Post by Johnny Gotham on Jan 16, 2005 13:08:52 GMT -5
Yes. The tablet theory explains how the exents of Genesis 1-11 were recorded by eye witnesses, and are not just compiled myths. In addition, Gnesis 12-50 is taken historically, why should the first five be any different?
'Many pastors, writers, and even seminary professors rely on the "JEDP Documentary Hypothesis" to explain how the book of Genesis was originally written. This concept says that for many centuries the stories were passed down orally, usually with embellishments or deletions, and were not committed to writing until much later than the events they describe. Naturally, this idea doesn't tend to inspire confidence in the literal accuracy of the account. Thus it's favored by theologians of a liberal bent.
In contrast, the "Tablet Theory" suggests that portions of Genesis were originally written on clay tablets by men who personally experienced the events described. The tablets were later compiled by Moses. Since the original writers were said to be eye-witnesses, their accounts should be historically accurate. This article briefly describes the development and implications of these two theories.'
Read the rest at www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp.
In addition, the entire book of Genesis is written in historical prose, meaning it is meant as a history book. Genesis does not bear the ususal absurdities in creation myths, and it was meant to be taken literally. (see www.christiancourier.com/questions/creationMythQuestion.htm). Finally, Genesis 12-50 are taken as historical, so why not 1-11?
For more on this topic, go here christiananswers.net//q-aig/aig-c024.html,
www.raidersnewsupdate.com/pagan.htm, and www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genesis.asp.
'Many pastors, writers, and even seminary professors rely on the "JEDP Documentary Hypothesis" to explain how the book of Genesis was originally written. This concept says that for many centuries the stories were passed down orally, usually with embellishments or deletions, and were not committed to writing until much later than the events they describe. Naturally, this idea doesn't tend to inspire confidence in the literal accuracy of the account. Thus it's favored by theologians of a liberal bent.
In contrast, the "Tablet Theory" suggests that portions of Genesis were originally written on clay tablets by men who personally experienced the events described. The tablets were later compiled by Moses. Since the original writers were said to be eye-witnesses, their accounts should be historically accurate. This article briefly describes the development and implications of these two theories.'
Read the rest at www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp.
In addition, the entire book of Genesis is written in historical prose, meaning it is meant as a history book. Genesis does not bear the ususal absurdities in creation myths, and it was meant to be taken literally. (see www.christiancourier.com/questions/creationMythQuestion.htm). Finally, Genesis 12-50 are taken as historical, so why not 1-11?
For more on this topic, go here christiananswers.net//q-aig/aig-c024.html,
www.raidersnewsupdate.com/pagan.htm, and www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genesis.asp.