AF delivers. I don't think studying the history of the Israeli people is nearly important as having good moral values.

AND ... of the books of Aesop's fables that I have read as a child and subsequently to my own children, I do not remember many of the same origins being described.

Again, not what you originally asked for.

I think your main thrust at making Aesop's Fables about the same as Genesis of the Holy Bible, is vested interest in dodging accountability to God.

Again, I did not argue this. When I used to believe God exists, I also believed everyone was accountable to him, including myself. If I still believed one, I would believe the other; it's just that simple. But accountability to others does not go away just because a god does or does not exist.

It is fallen EGO protection - "Oh don't you know Aesop's Fables is the same as the Bible ?

If someone tells you you should quit programming and become a psychologist, don't listen to them. Psychologists usually do better if they actually understand a patient's mental state before making the diagnosis. 🙂

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm not ready to join others in placing you in that category. But that may change. 🙂

You must have taken your smart pill today. A wise choice.

Originally posted by jaywill

Let us not confuse history with myth, as in the example of Davy Crockett (historical figure) and 'killed him a 'bar when he was only 3'. Saying 'Genesis is history' is at best only partially true.

The flow of geneology from Jesus Christ back down to Adam is seamless telling of human history. There may be gaps in the geneologies. Bu ...[text shortened]... were important people to world history to many of us who believe in the God of the Bible.

Well, that was my point. Genesis, much like the rest of the Bible, is a combination of myth and history. It is not just history, as you put it.

Again with the 'dumb down' thing. I'm happy it's not going to work on you, since that's not what I am trying to do. I am just saying that (obviously) some of the stuff in the book is exaggerated, to put it lightly. Do I think it diminishes the value? No! It only puts things in a proper perspective. That smartens up the reader instead of dumbing down.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You must have taken your smart pill today. A wise choice.

I know this guy online who offers an awesome deal on those, if you're interested. 🙂

Oh, and he'll throw in:
http://img2.timeinc.net/health/images/journeys/heart-disease/empty-weekly-pill-box-200.jpg
...so you never miss one. 🙂

Originally posted by RJHinds
You must have taken your smart pill today. A wise choice.

Did you take yours? I recommend upping the dose -----ZING!!

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I know this guy online who offers an awesome deal on those, if you're interested. 🙂

Oh, and he'll throw in:
http://img2.timeinc.net/health/images/journeys/heart-disease/empty-weekly-pill-box-200.jpg
...so you never miss one. 🙂

Yeah. Sounds great. halleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!