Adam was created on the 3rd day

genesis 1 and 2 are approximately the same length. genesis 2's order is causal -- one action causes the next. the order cannot be non-linear. non-linear storytelling would be anachronistic anyways. short summaries followed by lengthy elaborations are, indeed, somewhat common in the bible. but i think you'll find the longer examples are the work of multiple authors. ie: job 1/2 (and 42?), vs job 3-41. it functions as recursive text, but it is the result of two completely separate hands. genesis 1 and 2 do not even function this way -- we would have to read genesis 1 as a larger story, and genesis 2 as an expansion of day 6. chapter 1 then would not be a summary of chapter 2. again, texts of similar length, by different authors. it does not apply here. an example of this actually much more obvious than you think. it's genesis 1:1, and then genesis 1:2-2:4. the first verse says "in the beginning, god created the skies and the ground." and then the rest of the chapter tells how god created the skies (and all the objects in it) and the ground (and everything that lives on it).it does not apply to genesis 1 and genesis 2. both are complete stories in their own right, written in two slightly different styles. they are comparable works, by different authors.there have been some attempts to justify them against one another, so that they do not contradict, but this is rather pointless. it is distorting the meaning of one text with another. if you want a good rationalization for noncontradiction here, i could give one, but i promise it makes a lot more sense this way. especially in light of the rest of the bible and its compostion.

---

OK, perhaps that was a bad suggestion. I don't know anything about the author. I just took a cursory glance at the article, and it appeared to be a scholarly discussion promoting Mosaic authorship. If it was a bad example, I apologize. That's what we sometimes call research! You might have to actually go to a library and look at it, instead of relying on second and third hand opinions. If you do, you'll find that it truly IS a scholarly work, even though you may disagree with its position.Here are some specific suggestions:
Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction
Philip Budd, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 5, Numbers
Duane Christensen, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 6B, Deuteronomy
John Durham, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 3, Exodus
Victor P. Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, New International Commentary on the Old Testament
Victor P. Hamilton, Genesis 18-50, New International Commentary on the Old Testament
R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible
R.K. Harrison, Leviticus, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series
John Hartley, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 4, Leviticus
James Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt
Walter Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents
Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament
Eugene Merrill, Deuteronomy, New American Commentary Series (I took a class from the author; he is a true world-class scholar)
Eugene Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (I own this one, and highly recommend it)
Bruce Waltke, Genesis (I own this one, and recommend it)
Gordon Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 1, Gen 1-15 (I own this one, and highly recommend it)
Gordon Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 2, Gen 16-50
Gordon Wenham, Leviticus, New International Commentary on the Old Testament
Gordon Wenham, Numbers, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary SeriesNote that I've added some additional authors who were not on my earlier list. The above are all writings from conservative scholars who believe in Mosaic authorship. Of the above, the Word commentary series is probably the most scholarly in style (lots of grammatical details from the Hebrew). The others are more accessible to those who don't read Hebrew.I'm sure you can find negative reviews of these works from mainstream biblical scholars. And if you are lazy rather than scholarly, you may want to reject them based on this without actually looking at any of the works. But if anyone wants to really understand the scholarly basis for Mosaic authorship, I would recommend actually going to the sources directly. Whether or not you agree with Mosaic authorship, I think you'll find that there is scholarly basis to be made for it.

Thanks for the extended list. I haven't looked up all of them yet, but I am noticing a pattern. First, all the names I have looked up are people who belong to conservative Christian sects or the conservative wings of mainstream sects, and that they have positions at seminaries and religious institutions. Second, all of the information I can look up on the works listed are praises as devotional works.But what I really noticed is that these people don't seem to be merely arguing against the documentary hypothesis, but are actually arguing for the existence of a historical Moses and the Exodus as an actual historical event.This correlation seems remarkable to me since the historicity of the Exodus is itself a minority viewpoint in Middle Eastern archeology. And although their subject matters overlap somewhat, archeology and Biblical criticism are different fields relying on different methodologies, and even rely on very different sets of evidence. Single authorship of Genesis and the historicity of the Exodus are not really logically related: I could imagine a single author of the Pentateuch merely copying down the creation myths of his people, and I can imagine multiple authors of the Pentateuch relying on records of an actual historical event. I find it surprising, therefore, that there isn't an instance of someone who finds the textual evidence compelling for a single authorship of Genesis, but nonetheless admits that the archeological evidence is against the historicity of the Exodus. Since in only your third post on this board you expressed misgivings about people's "agenda" on this board, I'll leave it for to you to consider the possible agendas promoted by the people on your list.Since I really don't want to continue to waste our time with a topic that neither of us seems to be interested in, I'll just ask whether you know of any scholarly works supporting an alternative to the documentary hypothesis by a less religiously motivated person working at a secular Classics department, published, perhaps, by a secular university press, and then leave it there.Added by edit:
Actually, it just occurred to me that the last question is a bit unfair. Much of the Jesus Seminar, as an example, are associated with schools/departments of theology but that doesn't stop them from publishing work that is reviled by the conservatives. So perhaps academic affiliation isn't really a good way to judge reliability in this field.Edited by Chiroptera, : Besides adding the last bit, changed subtitle.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

