The Genesis Fraud

[Undeceived]

This tradition has now been proven to be founded upon nothing more than erroneous and unsubstantiated belief.

Tradition and logic says the Moses books were written at times in which people would have to have known the places they were talking about, as well as the style. The names (Abram, Jacob, and Job) were typical of early Mesopotamia, not Babylon. Genesis lists details such as the inheritance right of an adopted household member or slave (15:1-4), the obligation of a barren wife to furnish her husband with sons through a servant girl (16:2-4), strictures against expelling such a servant girl and her son (21:10-11), the authority of oral statements in ancient Near Eastern law, such as a deathbed bequest (27:1, 22, 33)--these and other legal customs, social contracts and provisions are illustrated in earlier Mesopotamian documents, as opposed to 6th century BC. The writer(s) would have to know all these details. Chapters 39-50 reflect Egyptian influence, such as Egyptian grape cultivation (40:9-11), the riverside scene (41), Egypt as Canaan's breadbasket (42), Canaan as the source of numerous products for Egyptian consumption (43), Egyptian religious and social customs (ends of 43, 46), Egyptian administrative procedures (47), Egyptian funerary practices (50), as well as Egyptian words and names distributed throughout. Reading Genesis, one would logically guess that Israel did indeed originate in Mesopotamia, moved to Canaan, fall under Egyptian rule, and backtracked through Canaan again. The author(s) would have no reason to write otherwise; Genesis' stories were known tradition, either written on cuneiform or passed orally, and the author(s) simply put it on paper. Epics like Gilgamesh are written in hyperbolic style, in which Gilgamesh goes to the underworld to get a plant and loses it to a snake. It was made to entertain. Any similarities between Mesopotamian writings and the Bible are meaningless because the Mesopotamian writings could just have easily been copied and manipulated from the Bible. In fact, historically, the more detailed document is almost always the source. So the Torah is written in account format; the writer(s) believed it true and had to know a good portion of the real history in order to write the way they did. Stories are able to be stretched over time, but the thickness of details suggests Genesis did not stray far. The Israelites would not likely be selective about recalling old laws and habits yet blatantly forget or distort the more miraculous events. Don't let the large number of years cloud your judgment. Legends form on the level of individual people with the motivations and abilities to get it done, as well as the approval of all their peers.

With regards to the relatively late development of the Hebrew language the ‘Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages’ relates that:
"No extant inscription that can be identified specifically as Hebrew antedates the tenth century BC, and Hebrew inscriptions in significant numbers do not begin to appear before the early eighth century BC."

The link <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445132,00.html> shows a Hebraic inscription from the early 10th century. That's within four hundred years. Languages change very little in four hundred years, particularly in isolated peoples. It isn't a step affect, like one day it's one language and the next it's a brand new language. Languages evolve slowly, so it is more than likely someone in 10th century BC could read Old Hebrew from the 15th century, in the way that you and I can decipher Shakespearean English. If Genesis was not written in Hebrew as we know it, it was certainly copied from older forms of Hebrew.

The Philistines, a group of migrants from the Aegean or eastern Mediterranean, had not established their settlements along the coastal plain of Canaan until sometime after 1200BCE.

The name 'Philistines' is used loosely for enemies in the region. Critical archeologists assume the Philistines arrived in 1200BC because the pottery changed. All this means is that the older 'Philistines' were conquered, as evidenced by the debris layer below 1200BC. When groups assumed control of lands they often took the name. You can see this in Assyria's conquering of the Hittite Kingdom, in which the Hittites remained Hittites while art styles and government changed. Even more common is the retaining of the city name. City names almost never change. 'Jericho' was rebuilt dozens of times under many different powers--the hill it sits on is the remains of every time it was destroyed.

"According to the archaeological evidence, the camel could not have been domesticated as a beast of burden before the first millennium B.C."

This journal explains the wide presence of camels in the area: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/38...0712280481
As it states, camels are found in Egypt as early as the First Dynasty (3100-2850 BC). Whether they were domesticated is hard to tell using archaeology. The Egyptians had pens for livestock; one cannot tell what those livestock were without proper fossils. I ask you: if you had camels in the area, would you not domesticate some? The Egyptians had the same IQ as we do today. It's not going to take them two thousand years to figure out the uses of a camel. When there is a gap in the evidence, look for more evidence and use logic in the meantime. Furthermore, if Abram passed through Egypt at 1000BC, King David could not possibly have been alive for his inscription dated 9th century (http://teldan.wordpress.com/house-of-david-inscription).

The problem with the use of the word ‘Kasdim’ is that it was not used to describe ancient Babylonia until the 6th century BCE.

In translation, names are updated. This does not mean the Pentateuch was altered in any other way; it was simply a device to help contemporary Hebrews understand. The first known Old Testament was compiled in Babylon. It is not unreasonable for clarifications to be made without losing the inspired message. Either Genesis was on cuneiform (http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?opti...Itemid=104) or oral. Either way, transitions need to be added during compilation to link all the pieces together. That is likely the reason the phrase "before there reigned any king" was used. One cannot logically jump from "Genesis contains contemporary terminology" to "all its stories were made up." The only breach in story detail you pointed out was the inclusion of camels, which I disputed.

The capital city of Babylon was Asshur, yet there is no mention of this city, instead we see three major cities listed; Nineveh, Rehoboth and Calah.

Ashur became occupied around 2500BC. That is just about when the Flood is dated also. In the Genesis 10:11 verse, Cush and his people are building the three above cities. Either he did not build Ashur or Ashur was too small to be recognized then. If Ashur had been mentioned, that might have been an inconsistency. Instead, the writer shows superior knowledge of the time period by omitting the great city. Coincidentally, Ashur appears in Numbers 24:24, also written by Moses, there in a more suitable context.

Given all this evidence, it seems unlikely 6th century Jews in captivity would have had the tools to fabricate such a detailed and convincing account as Genesis. Any alterations would have had to be approved by Mosaic Law-abiding peers. Believing Jews would not modify the Word of God. Non-believing Jews would have no reason to keep it over many generations. One cannot look at the God of Genesis as a mere object of storytelling. He was written in such a way as to convince the reader of His divinity. Michael, I applaud your diligent research. But I cannot agree with you. The Bible is the largest, most precise, and most misunderstood ancient book in all of history. The 'inconsistencies' are few for a document of its magnitude, and the parts labeled such are typically explainable when one knows the culture, time period, and intent of writing.