Mark, I’m not trying to argue about Mosaic authorship one way or the other. I’m just trying to be truthful to the state of opinion in modern scholarship, broadly speaking. You were talking about “scholars in general”, remember? This includes both evangelical and non-evangelical scholars.
Of course, most conservative evangelicals do indeed affirm Mosaic authorship of one form or another. But I suspect that the words of Jesus affirming Mosaic authorship of the Torah in the Gospels doesn’t hold much weight for secular scholars who do not already affirm the inerrancy of the Bible. This is something you have to be aware of even if you choose to continue affirming Mosaic authorship.
In the Wikipedia article I cited, although it does say that the modern consensus around the documentary hypothesis has mostly faded away, that doesn’t mean that the consensus now affirms Mosaic authorship. Rather now there are several different positions on authorship of the Torah and it seems no clear consensus. While some of these voices may affirm Mosaic authorship that does not mean that the consensus does.
The above quote doesn’t necessarily affirm Mosaic authorship, only that during the exilic era people started to attribute it to Moses.
Out of curiosity, which Bible college do you go to? Is it from a certain denomination or tradition?
A secular bible scholar is like a vegan butcher, they just don’t get it, nor do they care to try. I know this from experience studying the bible before I was saved, I didn’t get it.
TCMI, South Gate - Teen Challenge Ministry Institute (though I am not a teen, the ministry is a worldwide drug/alcohol rehab outreach) - Technically Assemblies of God, materials from Berean School of the Bible through Global University…some pentecostal roots, but more non-denominational. They don’t push us one way or another, just to study the word.
Oh dear. Such a pernicious doctrine. Not only can’t you understand unless you first believe, it’s God who actively makes understanding impossible. I’ve seen it before, but I think that’s its first appearance here.
Regardless of your opinions about them, they’re still scholars, are they not? There are tons of people out there who are very well-read in the Pentateuch even if they don’t personally believe it’s sacred Scripture. Your initial statement was about scholars in general, not a particular type of scholar.
Again, I’m not trying to argue one way or another about Mosaic authorship. I’m just trying to establish a starting point here.
yes, a scholar is a scholar. I only contend that faith brings understanding because I have experienced it first hand. I am not a scientist, nor am I naive or simple. I have experienced the meaning of even single passages change dramatically as I prayed for understanding. I realize it sounds odd, I would have also scoffed at the idea a couple years ago.
Romans 1:16-17 - 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel [a]of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”
I realize I am in the lion’s den here, and “general consensus” is that science prevails. I like both, so I will remain authentic with what I believe. Honestly, I am interacting here because you all challenge my beliefs (strongly) and are helping me grow. So thank you.
yes, a scholar is a scholar. I only contend that faith brings understanding because I have experienced it first hand.
Where the issue at hand is one where one's faith, or worse, one's faith community, is in conflict with some of the evidence and/or arguments, I would contend that faith all too frequently brings severe bias.
Confirmation bias: if you hold Biblical Inerrancy as core belief, you are likely to over-emphaise and over-value facts and arguments that support it (for example supporting Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch) and deemphasise and discount those that question it. Self-censorship: how many of these conservative Evangelical scholars are employed by conservative Evangelical institutions? How many of the latter have binding States of Faith or similar. I have heard of scholars at such instiutions fired, and even put on trial for heresy, for publishing research or opinions that conflict with their institution’s faith. Below that, there is the probability that such publication will expose them to greater scrutiny, and/or limit their chances of promotion. Outside of employment, they are also likely to be members of conservative Evangelical churtches, where such publication will strain their relationship with their church. Given all these pressures, I would not be surprised if there exists a sizable minority of conservative Evangelical scholars who have doubts, but decide to swallow them, and/or pursue less potentially-explosive fields of research.
Given all this, why should the majority of the world (which is not Christian), the majority of Christians (who are not Evangelical), or even more liberal Evangelicals, put trust in the minority viewpoint of conservative Evangelical scholars, often employed by conservative Evangelical institutions, over that of a more secular and/or more ecumenical majority?
And given you brought up Moses and Wikipedia, I thought I’d leave you with these snippets from the section of the Moses article on his Historicity:
“The modern scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is a mythical figure …”
“Despite the imposing fame associated with Moses, no source mentions him until he emerges in texts associated with the Babylonian exile.”
Although the sources cited for these statements date to 1993 & 1988 respectively, I’m fairly certain that, for such inflammatory statements in such a high-profile article, if the scholarly consensus had solidly changed since, somebody would have raised a ruckus and gotten the article changed.
This does raise even further doubts over Mosaic authorship.
After reading again, I meant during creation, not before…my point was that the concept of time relative to mortality begins with the fall of man, and I would argue that Eden was around longer than seven days. I am still working out how to be more precise in presenting and responding to arguments, it took me a while to find something that matched my thoughts.
This article explains what I meant, even though I was unable to articulate it properly.