No, I don't know of any, sorry. But I've never looked for any.The reason for my posts in this thread was simple. I saw comments ridiculing the idea of Mosaic authorship and claiming that there was no scholarly support for it. These comments themselves were very dogmatic and unscholarly, and appeared to come from folks who have no training in biblical or theological areas. So I tried to raise the level of the discussion and suggest that there actually is some good biblical scholarship which DOES support Mosaic authorship. But I sense resistance to this, and a desire to try to dismiss the data without even examining it!This may be harsh, but the approach that I've seen here toward biblical scholarship is not much different from the YEC approach to scientific scholarship. People initially make dogmatic, unscholarly claims about subjects in which they have no expertise. Then when scholarly data is presented which does not fit nicely into their simplified view of the world, they seek to dismiss it. They do not have the inclination to study the subject and analyze the data on their own, so they go to their favorite "experts" for a verdict (mainstream naturalistic biblical scholarship on the one hand, AIG or Sarfati or Morris on the other). Then they can feel justified in dismissing uncomfortable data without a scholarly examination.

Except so far you have not presented any scholarly support.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's fair enough. I was a little surprised myself at the unequivocal denial of evidence for Mosaic scholarship. I was under the impression myself that there was a scientifically legitimate minority that supported single authorship of Genesis.Unfortunately, your attempts to support this were, in my opinion, not very adequate. Just to take a couple of your examples:

quote:

---

Eugene Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (I own this one, and highly recommend it)
Bruce Waltke, Genesis (I own this one, and recommend it)
Gordon Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 1, Gen 1-15 (I own this one, and highly recommend it)

---

(Added by edit: I purposely chose the ones that you said that you own so you can comment, if you wish, on the accuracy of the comments I am quoting.)When I look up these individuals and these works I find things that seem troubling to me. I have already commented on Dr. Wenham's book. And here is what I find when I look up the others:From the blurb on Dr. Watke's book:

quote:

---

Exploring the first book of the Bible as "theological literature," Waltke illuminates its meanings and methods for the pastor, scholar, teacher, student, and Bible-lover. Genesis strikes an unusual balance by emphasizing the theology of the Scripture text while also paying particular attention to the flow and development of the plot and literary techniques”inclusion, irony, chiasm, and concentric patterning”that shape the message of the "book of beginnings.L Genesis Models the way to read and interpret the narratives of the book of Genesis Provides helpful exegetical notes that address key issues and debates surrounding the text Includes theological reflections on how the message addresses our contemporary theological and social issues, such as ecology, homosexuality, temperance, evil, prayer, and obedience

---

And here is what I find for Dr. Merrill's work (written by someone who wrote a positive review):

quote:

---

The crucial fact to consider in this work is that Merrill explicitly states that his position stems from the assumption that the Bible is the revealed Word of GOD (itself a minority view among "Biblical scholars").

---

I just don't understand what these sorts of things have to do with "scholarship". I'm sure that you, as a scientist, don't include stuff like this in your scholarly writings, and I don't see what these have to do with what is essentially a historical analysis.I have read exactly three books on Biblical criticism. I won't specify which ones since I think they tended to be out of the mainstream themselves and I don't want that to distract from the point I am trying to make. Namely, that these books read exactly like secular history. During the course of this thread, I decided to look up the authors, and found out that one is a Jesuit priest and the other teaches at a seminary affiliated with the Methodist Church. I was greatly surprised by this (prompting the addendum in my previous post) -- I never suspected their religious backgrounds from reading these particular works.To me, this is what scholarship is. It doesn't have to be dry or uninteresting, but the writer should not be betraying so explicitly her own ideological partisanship. After all, it is a fact that a single person wrote Genesis, or it is a fact that Genesis is the result of the work of several people. This fact should be ascertainable simply by examining whatever physical evidence there is, whether is is a careful analysis of the texts or an examination of archeological finds. Just as in biology and geology, one's religious beliefs should be completely irrelevant as to what the facts are, and what are the reasonable inferences that one can draw from those facts.That is not to say that the people on your list aren't scholars. And it may very well be that mixed in with the theological junk there is some valid textual criticism and historical analysis. But sure, as a scientist, you can see how mixing the theology would diminish the credibility of the works? I think we all recognize what a great scholar William Paley was, but we also recognize that his Natural Theology is a very different creature than the Natural History of Lyell and Darwin.Now I don't know Classical Hebrew or Akkadian or Aramaic. I do not have any direct experience with Middle Eastern archeology or Mesopotamian histriography. So when someone is trying to explain something to me, I have no way of knowing, really, how reliable they are, and when several people's accounts contradict one another I really don't know who is more accurate. I have to figure out some way of deciding how reliable the various sources are. So when I find this about the institution with which Dr. Merrill is affiliated:

quote:

---

Dallas Seminary stands unequivocally committed to the Scriptures, God's inerrant, infallible, authoritative written revelation.

