Bible Study The First Book of Moses Called Genesis

[stovebolts]

I would leave Ramban and whoever else strictly alone till you've wrestled with the text for yourself, asking your own questions and finding your own answers.

Speaking for myself, I have wrestled with scripture... and I've got a limp to prove it.

Ramban is not like any academic work you've ever read in part because it's not academicin nature, rather, it's based in Jewish thought... people who have had to truly wrestle with the text because they were charged with putting flesh on the commandment and actually living it. They have wrestled with it way more than any gentile could ever imagine.

With that, Ramban illuminates portions of scripture that the average Joe would breeze right over without thought or significance.

 

[stovebolts]

.
I've been a Bible student since 1968 and in all those years have yet to discover one shred of scriptural evidence verifying the theory that Moses authored Genesis. At this point; I'm convinced it is no less anonymous than the letter to Hebrews in the New Testament.

Buen Camino
/

Hi Webers_Home,

Actually, it's purported by the Jews that Moses is the author of Genesis and not just theory.

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Genesis 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

 

[jasoncran]

well without a debate. i will if anyone wants to post the jewish thoughts on the NAME and that abraham did know of the YHWH but he didnt live under that NAME's attributes. thanks jeff that makes sense , it really does.

but first we have only this from the Name

Yud: all things have a yud, from it god made all things. yud is god
Hey: breathe
Vah: God comes down into you and protects you or You pull God down to you and He protects You
Hey: breathe

meaning God is the first person you see at birth and the last person you see at death. hmm that is so true.

now then i really dont want to get too heavy into a jewish thought debate here or too deep into this for good reason. the unlearned that havent read the bible enough wont get this. its simple. but if you arent used to ramban or know the bible it will confuse you.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

it's purported by the Jews that Moses is the author of Genesis

Just because something is purported by the Jews doesn't make it eo ipso true.

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

The trick is finding Christ in the writings that Moses is proven to have written; rather than in writings he is assumed to have written.

Genesis 3:15, Genesis 22:18

The author of those passages is currently unknown and unproven. For all we know, Abraham himself may have recorded them since he was a prophet (Gen 20:7) and so was Abel (Luke 11:50-51).


Buen Camino
/

 

[stovebolts]

.

Just because something is purported by the Jews doesn't make it eo ipso true.



The author of those passages is currently unknown and unproven. For all we know, Abraham himself may have recorded them since he was a prophet (Gen 20:7) and so was Abel (Luke 11:50-51).


Buen Camino
/

Let me put it this way. Abraham and Abel may very well have written down their accounts and I wouldn't doubt that they passed the stories down orally from generation to generation until the time when Moses put them all under one writing we now know as Genesis.

Genesis is written with the backdrop of the Exodus event. For instance, without the Torah, how would you discern Cain's sacrifice? Or how about Abraham and Melchizedek.. you know, the part where the writer of Hebrew states, "priest forever" and these are the easy ones.

What becomes clear is that Genesis is within the authority of the Mosaic teachings. In other words, "it's authorized by Moses".

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Let me put it this way.

I sincerely wish I were allotted a gallon of gasoline for every armchair theologian I've encountered on the internet in the last 15 years who was honestly under the impression that sophistry is somehow synonymous with evidence.

Buen Camino
/

 

[stovebolts]

.

I sincerely wish I were allotted a gallon of gasoline for every armchair theologian I've encountered on the internet in the last 15 years who was under the impression that sophistry is somehow synonymous with evidence.

Buen Camino
/

Then I don't see much coming out of this discussion other than an invested interest in arguing to argue so in that light, I'll pass this time ok. Hey, your free to think what ya want. you keep ridign that camel and I'll go vroom vroom in the Camaro lol

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Gen 1:1a . . In the beginning God

What was God doing in the dateless infinite past before the current universe came into existence? (I say "current" because there's another in the works. Isa 65:17, 2Pet 3:10-13, Rev 21:1) Who really knows? But a creative genius like that couldn't possibly have been sitting around for zillions of years staring at the walls with nothing to do.

The word for "God" is from the Hebrew 'elohiym (el-o-heem'). It's a plural word and means, ordinarily: gods. 'Elohiym isn't really the creator's personal name, but an abstract deistic term that pertains to all sorts of gods, along with, and including, the supreme one.

