> I'm having to stop believing a lot of what you assert because you're so far removed from modern scholarship.

I don't care too much about what the majority of scholars say. I'm interested in getting at the truth. While the majority can sometimes show a consensus about the truth, we know plenty of historical examples where the majority is dead wrong about things. Majority doesn't count; the truth is what matters.

> In order to ask "why doubt Mosaic authorship" you have to ignore not just modern scholarship but even early Christian arguments.

Early Christians were unanimous in affirming Mosaic authorship. There was no divergent opinion or competing view.

• The OT is solidly affirming Mosaic authorship (Josh. 8.32; 1 Ki. 2.3; 2 Ki. 14.6; 2 Chr. 23.18; 25.4; Ezra 3.2; 6.18; Neh. 13.1; Dan. 9.11, 13)
• Jesus in the NT solidly affirms Mosaic authorship (Mk. 10.5; 12.19, 26; Lk. 20.28; 24.27, 44; Jn. 5.46)
• The NT solidly affirms Mosaic authorship (Acts 3.22; 13.39; 15.5-21; 26.22; 28.23; Rom. 10.5, 19; 1 Cor. 9.9; 2 Cor. 3.15; Rev. 15.3)
• The early Christian church affirmed Mosaic authorship.
• Most biblical scholars until the 19th century affirmed Mosaic authorship.

On what basis are you claiming that I have ignored early Christian arguments?

> Even your first five words of the Moses answer would have scholars puzzled. "The author of the Pentateuch". The author?)

Yes. The Pentateuch was intended to be read as a single book with a distinct purpose, focus, and message. It has a definite shape and structure. it is neither haphazardly thrown together nor a hodgepodge of early documents. It's a single book with a single purpose, recounting the initiation of the covenant and its progress until the Conquest. It is linked by common themes (covenant; faith; obedience; law).

> You tell me to "do some study". I have done some study. Pretty much every time I do it contradicts what you say.

Yeah, I was being modest. I'm a deep biblical scholar with shelves and shelves of books and mountains of notes. I study the original languages, and I've been doing this for four decades. I've written 16 books and numerous articles in professional journals.

> You do have stakes in this game.

I'm only interested in the truth.

> Because your conclusions aren't arrived at by following the evidence and they can't change, you can't afford to follow the evidence in the same way I can.

I've told you this is wrong about 3 or 4 times now. I can only assume you're determined to persist in this lie to feel justified about ignoring what I'm saying. Let me say it again: The evidence comes first, the position follows. Follow the evidence where it leads.

Since we're getting so far from the original topic here I'm going to stop responding point-by-point and conclude my thoughts:

• I'm having to stop believing a lot of what you assert because you're so far removed from modern scholarship. In order to ask "why doubt Mosaic authorship" you have to ignore not just modern scholarship but even early Christian arguments. (Even your first five words of the Moses answer would have scholars puzzled. "The author of the Pentateuch". The author?)
• You tell me to "do some study". I have done some study. Pretty much every time I do it contradicts what you say.
• I have no stake in this game. It doesn't matter to me whether, for instance, the character of yahweh changes from one book to another. You do have stakes in this game. Because your conclusions aren't arrived at by following the evidence and they can't change, you can't afford to follow the evidence in the same way I can. This is why you have to twist a weird interpretation onto the Genesis story in the first place; even the source has to be interpreted in light of your conclusions. That's the trouble with faith.

(Note I was wrong about iron chariots defeating yahweh)

> So what evidence do we have that Moses a) existed, and b) wrote Genesis?

1. The author of the Pentateuch must have been a well-educated man, thoroughly familiar with the desert and must have written in that environment, an eye-witness, and familiar with Egypt. Moses fits that profile, though that profile doesn't point specifically to him.

2. The Jews and Samaritans of the 5th c. BC considered Moses to be the author, as confirmed by the Samaritan Pentateuch. They were inarguably much closer to the original material than we are, especially given the theory that the Pentateuch was written in the 5th century. It would be odd for these Jewish scholars to claim Moses as the author if the documents were being written at the same time.

