Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 - 17:05:53 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Biblical Authority"

    You are as unconvinced as me. I go for a date of nearer 1000BC. I find much
    Biblical criticism as very tendentious and unconvincing. Lots of strong
    argumentw on virtually no evidence.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jonathan Clarke" <>
    Cc: <>
    Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 7:27 PM
    Subject: Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3

    > Hi George
    > I have always found this sort of argument about the dating of Genesis 1
    > contrived and based on some untestable assumptions about how the Bible
    > together. But perhaps that is my ignorance speaking. So some questions.
    How does
    > a 6th century date for Genesis 1 (henceforth refered to as the late date)
    > justified with respect to the following:
    > 1. The exile was not the first exposure to the Israelites to Babylonian
    > as the patriarchs also came from that background (or do those who argue
    for a late
    > date believe there is no historical basis for the patriarchial story)?
    > 2. Canaanite religion was similar to Babylonain religion in is veneration
    of the
    > stars (although to a lesser degree). The Egyptians also worshipped the sun
    > moon. Could the down playing of astronomical bodies might as much be
    related to
    > these religions as the Bablyonian?
    > 3. The Samartian Pentetuch includes Genesis 1. Given the increasingly
    > relationship between Jews and Samaritans when some Jews returned from
    exile is it
    > likely that the Samaritans would have adopted anything compiled by the
    > 4. Do not some Psalms ascribed to David contain references to Genesis 1
    > waters above in Ps 96, for example)?
    > Jon

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 17 2002 - 17:23:27 EST