†. Gen 1:1b . . created the heaven and earth--

The word for "heaven" is from the Hebrew word shamayim (shaw-mah'-yim) and means: to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the plural (heavens) perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve). So the word "heaven" is ambiguous and can mean the breathable air in our planet's atmosphere as well as the stratosphere and the vast celestial regions of space. Shamayim corresponds to the "air" in the Navy SEAL acronym that stands for Sea, Air, and Land.

The word for "earth" is from 'erets (eh'-rets) and means: to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land) Erets is sometimes spelled with a zee; eg: ERETZ Magazine, or in the phrase Eretz Israel-- meaning, of course, the land of Israel.

The Lord made this comment about the creation of Man; which has a bearing on the meaning of the phrase "in the beginning."

†. Mtt 19:4 . . Haven't you read; he replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female

Wasn't the human race actually created on the sixth day? Yes, it was. So apparently Christ understood the word "beginning" to be an inclusive term comprising the entire creation endeavor, rather than a precise moment, because he obviously meant the human race was created during the construction of the current natural order of things, but not right at the gun.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Atonement]

Duplicate

 

[Atonement]

Then I don't see much coming out of this discussion other than an invested interest in arguing to argue so in that light, I'll pass this time ok. Hey, your free to think what ya want. you keep ridign that camel and I'll go vroom vroom in the Camaro lol

StoveBolts -

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ

You're right, as I said in my previous post.. Does it really matter who wrote this book? Tradition says it was written by Moses, I think we can all agree on that; but more important we should all agree that it ultimately came from God..


LJ

 

[Asyncritus]

Speaking for myself, I have wrestled with scripture... and I've got a limp to prove it.

Ramban is not like any academic work you've ever read in part because it's not academicin nature, rather, it's based in Jewish thought... people who have had to truly wrestle with the text because they were charged with putting flesh on the commandment and actually living it. They have wrestled with it way more than any gentile could ever imagine.

With that, Ramban illuminates portions of scripture that the average Joe would breeze right over without thought or significance.

OK - give me an example, and I'll see what you mean.

 

[Asyncritus]

Let me put it this way. Abraham and Abel may very well have written down their accounts and I wouldn't doubt that they passed the stories down orally from generation to generation until the time when Moses put them all under one writing we now know as Genesis.

What's this about ORALLY? Don't you think they could write - beginning with Adam? And why should you suppose that he couldn't? That smacks of higher critical thinking - which makes me puke.

Genesis is written with the backdrop of the Exodus event. For instance, without the Torah, how would you discern Cain's sacrifice? Or how about Abraham and Melchizedek.. you know, the part where the writer of Hebrew states, "priest forever" and these are the easy ones.

This is a good point - but doesn't go to the obvious conclusion. Which is that the Law was in force from the year dot, and the only reason we are not given great detail in Genesis is because God knew that Moses would be given the whole thing.

As you say, Abraham, Noah and even Cain had the Law. Which makes me suppose that Adam was given it directly by God.

 

[stovebolts]

OK - give me an example, and I'll see what you mean.

Well, since were just starting off Genesis, this is what Ramban has to say about Bara from Genesis 1:1

Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the verse in its simplicity. The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word bara (created). Everything that exists under the sun or above was not made from non-existence at the outset. Instead He brought forth from total and absolute nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having the power of potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary matter created by G-d; it is called by the Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyly, He did not create anything, but he formed and made things with it, and from this hyly He brought everything into existence and clothed the forms and put them into a finished condition.

Know that the heavens and all that is in them consists of one substance, and the earth and everythign this is in it consists of one substance. The Holy One, blessed be He, created these two substances from nothing; they alone were created, and everything else was constructed from them.

This substance, which the Greeks called hyly, is called in the sacred language tohu, the word being derived from the expression of the Sages: “betohei (when the wicked bethinks himself) of his doings in the past.†If a person wants to decide a name for it [this primordial matter], he may bethink himself, change his mind and call it by another name since it has taken on no form to which the name should be attached. The form which this substance finally takes on is called in the sacred language bohu, which is a composite word made up of the two words bo hu (in it there is [substance]). This may be compared to the verse, Thou art not able 'asohu' (to perform it, Exodus 18:18) in which case the word asohu is missing a vav and an aleph [and I is a composite of the two words] aso hu. It is this which Scripture says, And he shall stretch over it the line of 'tohu' (confusion) and the stones of 'bohu.' (Isaiah 34:11) [The tohu in Hebrew or the hyly in Greek] is the line by which the craftsman delineates the plan of his structure and that which he hopes to make. This is derived from the expression, Kavei (Hope) unto G-d (Psalms 27:14). The stones are forms in the building. Similarly it is written, They are acconted by Him as nought and 'tohu,' (Isaiah 40:17) as tohu comes after nothingness and there is nothing yet in it.