3. The Jewish traditions of subsequent centuries also identified Moses as the writer. Again, they were closer to the material than we are.

4. The style, shape and structure of the Pentateuch is about a single story, with the central themes being the covenant, the land, and trust in a holy God. By all appearances it was intended to be read as a single book with a distinct purpose, focus, and message. This lead us to a single author. The five books don't seem o be haphazardly thrown together, leaving us with a hodgepodge of assembled documents.

5. Critical analysis shows the usage of terms known only to the 2nd millennium.

6. As a remote source, there is a highly-debated (i.e., little agreed-upon) paper by Doug Petrovich, where he claims to have found proto-consonantal script from the 12th c. BC mentioning not only Moses but also some of the stories recorded in Exodus and Numbers. If he is right (and many say he is not), then he has found evidence of Moses in those Sinaitic mines.

7. The consistent and unanimous biblical testimony is that Moses was the author of the "book of the law" (Josh. 8.31-32; 1 Ki. 2.3; etc.) These books have proved to be reliable in other matters. I have no justified reason to doubt their veracity in the matter of Moses's authorship.

To me a more pertinent question is, why you doubt Mosaic authorship?

> What evidence? Haven't you just asserted this?

If you examine the concept of YHWH in these two books, comparing and contrasting his attributes and behaviors, they align. It's not just an assertion, but a matter of study and comparison.

> I'm afraid I don't believe you. It seems to me as if nephesh isn't at all the same as essence (plants don't have nephesh, for example), so this is just a retcon.

Well then do some study.

> Again, supreme doesn't mean the same as all-powerful.

Correct, but God is portrayed as being all-powerful and supreme. Do the research.

> So do you have newer translations than the current NRSV which incorporate information the NRSV doesn't which shows that your preferred translation is correct?

I use the original Hebrew.

Translation is always a matter of compromise: exact one-for-one grammatical alignment or dynamic translation (getting at the meaning). Translations are always a mixture of scholarly technical work and interpretation.

> Are there translations where I can find these interpretations?

I have no idea. You'd have to search through them. I'm reading the Hebrew and the commentaries. I don't rely on translations as the basis of my research, though they can be interesting and informative.

> But you have to make non-textual assumptions for your explanations.

I have not. I've shown you the grammar. It's the source of the English text. There's no "assumptions" about it.

> You have to read the narrative having already assumed that your conclusion is correct.

Not true. I read the text in the original language, arrive at an understanding about both what it says and what it means, and then derive a conclusion about the narrative. It's the opposite of what you have repeatedly accused me of (you falsely accuse me of dogma over evidence, prejudice over reason, conclusion first then make the text fit it).

> Evidence. I always go by the evidence.

So what evidence do we have that Moses a) existed, and b) wrote Genesis?

> As far as is evident, yes, it's the same understanding of YHWH

What evidence? Haven't you just asserted this?

> Yes, I'm sure.

I'm afraid I don't believe you. It seems to me as if nephesh isn't at all the same as essence (plants don't have nephesh, for example), so this is just a retcon.

> I expect a God who is truly interested in relationship with humans to be responsive to them

What information or arguments can a human present to god that he doesn't already know and hasn't already factored into his decision?

> God doesn't function as one of many, as in those cultures; He functions as supreme over others.

Again, supreme doesn't mean the same as all-powerful.

> Yes, biblical interpretation is a very live science. We are learning more all the time and updating our information and understandings accordingly.

So do you have newer translations than the current NRSV which incorporate information the NRSV doesn't which shows that your preferred translation is correct?

> Geerhardus Vos ... Speiser and Walton ... Blocher and Hamilton

Are there translations where I can find these interpretations? The NRSV surprisingly doesn't even have any footnotes attached to this particular phrase.

> I'm also offering alternative, non-dogmatic explanations—not for why God lies, but to give evidence that He doesn't.

But you have to make non-textual assumptions for your explanations. You have to read the narrative having already assumed that your conclusion is correct.

