If you think of Genesis as "being incorrect," then why bother saying "mankind may need to be young"? If the creation account can be wrong on one matter, why not on another? Put differently, it mankind needs to be young, then why doesn't the earth also? An OEC interpretation could just claim that the earth doesn't need to be young precisely because the creation account is depicted as happening in seven ages of undetermined length. But, of course, OECs would reject the claim that the text is "incorrect" on any matter, only that a particular interpretation of the text is incorrect. Since you have set down the possibility that the text itself incorrect, I don't know why you would need any interpretation. Can you clarify?Mazzy wrote:Getting back to the OP and although I have not read every post on this thread, the above is a good post even though I disagree with some of what you said. I don't think the earth has to be young. I think Mankind may need to be young. I have also read about the geneology in Genesis being incorrect meaning mankind may have been created longer than 6K years ago.
I take it by "transcriber" you are referring to the copyists, and as such, your critique would follow under the realm of textual criticism. In that case, I'm wondering if you are aware that the text of the Pentateuch is particularly well preserved and that there is absolutely zero textual evidence for your claim. But more to the point, I also don't know what TC would have to do with anything regardless. Copy errors don't change the meaning of the text. If you are suggesting that the copyists were making wholesale changes to the substance of the account, then it would seem that you are back to denying biblical inspiration, in practice if not in theory. After all, if the texts as we have them, or as we have been able to reconstruct them to be more technical, are reflective of the ideology of the later redactors such that the meaning of the original has been lost (insofar as the redacted meaning is in error, presuming (on a theory of inspiration) that the original was not in error), then either the text as we have it cannot be regarded as inspired. So now you are back to a non-inspired, errant Scripture. And in that case, while you have certainly undermined the case for YEC, how have you not also undermined the case for OEC?The bible has been copied and I believe it may reflect the ideology of the transcriber.
First, "Adam" cannot refer to a group of people. The Hebrew word can refer to mankind, true, but in the story itself, it clearly does not. It refers, rather, to a single individual, and that we know by his actions. Just go back and read the Genesis 2-3 and replace "Adam" with "a group of people" every time you see it. You'll see very shortly that such a reading doesn't work.Adam could mean a group of people. It is all about having a capital A or not. Theistic evolutionists may believe this explanation.
And it doesn't really help you case to appeal to theistic evolutionists. They deny the inerrancy of Scripture. Again, you can do that, but if you do so, you have no basis to hold either OEC OR YEC. Frankly, you don't even have any basis for theistic evolution. So you accept evolution and the scientific consensus on the origins of the world and of humanity. You see the biblical account is wrong in its description. So you say, "Okay, so God was involved in directing the process!" I have no idea what that has to do with the text. It's certainly not an idea you got from Scripture. And to try to suggest that Moses had anything like TE in mind is just absurd. Oh, and speaking of Moses . . .
It's a shame you so easily give up Mosaic scholarship. Many scholars do, of course, suggest that Genesis is a compilation of stories edited by a series of redactors (not, as you put it, a compilation of scrolls). This falls under the study of form criticism and the theory is generally held under the term "the documentary hypothesis," AKA the JEPD theory. Suffice it to say that the theory has been repeatedly debunked and has been abandoned as a way of studying Scripture by every other field of literary studies. It also creates a range of self-contradictory riddles that simply cannot be solved. Worst, though, is the reason it was suggested and is defended. Put simply, if Moses was really the author, then miracles have to be true. And since miracles don't happen (per the theory), then we have to find an author (or authors) other than him; so, enter the theory.The reason I was looking at this site is I had a real "DER" moment about a year ago. I used to believe that Genesis was written by Moses, being a first hand account of the creation stories passed down to him as well a recollection about the flood. Then I started to study the scriptures and realized that Genesis speaks to Moses death. Many scholars suggest Genesis is a compilation of scrolls.
If you are going to study this, I would recommend you start with Gleason Archer's very accessible A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. He discusses the matter in extensive detail. But, again, the bottom line is that to hold it is identical with rejecting the inspiration, much less inerrancy, of Scripture, since the theory ultimately requires Genesis was forged during the reign of King Josiah to consolidate his political power.
A much better option would be to stick with the evidence as we actually have it, affirm the Mosaic ownership of Genesis through Deuteronomy, and allow for later additions to the text. Note that additions to a text do not compromise claims to inspiration; only editing of the text such that its original meaning was changed. I should clarify that this does not mean that Moses (or any author for that matter) is required by inspiration to have written a text "from scratch." There is nothing saying that a biblical writer could not be inspired to use other written texts or oral traditions in the composition of his book. It is only to say that, in using that material, he is guided by the spirit in its employment so that the final product is God's Word. So that means that stories of Moses' death do not detract from either Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or from its inspiration.