So the Rabbis have also said in Sefer Yetzirah: “He created substance from tohu, and made that which was nothing something.â€

They have furthermore said in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah: “Rabbi Berachyah said: “What is the meaning of the verse, And the earth was 'tohu' (without form) 'vavohu' (and void)? What is the meaning of the word “was?†It had already been tohu. And what is tohu? It is a thing which astonishes people. It was then turned into bohu. And what is bohu? It is a thing which has substance, as it is written, [bohu is a composite of the two words] “bo hu†(in it there is subtance)

 

[stovebolts]

Let me put it this way. Abraham and Abel may very well have written down their accounts and I wouldn't doubt that they passed the stories down orally from generation to generation until the time when Moses put them all under one writing we now know as Genesis.

What's this about ORALLY? Don't you think they could write - beginning with Adam? And why should you suppose that he couldn't? That smacks of higher critical thinking - which makes me puke.

Please don't puke, it could ruin your keyboard :toofunny

Relax a bit and please read carefully that which I have written. If you want to think critically, you'll see that you've come to a false conclusion. Please, let me show you.

I said: Abraham and Abel may very well have written down their accounts
You said: Don't you think they could write...And why should you suppose that he couldn't?

What conclusion should we draw on your statement?

Now then, since you yelled ORALLY it would appear that your against telling stories. Tell me, have you ever told a bible story to somebody else or do you simply keep your mouth closed and tell them to read it? I can tell you that I still tell my son bible stories. Even just a few weeks ago I was telling my daughter the story of Saul and David.

Genesis is written with the backdrop of the Exodus event. For instance, without the Torah, how would you discern Cain's sacrifice? Or how about Abraham and Melchizedek.. you know, the part where the writer of Hebrew states, "priest forever" and these are the easy ones.

This is a good point - but doesn't go to the obvious conclusion. Which is that the Law was in force from the year dot, and the only reason we are not given great detail in Genesis is because God knew that Moses would be given the whole thing.

As you say, Abraham, Noah and even Cain had the Law. Which makes me suppose that Adam was given it directly by God.

Ramban says that God gave Abraham the law, so you are in agreement with Ramban.

What we see in Exodus is a covenant with the law with a nation claimed by God as His Son as promised Abraham. In Genesis we see the covenant with Abraham and Noah. The covenant with Noah has the sign of the rainbow which is God's universal promise that he will never destroy the earth with a flood again and with Abram it is a covenant with the sign of circumcision promising that Abraham will be the Father of many nations and that the land of Canaan will be an everlasting possession to Abraham and his descendants.

As far as saying that Genesis is written with an Exodus perspective, that was to simply say that we see contemporary Exodus language within the Genesis text.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

the Law was in force from the year dot, and the only reason we are not given great detail in Genesis is because God knew that Moses would be given the whole thing.

According to Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17, law doesn't have ex post facto jurisdiction; viz: it isn't retroactive; which was very lucky for Cain because under those circumstances; God couldn't legally prosecute him for the capital crime of murder in the death of his brother Abel because The Law wasn't introduced until better than four centuries after God's covenant with Abraham.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Gen 1:2a . . the earth being unformed and void

The Hebrew word for "unformed" is from tohuw (to'-hoo) and means: to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain.

The word for "void" is from bohuw (bo'-hoo) and means: to be empty; a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin.

The terms tohuw and bohuw, don't imply the complete absence of matter. They just imply ruin and chaos. The very same wording is used in another part of the Bible regarding the land of Israel in an utter shambles because of God's judgments against it.

†. Jer 4:22-28 . . For My people are stupid, they give Me no heed; they are foolish children, they are not intelligent. They are clever at doing wrong, but unable to do right.

. . . I look at the earth, it is desolate and empty (tohuw and bohuw) at the skies, and their light is gone. I look at the mountains, they are quaking; and all the hills are rocking. I look: no man is left, and all the birds of the sky have fled. I look: the farm land is desert, and all its towns are in ruin-- because of Yhvh, because of His blazing anger.