>> I happen to think Moses wrote Genesis
> Why? Evidence or dogma?

Evidence. I always go by the evidence.

>> "God" in both collections is YHWH.
> But is it the same understanding of yahweh? Understandings changed from time to time and place to place.

As far as is evident, yes, it's the same understanding of YHWH. He has the same attributes and characteristics. There is no evidence to conclude to the contrary.

>> Yes. Their term nephesh pertained to such things, among other things.
> Are you sure? It seems to mainly be linked to sentience.

Yes, I'm sure. You just love these cute toss-offs. Nephesh is various defined as "Life; soul; creature; person; appetite; mind; man’s total nature." the nephesh as no existence apart from the body. Nephesh is the whole self, the unity of flesh, will, and vitality. It denotes a person's life, equivalent of "self." There is nothing particular in it that restricts it to an association with sentience. Whereas the source of nephesh in animals is the ground (animals obviously have sentience), the source of nephesh in humans is God. So it's not particularly talking about sentience as it is about one's total being.

> As we've been covering, the different understandings of yahweh through time and space.

So, expound this thought for me using biblical evidences.

> Wasn't he defeated by iron chariots?

I'm guessing you're referring to Judges 1.19. God had promised them victory (Dt. 20.3-4; Josh. 17.18). They had victory over Jabin with his many chariots (Josh. 11). It wasn't the iron chariots that defeated the Israelites, but instead their own lack of faith. God let them fail.

> And had his mind changed by humans?

I expect a God who is truly interested in relationship with humans to be responsive to them. Jer. 18.1-12 is very clear about that, as is Jonah 3.

> And sends people to find things out?

There are educational reasons to include people, the same way I send my children out to find things out. They learn from it. I know the answer, but I let them learn.

> Why does he need a council to help him out rather than just doing everything himself effortlessly?

The theology of the divine council in the Bible is complex. One thing is clear, however: it's very different than the divine council in the surrounding cultures. God doesn't function as one of many, as in those cultures; He functions as supreme over others.

> I'm talking about constantly updated scholarly translations.

Yes, biblical interpretation is a very live science. We are learning more all the time and updating our information and understandings accordingly.

> And the two which have been recommended to me most often (NRSV and Jewish Publication Society) render it as god saying that they will die either as soon as they eat the fruit, or on the day they eat the fruit.

Just because those two interpret it as they do doesn't make that translation the official one. Geerhardus Vos says "for on the day that you eat of it" is a Hebrew idiom meaning "as surely as you eat of it," used for "inevitable eventuation."

The phrase doesn't suggest that death will be immediate, as Speiser and Walton also assert. Rather, the wording indicates they will be doomed to die. Their destiny of death is now sealed. Blocher and Hamilton also concur, translating it as, "On that day you will fall under a death sentence."

> And scripture can't be wrong?

I've never known it to be wrong. If you can substantiate that God is capable of lying, let's talk about it.

> I'm offering alternative, non-dogmatic explanations for why god lies in Genesis.

I'm also offering alternative, non-dogmatic explanations—not for why God lies, but to give evidence that He doesn't.

> I'm pinning my explanation on two things:

But anyone could come up with an explanation like that. Doesn't mean it's the right one. You have to show it's the explanation the authors had in mind.

> I happen to think Moses wrote Genesis

Why? Evidence or dogma?

> Yes, absolutely. "God" in both collections is YHWH.

But is it the same understanding of yahweh? Understandings changed from time to time and place to place.

> Yes. Their term nephesh pertained to such things, among other things.

Are you sure? It seems to mainly be linked to sentience.

>The contexts of the 48 times El-Shaddai is used in the Scriptures.

But you have to take into account the context of each of the writings. As we've been covering, the different understandings of yahweh through time and space.

> While the other gods of the ancient Near East are expressed with limitations, YHWH is never so expressed

Wasn't he defeated by iron chariots? And had his mind changed by humans? And sends people to find things out? Why does he need a council to help him out rather than just doing everything himself effortlessly?

> Subsequently, though, we can't go back and change previous publications (like the King James and the RSV), and in addition some people stick with their traditions despite the new information.

