The Genesis Fraud

[michaelsherlock]

Exactly! Christianity is BASED on Judaism. So as you say why not attack the foundations OF Judaism? The OP looked at the Christian only interpretation of the book in question. Christians who accept the traditional roman catholic views do not see eye to eye with all of the same Jewish views. (Or with the rest of Christianity for that matter) That means if there is a discrepancy in a Jewish view, of a Jewish text then it should be addressed from a Jewish perspective and not a Christian perspective. Again what the OP has done is address the flaws in Christianity that most of us are willing to admit they exist, because of the discrepancies of the Jewish accounts of the very same texts.

You must have posted in the wrong thread, all this one is about is that there is good reason to speculate that Genesis is actually a much more recent document than previously believed.
Whether it is Jewish or Christian interpretation of that book is irrelevant to the dating of the original text and it is misleading to a discussion over its roots to discuss how different religions interpret that same text.

What does it change? It increases the probability the accounts are fictional, but by no means disproves anything.

So whats your point? Is there supposed to be a single piece of evidence that destroys religion? No, its done by pointing out all the little inaccuracies and chipping away at the base until its weakness and empty core is exposed.

again you show the limits of your understandings. You are desperately trying to make what I am saying fit your understanding of the church.
So I guess we need to address your understanding of "doctrine." I have not discussed doctrine for a very specific reason. Why you ask? Because "we" in the church can make a doctrine say anything we want it to say. Which means doctrine is not the standard you believe it to be. The bible however is that standard to worshiping the God of the bible. That is why I defer to the bible rather than "doctrine."

Any deference to the "bible" instead of "doctrine" is a pretence by default, since it relies on a specific interpretation of the text which is then asserted to be the correct interpretation.

However, apart from the assertion, sadly, it still makes your points as irrelevant as the next bible-assertion.

Nicely said.