. . . For thus testified Yhvh: The whole land shall be desolate, but I will not make an end of it. For this the earth mourns, and skies are dark above-- because I have spoken, I have planned, and I will not relent or turn back from it. (cf. Deut 29:22-28)

The construction of planet Earth, was an orderly step by step process. If you were to visit a housing tract under construction out here in the West, you wouldn't see the beautiful homes that people move into. You would first see the neighborhood as unimproved land.

Then the surveyors come and measure and mark the locations for water, sewer, power, and property lines. Then huge earth moving machines come in and scrape off the topsoil. After that, smaller machines cut in streets and storm drains, and mold the land into home sites while the utilities people install sewer lines, electricity, water and gas pipes, and wiring for telephones, cable television, and broadband. Then other workers show up and start making foundations while yet others are making sidewalks. Then carpenters show up and begin framing. Pretty soon, roofers are nailing on shingles, and the structures begin to resemble homes. Then sheet rock guys install wallboard, cabinet makers hang the cabinets, other men install showers, sinks, and bathtubs, while yet others lay down carpet and vinyl flooring.

Before you know it, a real neighborhood appears with parks, paved roads, and street lighting. But at first, everything is confusing and disordered; and all the building materials are laying around in heaps and piles looking more like a dump site than a habitable neighborhood.

I've a notion that's the way the Earth began: as a chaotic heap of building materials, which were then utilized to construct a habitat for living organisms.

†. Isa 45:18 . . For thus said the Lord, The Creator of heaven who alone is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who alone established it-- He did not create it a waste, but formed it for habitation:

The big question of course is where did the Earth's building materials come from? Did they always exist, or did God invent them just especially for the Earth now in existence? Were those materials leftovers from another Divine project prior to the current universe, or maybe even parallel to it?

Regardless of how, or out of what, they were made, the origin of the materials has to be founded in a Creator. It is both maddening and futile to consider any other possibility. By faith we understand much more about the origin of the cosmos than ever could be understood by the unaided mind of natural reason.

†. Heb 11:3 . . By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's vocal command, so that what is visible was made from something invisible.

Faith doesn't violate reason; on the contrary, faith is both a friend and a help to Man's rational understanding of his own existence.

†. Gen 1:2b . . with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water--

At this point, there was no ordered cosmos, nor any planets, nor an Earth, nor anything solid: just a massive chemical matrix, while the wind of God held it all in place like corralled livestock; because as yet, no physical laws were in force to make matter behave the way it does as we know it.

The ancient Jews understood the "wind" of Gen 1:2 to be God's spirit.

T. and darkness was upon the face of the abyss, and the Spirit of mercies from before the Lord breathed upon the face of the waters. (Targum Jonathan)

T. and the Spirit of mercies from before the Lord breathed upon the face of the waters. (Jerusalem Targum)

Note : Targums aren't translations; but rather, very old Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew bible. They were authoritative, and spoken aloud in the synagogues along with the Hebrew of the Torah and Haftarah readings. Public readings of the scriptures in ancient synagogues were accompanied by commentary in Aramaic because that was the spoken language of most Jews in Israel and Babylonia during the Talmudic era. The normal practice was that after each verse was read from the sacred Torah scroll, an official commentator known as the Turgeman, or Meturgeman, would then recite orally an Aramaic explanation; usually from memory.

Targums were utilized in the synagogues before, during, and after the times of Jesus-- being necessary because many of the Jewish people of that day could not understand Hebrew. That's still true today. Because of their assimilation and world-wide dispersion, the vast majority of modern Jews can neither read, write, speak, nor understand the Hebrew language. Today, no doubt the most important, and the most influential translations of the Scriptures are no longer in Hebrew or in Aramaic, but in English.

Targums are important as evidence for a history of thought among the Jewish communities in Israel and abroad during Jesus' day. The major Targums are those that originated in Palestine and those that were revised in Babylon. Recently a complete manuscript of the Palestinian Targum has come to light-- Neofiti 1 of the Vatican Library. The best known Babylonian Targums are those of Onkelos and Jonathan.

The Targum of Onkelos is commonly included along with a traditional Torah scroll in modern synagogues, but its teachings have pretty much fallen by the wayside and for the most part, ignored.

Anyway; the universe was dark, and undisciplined; and all the cosmos' building materials were a swirling, chaotic mass of matter-- but totally lacking the natural energies and forces that would hold things in place and make them react with each other. The creation of Light would rectify that situation.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Gen 1:3 . . God said: Let there be light; and there was light.