I'm not talking about dogmatic translations like that though. I'm talking about constantly updated scholarly translations. And the two which have been recommended to me most often (NRSV and Jewish Publication Society) render it as god saying that they will die either as soon as they eat the fruit, or on the day they eat the fruit.

>The Scripture affirms in many places that God is righteous and He does not lie and cannot lie

And scripture can't be wrong?

> Sure, you're just pulling this out of the air because you're grasping as straws, but it's not legitimate without some kind of evidence.

I'm offering alternative, non-dogmatic explanations for why god lies in Genesis.

> However you're pinning your order-centric explanation on a generalisation of broad ideas in the ancient world.

I'm pinning my explanation on two things: (1) it is a reasonable explanation of the text, and (2) it fits perfectly with the ancient mindset and worldview.

> How far apart in time were Genesis and Job written? Are they about the same god?

It is unknown when either were written. It is thought that Job is the oldest book in the Bible, with a writing style and culture context that puts it at about 2000 BC.

I happen to think Moses wrote Genesis, though it was not put down on papyrus until many centuries later. Moses was authority behind the book, and someone later collated his words, teachings, and the stories about the Israelites that were part of their oral culture, and assembled them into the "books of Moses." I believe Moses wrote things down (the Book of the Law), but later they were translated into Hebrew and assembled into a collection.

Therefore, to answer your question, I put the writing of the two books about 700 years apart: Job in 2000, and Genesis in 1300.

> Are they about the same god?

Yes, absolutely. "God" in both collections is YHWH.

> You're mixing up western christian notions with ANE notions here.

I am most certainly not.

> Would the Israelites have thought in terms of essences at this time?

Yes. Their term *nephesh* pertained to such things, among other things.

> What are you basing this on? Yahweh saying he's more powerful than other gods doesn't mean he's all-powerful.

The contexts of the 48 times El-Shaddai is used in the Scriptures. While the other gods of the ancient Near East are expressed with limitations, YHWH is never so expressed. He is manifested as all-powerful, that nothing is impossible for him, and that He is able to do whatever is the proper object of His power. He can never be overwhelmed, exhausted, or contained. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature. What He chooses to do He accomplishes because He is all-powerful.

> Why is it invariably translated like that if it's not the most accurate translation?

First of all, traditions carry weight in some people's minds. Second, we are learning more now, because of archaeology, than has ever been known before. Our knowledge gets fuller and more refined. Subsequently, though, we can't go back and change previous publications (like the King James and the RSV), and in addition some people stick with their traditions despite the new information.

> Or god could have lied. Or some transcribers somewhere made a mistake.

Actually neither of these are very good choices. The Scripture affirms in many places that God is righteous and He does not lie and cannot lie (Num. 23.19; 1 Sam. 15.29).

Secondly, there is no evidence anywhere that "some transcribers somewhere made a mistake." Sure, you're just pulling this out of the air because you're grasping as straws, but it's not legitimate without some kind of evidence. Without supporting evidence, the hypothesis hangs in the air with nowhere to go and nothing to give it weight.

> Because "wisdom" in the ancient world was a fundamental characteristic of divinity, so much so that wisdom was often personified, and wisdom was understood in the ancient world as the primary way that the deities ordered the world. It's a key term and concept.

Sure. Again, I wouldn't dispute that. However you're pinning your order-centric explanation on a generalisation of broad ideas in the ancient world. You haven't shown that this specific story, coming out of this specific culture, is about one of these big ideas in particular.

> Wisdom was the template by which God ran the world (and not the retribution principle, as demonstrated by the book of Job).

How far apart in time were Genesis and Job written? Are they about the same god?

> Wisdom is what God is in His essence. So when Eve says the fruit was desirable for wisdom, she is claiming that she perceives it will make her like God and put her as center and locus of order.

You're mixing up western christian notions with ANE notions here. Would the Israelites have thought in terms of essences at this time?