Did you perhaps mean to link to a different article? That one is concerned only with whether Adam was originally immortal. It says nothing about the nature of Eden or its duration.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. I also agree with your confirmation bias and self-censorship descriptions. If I am putting forth a conservative evangelical viewpoint it is because it was my experience, not my training. I have no denominational influence since being saved, I even feel awkward among the Christians I study with. My belief system stands on Galations 1:10-12:
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. 11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
You all can look at me as a test subject. I am seeking truth, not fact.
Originally immortal implies eternal life (past tense), does it not? Perhaps not, the conclusion caught my eye with respect to defining the possible states. Possible not to die I suppose I interpret as past immortality, maybe not.
Conclusions
This understanding of Genesis 2–3 fits well with Augustine’s three categories for human mortality before the fall, after the fall, and after consummation: possible not to die, not possible not to die, and not possible to die ( City of God , XXII.30). Adam before the fall was not doomed to die. Yet, Adam before the fall also did not have the consummated/glorified body, the fullness of the living forever tied to the tree of life. Thus, Adam before the fall was still awaiting confirmation in eternal life.
That directly contradicts the conclusion. Adam would not become immortal until he ate from the tree of life, which he unaccountably failed to do before eating from the tree of knowledge. It was to prevent this that he was expelled from the garden.
Maybe you should ask God to explain that article to you.
Bear with me, I understand the article…I am hypothesizing, not stating what I believe to be fact…
Science believes that the universe is billions of years old (as is the earth). I think both science and faith can concede that Eden is (was) not on earth, as we probably would have found it by now if it were an earthly place. So, both camps would agree that the start of the story of Genesis is a very long time ago (God in eternity past, then day one is at least 13.8 billion years ago according to scientific evidence of when the universe formed.) On the first day, God created the heavens and the earth (which was 4.5 billion years ago). Either way, the time stamp of day one is really old, and according to science, probably lasted roughly 9 billion years if both events (creating heaven and earth) occurred on the same “biblical day” in Eden.
So, our concept of time as it relates to Genesis (and to God) is not the same on earth as it was in Eden or is in Heaven for that matter. Most would agree that Adam and Eve “fell” to earth around 4000 BC. So, the time between 4.5 billion BC (earth formed) and 4000 BC is the time that Eden could have existed. Eden was planted after the “seventh day” but before Adam and animals came along (assuming science and faith are both accurate). There are no relative time descriptions of when Adam was created, but according to science Eden would have had to have been planted between 4.5 billion BC to 4.2 billion BC (earth formed to earliest fossil discovery).
So, if both science and faith are true (Like @swamidass, I am looking for the common ground here), then Adam was in Eden naming the animals that God made for him, searching for a “helper” and tending the garden (which included the Tree of Life) for at least 4.2 billion years. Homo-sapiens comes along 200,000 BC but isn’t good enough, so God makes Eve for Adam. Which makes Eve quite a bit younger if formed after homo-sapiens. They were not immortal, but also not what we would consider mortal with a hundred year lifespan clock. They had to have either been Spirit or eating from the Tree of Life. Possible that if they had not sinned, they could have remained in Eden forever, but they failed, got kicked out and began breeding with homo-sapiens. Adam lived for 930 years, probably still had some Tree of Life in him.
I tried asking God, but He was not available for comment.
Then why are you taking it as support for an idea that it directly contradicts?
This is what comes of trying to take the whole Genesis story as true while trying to reconcile it with science: in a word, nonsense. You will note that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other on many points, among which you pick and choose. The 7th day can’t have begun 4.2 billion years ago, because the 6th day ends with the creation of humans. Depending on what you mean by “human”, that might be around 200,000 years ago. You also have some land animals created on the 6th day, while others are created in Eden after that during God’s ridiculous search for Adam’s mate. (Have you ever thought about that search, by the way? It’s impossible to take Genesis both literally and seriously if you do; at least one of those must be abandoned.)
There are many other contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and between either and science. Must I mention the creation of the Sun, moon, and stars only after the creation of earth, and in fact after the creation of plants, specifically angiosperms at that?
Ok, you’re right. The stories are more about the origin of human nature than the origin of life, and certainly not based in scientific fact. So, I concede that literal interpretation is not realistic. Thanks for the argument.
I invite you to present your alternate conception, with specific reference to what parts of my comment were wrong. I find that your tendency to make brief, vague pronouncements impedes discussion.
It would definitely be helpful if you would actually say something substantive. I don’t want to be rude, but this is a big problem with much of what you post here. You drop little hints but you don’t actually say what you’re getting at.
Now apparently this is to be an argument over what “literal” means. It seems a sterile argument that has little to do with what we’ve been talking about here in this thread.
I should add that I see nothing in the Chicago statements that conflicts with my understanding fo the term “literal” or with my understanding of what the text would have meant to the writers, judging by the text itself.