---

and I find similar statements connected with several of the authors on your list, I start to get a little bit suspicious. Regardless of these particular persons' opinions on the issue, they are part of the same crowd that has so badly embarrassed themselves in regards to biology and geology. Now am I really expected that suddenly these people are going to have an open mind when they study the scriptures that are central to their faith?That is what I find most telling about your list. You make it seem as if Mosaic authorship is confined to the conservative wing of believing Christians. Surely you must realize how suspicious that is. If the evidence is not yet final for the documentary hypothesis, if there is reason to believe in single authorship (even for Moses himself as author), then where are the agnostic and secular researchers and the liberal theologians who accept single authorship?I am still willing to believe that Mosaic authorship is a scientifically legitimate (if minority) position, and that the list you supplied just reflects where your personal interests in this matter lie. I am simply trying to explain why, based on what little I know, I would probably not be impressed with the sources you cite.And, of course, I may be wrong. The blurbs I quote might be wrong; the works you cite may have no theology whatsoever (except what is necessary to explain the historical context, of course), and that they read exactly like secular history texts.Edited by Chiroptera, : Added indicated sentence. And, what the heck, I might as well change the subtitle, too.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Hey Brother,
Haven't we met?
I would like to ask you to show me clearly where the verse says God created man on the third day. I can show you clearly, without any need for private interpretation, that God created man on the sixth day, and no other day is ever mentioned in the Bible for the creation of man.
In fact, I do not recall anything in the early writings of the ante-Nicene, nor in Josephus, or else where; where man was supposed to be created on the third day. I do believe that any writing or commentary of the early church supports the sixth day creation of man.

Welcome cmettsSC,Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.I suggest you read from the beginning of the thread, because I think your questions have been asked. You might want to see how they were answered and try a new approach.As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Abide by the Forum Guidelines and you will be a welcome addition.In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.Please direct any questions or comments you may have to the Moderation Thread.Again, welcome and fruitful debating.

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

Hi Cmetts,Small world isn't it? I have had this thread here close to a year, and its still gaining in popularity. Have had some challenging feedback, so you might find it enjoyable to read through it as PD suggested.To answer you in brief though -- Nowhere does it say in the Bible that Adam was created on the third day. If it said it clearly it would be a widely held view. As it is, I only know of 2 people on the planet that believe it... myself and one other person I have shared it with.I agree the Bible is clear that man was created on the sixth day in the image of God. Adam being created in the likeness of God in Gen 2 is not the same creation. From likeness to image is a progression.To your question about other early writings: God did not reveal everything to the early church, but there is hidden manna that He choses to reveal in His own time and purpose.In the First book of Adam and Eve, the account begins with:"ON the third day, God planted the garden in the east of the earth,"That at least makes it clear that the Garden was planted on the third day. In Genesis 2 it is clear that Adam was created before the Garden:Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."had formed" is in the perfect tense, indicating an already completed action from verse 7.

Sorry to jump in on this string so late, been busy in other places. I've read a few of the other posts along this line of thinking and I'm still a bit unclear.Do you contend that this means that God made Adam to look like God? In other words, if we were to meet God, would God look human?

Hi Nuggin,To see God would be to see Jesus. He is the image of God, and so to be made in the image of God is to be made in Jesus... as one body with many members.

So, here's my question...Why does God have a penis?

Hey Brother,
Yes it is.To the Admin: I've read the thread from the beginning, it has been pretty deep.As for the first book of Adam and Eve, it is listed as a Pseudepigrapha, that means false writing. For this reason, I believe it was left out of the Bible.However, in the same chapter; 4 "And God created that sea of his own good pleasure, for He knew what would come of the MAN HE WOULD MAKE; so that after he had left the garden, on account of his transgression, men should be born in the earth. Among them are righteous ones who will die, whose souls God would raise at the last day; when all of them will return to their flesh, bathe in the water of that sea, and repent of their sins." Here it seems that the making of man was still in the future. Besides, the whole book is not concerned with the timing of events, only that on the third day God made the garden.

Hi Cmetts,The book of Adam and Eve could be a false writing, but it could also be true with the possibility of corruption. What is already in the Bible should be held as the standard. I am not for certain about it, and only have read the first few chapters. You did ask about other early writings which is why I brought it up.To verse 4: This is more divided up by the subject rather than a time line. A narrative where God starts talking about the Garden and its location encompased by the sea. In mentioning the sea He backs up in time to when He created the sea, the purposes of it in "what would come of the MAN HE WOULD MAKE;" In context that means: the man He would make AFTER the sea. Adam was made after the sea but before the garden. That is all I wished to bring forth. The Bible is pretty clear that the garden was made on the third day, but this makes it for certain. Some believe the Garden was planted after the creation... God took the plants that He created on the third day and planted them in the Garden.

Gen 1:9-13
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.
10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning ” the third day.
NIVGen 1:26-31
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground ” everything that has the breath of life in it ” I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning ” the sixth day.
NIVThere is nowhere in the third day that mentions or implies the creation of man. Also, the note the distinct difference between Creature and Man does not imply that Man is animal.