> Correct, but YHWH was. That's how the biblical writers portrayed him as distinct from the false deities of the surrounding cultures. Consider the context and theology surrounding the use of the term.

What are you basing this on? Yahweh saying he's more powerful than other gods doesn't mean he's all-powerful.

> The phrase need not be translated 'you shall surely die,' as it invariably is.

Why is it invariably translated like that if it's not the most accurate translation?

> Immediate death did not result in this instance. The point of the narrative is man's ultimate punishment rather than instantaneous death.

Or god could have lied. Or some transcribers somewhere made a mistake.

> How is that an order-centric explanation?

Because "wisdom" in the ancient world was a fundamental characteristic of divinity, so much so that wisdom was often personified, and wisdom was understood in the ancient world as the primary way that the deities ordered the world. It's a key term and concept.

Wisdom was the template by which God ran the world (and not the retribution principle, as demonstrated by the book of Job). Wisdom is what God is in His essence. So when Eve says the fruit was desirable for wisdom, she is claiming that she perceives it will make her like God and put her as center and locus of order.

> Yes these myths were created in a certain context

These aren't myths. They are theological interpretations of historical events.

>> Indications are that the surrounding culture used it as an epithet for the power of their deities
> Deities which weren't all-powerful.

Correct, but YHWH was. That's how the biblical writers portrayed him as distinct from the false deities of the surrounding cultures. Consider the context and theology surrounding the use of the term.

> You have a conclusion in mind when you read the text so you infer things which weren't intended by the author.

Actually it was the opposite. Reading the text led me to the conclusion, and researching the culture reinforced the conclusion.

> And yet, others translate the "straight up hebrew grammar" as "as soon as you eat of it, you shall die".

Please read more carefully what I said. Again, it seems you are more dedicated to argumentation than to learning. What I wrote is,

"The resulting phrase is a flexible utterance capable of conveying various shades of meaning. 'You shall surely die;' 'You shall be doomed to death.' The phrase need not be translated 'you shall surely die,' as it invariably is. Immediate death did not result in this instance. The point of the narrative is man's ultimate punishment rather than instantaneous death.

"Speiser says a better translation is 'You shall be doomed to death,' which is exactly what happened. Walton concurs: 'The wording indicates they will be doomed to die. This destiny is sealed when they are cast from the garden and prevented from eating from the tree of life.' "

> She knows this is what is going on, because she says the fruit was "desirable for gaining wisdom." There's the evidence you're after. There's the order-centric explanation of Adam and Eve's motives.

How is that an order-centric explanation? You've just leapt to order from a quote about wisdom. Yes, an order/chaos dichotomy is common in ANE myths, and yahweh forms the earth etc. out of chaos, but you still haven't shown that the motivations of Adam/Eve are anything to do with order/chaos.

> many verses where knowledge is connected with wisdom is connected with deity is connected with order

Connecting knowledge to a deity is one thing. Then making the unconnected leap to order is another.

> You have to connect dots with terms, context, cross-references, and the culture itself. I can show you all the dots and number them for you, but you have to be able to use reason.

We have dots. You haven't shown a path between them.

> Just looking at the English and making all decisions from it is not justified in a text this ancient that depends on the cultural context for understanding.

What I mean is when I see "the cat sat on the mat" I don't read "the cat wanted to subvert the natural chaos of the world to rule the underworld". Yes these myths were created in a certain context, but that doesn't mean your conclusions are automatically right, you have to show that they are.

> Indications are that the surrounding culture used it as an epithet for the power of their deities

Deities which weren't all-powerful.

> There. There's at least 3.

Fair enough.

> You're working so hard to be obfuscatory. Implied reason and inferred reason are the same thing, just in different directions. I imply something to someone else; I infer from others to myself.

Not at all. You have a conclusion in mind when you read the text so you infer things which weren't intended by the author.

> Nope. Not at all. Straight up Hebrew grammar. An emphatic construction of the absolute infinitive coupled with the finite verb of the same root: "Dying you shall die."

And yet, others translate the "straight up hebrew grammar" as "as soon as you eat of it, you shall die".