A Skeptic Asks about The Compositional Approach

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@John_Harshman

Instead, the tensions on the text are intentional and for a purpose. The cohesiveness of Genesis gives very high support to this view.

Again, I would like to see your argument for this.

I’ll defer to @jongarvey and @deuteroKJ on this.

@John_Harshman

There is a quite a bit of textual evidence for this. It seems to be the most natural reading of Genesis 1-6. Much of the confusion appears to be mistakes in the english translation.

I would be interested in your argument to this effect. It’s not the most natural reading in any translation I’ve ever seen. If it’s mistakes in the English translation, it appears to be mistakes in every English translation.

swamidass:

I’ve already explained this to you once before: Literal Interpretations and the Genealogical Adam. A Hebrew scholar (@deuteroKJ) added his endorsement. Perhaps engage with it over there.