Introduction I agree with mainstream Biblical scholars that Genesis 1-11 are stories. However, I believe that they are true stories written down by eye-witnesses, much as most of the rest of the stories in the Bible are. I disagree that they are stories re-writing similar Mesopotamian stories to fit the ancient Hebrew traditions.(1) While I also agree that the human authors and editors Rûãch @Élöhîm (2) (Spirit of God) inspired to record these stories made important and necessary contributions during the writing process, I contend that ultimately the Storyteller is Rûãch @Élöhîm. He guided the authors' and editors' word and content choices to write down His Story as He wanted it written down. In other words, I believe that Genesis (in the original) was the inspired word of YHWH @Élöhîm, the Storyteller who made heaven and earth, and the ultimate Eyewitness. I do not want to demean the research and hard work of mainstream Biblical scholars in their pursuit of history. I think that most sincerely seek to deduce what happened and how things came to be. However, I also think that they are starting from a false premise, which inevitably leads to an unsound conclusion, no matter how valid their reasoning might be in their interpretation of the evidence. Background I realize that I am neither the first nor the last person to wonder who wrote Genesis. Theories abound from mainstream Biblical scholars to those who are simply interested in the question. While I am a scholar, I am not a mainstream scholar. Thus, I suppose I fall into the second category. Following Rûãch @Élöhîm's calling me as a scholar/artist in pursuit of the knowledge of God with a focus on YHWH @Élöhîm as a creative Artist by studying the truth of His Story and appreciating the beauty of His artistry as an expression of who He is, Rûãch @Élöhîm kept me away from mainstream Biblical scholars' writings for the first 20 or so years of my work. Instead, He brought alternative scholars' work to my attention, such as Dr. David Rohl, Dr. Ernest L. Martin, and Dr. Arthur C. Custance. Thus, I learned to think outside the box of mainstream Biblical scholarship, and to understand that Rûãch @Élöhîm also thought outside that box. Only recently has Rûãch @Élöhîm sent me to mainstream Biblical scholarship, primarily to the work of Dr. Michael Heiser and his extensive knowledge of current mainstream Biblical scholars' writings. It has been very interesting to read what mainstream Biblical scholars have to say. However, I detect an undercurrent in their writings that, I believe, is a holdover of what I understand happened in the 19th century to Biblical scholarship. With the discovery of ancient records in archaeological digs, the secularists triumphed in diminishing the Bible as the authoritative and accurate historical record providing a framework for Ancient Near East history. (3) Instead, they elevated man's records above the Bible as the historical record within which all other historical records must fit. Apparently, this resulted in a split within mainstream Biblical scholars between those who accepted the secularists' view and those who maintained the traditional view that the written word of God was an accurate historical record. But, even in those holding the traditional view of Scripture, there seems to have been a shift in tone away from Genesis 1 to 11 (in particular) as a record of literal events and more to Genesis 1 to 11 as stories (that might or might not be literal) intended to teach theological messaging within the context of the Ancient Near East culture. (4) (5) In other words, even the traditionalist mainstream Biblical scholars appear to hold that man's written archaeological records took precedence over Rûãch @Élöhîm's written record in Genesis 1 to 11. I argue that that is the false premise underlying all their interpretations, deductions, and conclusions. Why do I think this1 I came to this conclusion because the shift in tone (or undercurrent) in these writings 'clangs' in my spirit. 'Clanging' in my spirit is a tool Rûãch @Élöhîm has trained me to use in discerning when something is fundamentally wrong and out of sync with Scripture. It's a warning to pray, think about, and analyze whatever it is I'm reading or sensing. In this case, Rûãch @Élöhîm brought to my mind that the answer to what I sense is wrong lay in re-visiting the rules of logic. According to the rules of logic, a reasoner can ONLY reach a SOUND conclusion if he starts with a TRUE premise and uses VALID reasoning. If he starts with a false premise and uses valid reasoning, his conclusion is unsound. If he starts with a true premise and uses invalid reasoning, his conclusion is unsound. Of course, starting with a false premise and using invalid reasoning also results in an unsound conclusion. If the mainstream Biblical scholars are starting from a false premise, then, no matter how valid their reasoning, their interpretation of the evidence results in an unsound conclusion. In analyzing what the false premise was, Rûãch @Élöhîm brought to my mind something I had picked up on in my readings in Biblical studies before He had me starting my pursuit of the truth of His Story: scholars treat the Mesopotamian stories as having greater validity than Genesis because they think the Mesopotamian stories came first. That has never set right with me. I believe the opposite is true. As the Storyteller, Rûãch @Élöhîm's written record takes precedence and man's archeological record should be interpreted in light of the truth of His Story as He inspired the human writers of Genesis 1-11 to record it, both before and after the Flood. The Bible remains the accurate historical record into which human history must fit. Now, in terms of theological messaging, I don't see why the stories could not be both the literal records of the events in YHWH's Story as well as teaching theological messaging. However, from the limited reading I've done of the works of mainstream Biblical scholars, I don't get the impression that's seriously considered as a possibility. Still, I'll stick with the out-of-the-box thinking that Rûãch @Élöhîm taught me and consider Genesis as a true historical record of YHWH's Story written by eyewitnesses that teaches the theological messages He intended to convey.
FOOTNOTES 1 Annus, Amar. "On the Origin of Watchers: A Comparative Study of Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions." Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha. Vol.19.4 (2010) pp. 277-320. Return 2 My transliteration system is my own. I based it on the official transliteration system, but re-worked it for use in MS Word. The diacritical marks weren't available in MS Word in 1996 when I started my research (or, at least I didn't know how to access them). While this mostly affects the vowels, I also use @ for aleph and ø for ayin. Half the time I could not tell the difference between the apostrophe and the reverse apostrophe due to bad eyesight. So, I found symbols that I could see and easily distinguish between. Return 3 I'm not including a specific citation for this assertion because I don't remember specifically where I read this. I think it was probably from multiple sources. Also, to me, it's obvious from general scholarship that the Bible was demoted and secular records were touted as the more accurate historical records. Return 4 Although I was aware of this shift in tone before I read Dr. Heiser's work, I'm taking the 'theological messaging' language from his book, The Unseen Realm. That's probably the clearest explanation of this idea that I've run across. Return 5 Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm. Bellingham: Lexham Press. 2015, 413p. Return Return to blog post Return to Patterns Menu
Site Creator: Dori This page last modified:s October 15, 2020 Send correspondence to: dori@badgerholt[dot]com Legal Stuff: Copyright 2020 by D.M. Doede. All Rights Reserved. Permission to distribute this material via e-mail, or individual copies for personal use, is granted on the condition that it will be used for non-commercial purposes, will not be sold, and no changes made to the format or content. When quoting, please keep the context and provide the source URL: http://www.badgerholt.com. Scriptures are cited from New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV) Young's Literal Translation (YLT), Geneva Bible, 1599 ed., Jay Green's KJ3' Literal Translation, Gary Zella's Analytical Literal Translation of the New Testament, or my own translation ( dmd).