The Hebrew word for "light" in that passage is from 'owr (ore) and means light in every sense of the word; which Webster's defines as illumination, truth, a set of principles and standards, spiritual illumination, served (as coffee) with extra milk or cream, ignite, guide, animate (give life to), dawn, and others. So then "Light" can't be narrowly defined, but rather, it's an example the Bible's many ambiguous words with several definitions to choose from.

The illumination of Gen 1:3 isn't said to actually glow-- no glowing celestial bodies were created until the fourth day-- so that during the interim, even while Light was in the universe, you still couldn't see anything. According to the Bible, the light of Gen 1:3 isn't a supernatural kind of light, but a created kind of light-- not light that was introduced into the void from outside, but was from within, and was a kind of light with the potential to forge the universe into a living, active, organized, energetic structure rather than just a heap of chaotic debris.

†. 2Cor 4:6 . . God commanded the light to shine out of darkness

The light of creation shined "out" of darkness rather than into darkness as if Light was introduced to dispel the dark and brighten things up. A safe assumption is that at least one of the meanings of the light of Gen 1:3 refers to the natural laws of physics that regulate how matter in the current cosmos behaves. In other words where there's light there's order, as opposed to where there's darkness there's chaos and confusion; viz: light is a good off-the-cuff synonym for law and order; and without light, the entire universe would exist in a state of physical anarchy.

Without the laws of physics, the universe would instantly fragment itself and nothing would either hold or work together. There'd be neither natural nor artificial light, no energy, no motion, no gravity, no atomic attraction, no magnetism, no molecules, no liquids, no gases, and no solids. The laws of physics were created to make matter behave the way it does and to hold the entire creation together in a state of synergic unity-- making it possible to utilize elements from the liquid matrix to form an orderly Earth rather than one of tohuw and bohuw.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Asyncritus]

Well, since were just starting off Genesis, this is what Ramban has to say about Bara from Genesis 1:1

Originally Posted by Ramban Commentary on Gen 1:1 Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the verse in its simplicity. The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word bara (created). Everything that exists under the sun or above was not made from non-existence at the outset. Instead He brought forth from total and absolute nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having the power of potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary matter created by G-d; it is called by the Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyly, He did not create anything, but he formed and made things with it, and from this hyly He brought everything into existence and clothed the forms and put them into a finished condition.

Know that the heavens and all that is in them consists of one substance, and the earth and everythign this is in it consists of one substance. The Holy One, blessed be He, created these two substances from nothing; they alone were created, and everything else was constructed from them.

This substance, which the Greeks called hyly, is called in the sacred language tohu, the word being derived from the expression of the Sages: “betohei (when the wicked bethinks himself) of his doings in the past.†If a person wants to decide a name for it [this primordial matter], he may bethink himself, change his mind and call it by another name since it has taken on no form to which the name should be attached. The form which this substance finally takes on is called in the sacred language bohu, which is a composite word made up of the two words bo hu (in it there is [substance]). This may be compared to the verse, Thou art not able 'asohu' (to perform it, Exodus 18:18) in which case the word asohu is missing a vav and an aleph [and I is a composite of the two words] aso hu. It is this which Scripture says, And he shall stretch over it the line of 'tohu' (confusion) and the stones of 'bohu.' (Isaiah 34:11) [The tohu in Hebrew or the hyly in Greek] is the line by which the craftsman delineates the plan of his structure and that which he hopes to make. This is derived from the expression, Kavei (Hope) unto G-d (Psalms 27:14). The stones are forms in the building. Similarly it is written, They are acconted by Him as nought and 'tohu,' (Isaiah 40:17) as tohu comes after nothingness and there is nothing yet in it.

So the Rabbis have also said in Sefer Yetzirah: “He created substance from tohu, and made that which was nothing something.â€

They have furthermore said in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah: “Rabbi Berachyah said: “What is the meaning of the verse, And the earth was 'tohu' (without form) 'vavohu' (and void)? What is the meaning of the word “was?†It had already been tohu. And what is tohu? It is a thing which astonishes people. It was then turned into bohu. And what is bohu? It is a thing which has substance, as it is written, [bohu is a composite of the two words] “bo hu†(in it there is subtance)

That's what I mean about commentators and commentaries.

Here's this guy, going to great lengths to prove something which is completely wrong at its root.

Nothing comes from nothing. That's a fundamental law of nature. We now know that even space isn't nothing.

Hebrews 11 tells us the exact opposite of Ramban:

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

The worlds were made of things which do not appear, by the word of God. Because they do not appear, it doesn't follow that they don't exist. They are merely invisible. Physics has gone a long, long way toward establishing the truth of that particular statement.

