ICANT writes:
DWIII writes:
One thing puzzles me, which, after a whopping 150-plus posts, seems to be dancing around an important issue: What was the geographical context at the time when this this was actually written?
If you had read my posts there would be no puzzle as I have stated that the Earth's geography was the same at the time of the writing as it is today.
The dividing of the dry land that appeared in Genesis 1:9, 10 that God called Earth took place more than a thousand years before the writing of Genesis.
What, more than
a thousand years after this Earth-shattering event??? Surely, writing must have existed in some form during this incredible time of immense geographic upheaval, since people clearly existed then. Why then no contemporaneous accounts for cross-reference?
And yes the writer of Genesis knew about the Red Sea as they had crossed it just a few years prior to the writing of Genesis. He also knew about a body of water that had land mass on the other side as he fled there and stayed for 40 years.
You are presuming that the writer of Genesis was Moses. Where, in Genesis, does it state that Moses wrote this stuff himself? There is no such indication in the text, so how do you get that from what Genesis tells us?
DWIII writes:
Is it not more plausible that the original creation texts, and subsequent Biblical writings, reflected the limited (but growing) geographical knowledge of the peoples who wrote it in the first place?
A lot of things may be plausible but the author of Genesis was with the only eye wittness to the creation for 40 days. The same eye wittness that was there at the time of the flood.
But if the land mass was in one place as it was at Pangea with the water in one place the geography would be a lot different than it is today.
Well, of course, the geographic model of a primitive creation story (Genesis 1) would be quite a lot more simple than a less-primitive story (Genesis 10) whose entire purpose is to explain, after the fact, why the more recently-learned-about geography of Genesis 10 just doesn't fit in at all with the Genesis 1 version of geography.
Isn't it interesting that we are limited to go by the problematic interpretations of a single inspired text only, when just a handful of
inspired maps could have quite easily settled any ambiguity along those lines?
Edited by DWIII, : typo-fix
DWIII
™ Version 4.2
