[quote='Rhythm' pid='269711' dateline='1333981585']
[quote]Drich wasn't addressing anything (let alone anyone), which seems to be pretty habitual.
-The origins, narratives, and history of this book are entirely different than what we originally envisioned.-Drich.."How does this change anything?" [/quote]
You have missed the bigger picture. The only thing being addressed is the time lines Traditional Christianity has accepted. (Which are not the wholly accepted Jewish time lines for the Pentateuch) And as Genesis is apart of that collection of Books, the Jewish time lines should supersede the Traditional Roman Catholic appointed time lines. Still with me so far?
That means if the Jewish traditions are correct and Abraham started a pre-Genesis (Which BTW would not be in Hebrew because at that time there was no such language, and would also supersede the oldest possible account listed by the OP) book that Moses/Joshua Finished, that is now know as Genesis then none of the timelines or the "Origins, narratives and history of this book" have been effected."
Leading me back to my original question. So what changes? The fact that the Roman Catholic historians who guesstimated the approximate time lines 1000 years ago made a mistake???
So what.
[quote]For you, not one bit, of that I'm completely certain. You weren't actually interested in these things to begin with, you have your answer, you don't need any other answers no matter what the other answers may be or how well demonstrated they are.[/quote]
I could say the same about you and how you responded to my original post, Because i alluded to all of this when I asked why weren't the Jewish Time lines addressed? Why was the sole focus on the work of the Medieval church? Maybe because everyone knows their are many errors and much confusion that radiates from the church in that time. But it seems you have your answers and none of the questions I brought up had any Merritt because you just knew or rather you need me to be that single minded Christian who simply does not want to know better.
Surprise! Genesis was not a Christian book, so why address it as such unless the whole of the "well documented" argument only works from the direction it is has been "well documented" From? Why not address the Jewish interpretation of the scripture? The interpretations that do not coincide with the time lines given?
[quote]For those that are interested, quite a bit. This is one of those occasions where I get to make mention of the hilarity of building an impenetrable wall of ignorance around ones cherished fairy tales.[/quote]
Me thinks someone has counted his chickens before they hatched. You guys just close your minds off to anyone who hits the right combination of buttons. They can say anything if they give the names of men who are supposed to be smart than you, and you just role over to what is being said without another thought.
Why? Because you all have been trained to give up all of your rational thought processes to an agreed upon process.. Or did you not know Genesis was a Jewish Book and not a Christian one?
[quote]Drich wasn't addressing anything (let alone anyone), which seems to be pretty habitual.
-The origins, narratives, and history of this book are entirely different than what we originally envisioned.-Drich.."How does this change anything?" [/quote]
You have missed the bigger picture. The only thing being addressed is the time lines Traditional Christianity has accepted. (Which are not the wholly accepted Jewish time lines for the Pentateuch) And as Genesis is apart of that collection of Books, the Jewish time lines should supersede the Traditional Roman Catholic appointed time lines. Still with me so far?
That means if the Jewish traditions are correct and Abraham started a pre-Genesis (Which BTW would not be in Hebrew because at that time there was no such language, and would also supersede the oldest possible account listed by the OP) book that Moses/Joshua Finished, that is now know as Genesis then none of the timelines or the "Origins, narratives and history of this book" have been effected."
Leading me back to my original question. So what changes? The fact that the Roman Catholic historians who guesstimated the approximate time lines 1000 years ago made a mistake???
So what.
[quote]For you, not one bit, of that I'm completely certain. You weren't actually interested in these things to begin with, you have your answer, you don't need any other answers no matter what the other answers may be or how well demonstrated they are.[/quote]
I could say the same about you and how you responded to my original post, Because i alluded to all of this when I asked why weren't the Jewish Time lines addressed? Why was the sole focus on the work of the Medieval church? Maybe because everyone knows their are many errors and much confusion that radiates from the church in that time. But it seems you have your answers and none of the questions I brought up had any Merritt because you just knew or rather you need me to be that single minded Christian who simply does not want to know better.
Surprise! Genesis was not a Christian book, so why address it as such unless the whole of the "well documented" argument only works from the direction it is has been "well documented" From? Why not address the Jewish interpretation of the scripture? The interpretations that do not coincide with the time lines given?
[quote]For those that are interested, quite a bit. This is one of those occasions where I get to make mention of the hilarity of building an impenetrable wall of ignorance around ones cherished fairy tales.[/quote]
Me thinks someone has counted his chickens before they hatched. You guys just close your minds off to anyone who hits the right combination of buttons. They can say anything if they give the names of men who are supposed to be smart than you, and you just role over to what is being said without another thought.
Why? Because you all have been trained to give up all of your rational thought processes to an agreed upon process.. Or did you not know Genesis was a Jewish Book and not a Christian one?