The word 'framed' above, is most often translated as 'made perfect', 'joining together'. And is used of repairing nets, and other such things.

Now you can't make nothing perfect. Something has got to be there for the commandment to act upon. What then?

Answer: the spirit of God. Immaterial, immanent, invisible - but having existence.

So regrettably, Ramban has missed the bus - Hebrew etc notwithstanding.

 

[Asyncritus]

Please don't puke, it could ruin your keyboard :toofunny

Relax a bit and please read carefully that which I have written. If you want to think critically, you'll see that you've come to a false conclusion. Please, let me show you.

I said: Abraham and Abel may very well have written down their accounts
You said: Don't you think they could write...And why should you suppose that he couldn't?

What conclusion should we draw on your statement?

Now then, since you yelled ORALLY it would appear that your against telling stories. Tell me, have you ever told a bible story to somebody else or do you simply keep your mouth closed and tell them to read it? I can tell you that I still tell my son bible stories. Even just a few weeks ago I was telling my daughter the story of Saul and David.

I'm not against telling stories - I do a fair bit of it myself.

What I am against is the higher critical view that all these things were merely ancient stories, passed down by word of mouth, and therefore eminently corruptible according to the whim of the teller.

That is a terribly wrong and misleading view of scripture which is entirely against the attitude of Paul (and, to be fair, the massoretes and others like them).

Paul said:

2 Tim 3.15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Notice, that the child/ren were taught the scriptures (in obedience to passages such as

Deuteronomy 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

But more importantly, the 'holy scriptures' are really the 'holy LETTERS' (ta grammata). Such was the respect for
the scriptures, that the very letters were regarded (and quite rightly too) as sacred.

That is a view, which many modern theologians - lineal descendants of the higher critical schools of thought - may well find abhorrent - and I for one am not prepared to listen to any one of them who does not subscribe wholeheartedly to what Paul said above.

Ramban says that God gave Abraham the law, so you are in agreement with Ramban.

Ramban has no proof of this, and I can produce a very substantial body of evidence that the law was in existence long before Abraham ever came on the scene. Scriptural evidence, that is, not Rabbi X,Y or Z, or theologian A, B or C).

As I've often said, leave the commentators severely alone.

Go make your own mistakes - it's a lot cheaper, because you don't have to buy their books.

What we see in Exodus is a covenant with the law with a nation claimed by God as His Son as promised Abraham. In Genesis we see the covenant with Abraham and Noah. The covenant with Noah has the sign of the rainbow which is God's universal promise that he will never destroy the earth with a flood again and with Abram it is a covenant with the sign of circumcision promising that Abraham will be the Father of many nations and that the land of Canaan will be an everlasting possession to Abraham and his descendants.

As far as saying that Genesis is written with an Exodus perspective, that was to simply say that we see contemporary Exodus language within the Genesis text.

I think you've got this the wrong way round. Exodus is written with Genesis in view - and fills out the details given long before in Genesis.

That is a long-ish story, and I haven't the time just now to write it in the detail it deserves.

Perhaps you guys might like to re-read Genesis, asking yourself 'how many elements of the Law of Moses are embedded in the text, starting with Gen 4?'

It's an eye-opening exercise - and you don't need any commentator to help you (or otherwise).

 

[stovebolts]

I'm not against telling stories - I do a fair bit of it myself.

What I am against is the higher critical view that all these things were merely ancient stories, passed down by word of mouth, and therefore eminently corruptible according to the whim of the teller.

That is a terribly wrong and misleading view of scripture which is entirely against the attitude of Paul (and, to be fair, the massoretes and others like them).

Ohh boy... somebody else who wants to project their pet peeve on me.... It's like oh my goodness, say the word Oral and bam, one's automatically associated with a stigma with arguments tied to it.

again, let me redirect you a bit. What did I say again?
I said: Abraham and Abel may very well have written down their accounts
You said: Don't you think they could write...And why should you suppose that he couldn't?

Am I missing something here? Why are you so intent on putting words into my mouth? Why are you trying to peg me with your issues?

Tell ya what, I don't really see any benefit to continue discussions with you if you won't receive what I say as I say them without projecting your own arguments against things I've not said. It's really not the way healthy productive conversations go. Now then, if you disagree, that's fine. But I'll not fight an uphill battle caused by your misunderstandings and false projections.

Grace and peace.