I believe that the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses. Sheed is free to disagree but, in the Gospel accounts, Jesus occasionally refers to the Mosaic authorship of these books. (I don’t have a list of these references and I don’t have the time to make one, but I think you know what I’m talking about.)
Reading all this I wonder if you accept the Scriptures as being inspired by the Holy Spirit. You say that Genesis was written with “political undertones” as an apologetic against religions viewed as false. That sounds to me like you are saying that the human authors had an agenda in their writing other than to present the truth as revealed by the Holy Spirit. I’d just like you to clarify what you believe about the Bible and its divine origin.Gary, I am not against what you are exploring – but I think your argument needs deeper foundations. A public opinion sampling does not always accurately reflect the body of knowledge about a subject.
eg: In the first place, why start “only” with the book of Genesis? It was written in a historical background which we have evidence about – and which allows us to recognize political undertones in its apologetic against other religions which it views as corrupt. These apologetics, though, often take the form of mocking the other religions choice of images and language. eg: The stars are part of a calendar, rather than being God’s in their own rite, or fire altars of sacrifice in the heavens as some Greeks seem to suggest.
– actually, however one starts reading scripture – biblical interpretation, like science, generally adheres to the hypotheses and theory pattern of growth in understanding.
Those who read in an interpretation (which how else does one grasp the text?) are either arrogant or humble.
The humble ones check their work in hopes of eliminating personal errors…others just shove an ill fitting interpretation (secular or religious) into the foray to bicker.
Quite easily, by noting the context in which statements are made. In many modern commentaries fictional (or rather) parody is used politically to convey both truths and ridicule – these Genre’s presume, however, that the audience shares a common experience of how the various “factions” attempt to “prove” their point. Ignorance of history is ignorance of important telltale signs of what authors mean by their statements.
Yankee doodle went to town…
– Some speculation posted (not singling you out) needs a bit of thoughtful analysis to show weaknesses.
Glad to meet you.
–Andrew.
Sorry, but I’m not going to waste my time on anything Sungenis has to say on the topic.
According to the Toledoths of Genesis the books were compiled by Moses. There were pre-existing tablets that He had access too.
Why, because you don’t like some of his other works? Does that invalidate verything he writes?
In a way, yes. When one goes off the deep end on a subject (one directly related to this discussion), he loses credibility in his other writings as far as I am concerned.
It is illogical.
We are not talking about that though, are we?
He has other backing on the Toledoths.
Doesn’t mean that I will go to his website.
The Toledoths show where the material came from, who compiled it and other things. It is worth reading.
It is irrelevant whether Moses used source material or not. I doubt it however since the Pentateuch was obvioiuisly written while wandering in the wilderness and clay tablets just don’t mix well with a nomadic lifestyle.
Gary,
I don’t know, the Ark of the Covenant moved around pretty well.
I would be keen to see your example of this “cow”, since I doubt anything “new” could arise.
Gee, rather than a cow – which might get argued pointlessly into the ground, although they have been modified – how about a rabbit which GLOWS. It is a stupid, frivolous way to prove the point – but a jellyfish rabbit is a new one!
If you have a glowing genetically engineered rabbit – I’d love to buy one from you. The french outfit is a tad expensive.