Another Clear Instance of Toledot Referring to An Account

 Numbers 3:1 used the term to refer to the records that Moses and Aaron took from meeting God on Mt. Siani. Here is an interleaner translation so you can see what I mean. 

So it can mean geneological records, but only because it can mean records of any kind, including a narrative or an account. Thus when it says in chapter six "These are the generations of Noah" the same word means "account". 

This is important because it further supports the Tablet Theory and what it says about the phrase. 

Evolution Through Intelligent Design

 Scientists "know" that mammals undergo chromosome re-arrangements from time to time, because they assume that gorillas and humans, for example, evolved from a common ancestor and we have two such differences with gorillas. Humans have a big chromosome that is analogous to two chromosomes in gorillas. The assumption being that natural fused at some point in the line leading to humans. Gorillas have a place where they have two small chromosomes where humans have a larger one. 

Up until this point, they could not get such mutations in mammals Even lab mice have shown no indication of such an event in over 100 years of breeding. (Yet they think mice have these sorts of changes occur more often than humans and gorillas). 

What they did was intelligently design a way to force such changes. This involved inactivating THREE regions which tell the chromosomes how to line up. Then they substituted their own designer instruction set to tell the chromosomes how to line up. In doing so, they were able to merge two chromosomes. They tried it more than one way, but only one way produced viable fertile offspring (albeit with reduced fertility. 

The way researcher Li described it, ""Using an imprint fixed haploid embryonic stem cell platform and gene editing in a laboratory mouse model, we experimentally demonstrated that the chromosomal rearrangement event is the driving force behind species evolution and important for reproductive isolation, providing a potential route for large-scale engineering of DNA in mammals."

That was done AFTER deactivating the triple-redundant gene regions that would normally do the job. How on earth anyone can think this experiment says anything about how nature acting alone could precipitate such changes is beyond me. I don't deny such changes happened, but they happened the same way the ones in this experiment did- through intent from an intelligent designer. 

                                                                     You Tube Channel

Add the Rapid Divergence of Reptiles to the List: "Evolution" had "Help"

"Their rates of evolution and diversity started exploding, leading to a dizzying variety of abilities, body plans, and traits, and helping to firmly establish both their extinct lineages and those that still exist today as one of the most successful and diverse animal groups the world has ever seen."

From a report on a paper about the emergence of reptiles, link below. The original hypothesis was that reptiles diversified so quickly because of an extinction event which wiped out their rivals. Now it turns out, the explosion of diversification started BEFORE their competitors were wiped out. Scientists now say the driving force for this ultra-rapid evolution was "climate change". They are saying that a lot these days- because that's where the funding is. Funny how "climate change" caused the reptiles to evolve super-fast for a while (and after mammals rose they quit evolving) while it caused their competitors to go extinct instead. 

The truth of the earth's record is that this is the recurring pattern. There is a stable and low rate of change, often around a mean, and then one particular category of creatures will have an astouding "burst" of evolution over a short period of time (compared to the stasis). Then that's it. The next time, they will stay relatively unchanged while some other group undergoes massive change. 

The Cambrian Explosion is well known. What isn't known is that most of the big changes took place over a mere 410,000 years. By the time the trilobites appeared, a modern marine ecosystem was already in place. Chordates show complexity from the start. Even humble comb jellyfish show comlexity from the start. Far, far beyond what known natural evolutionary mechanisms can produce.

 What also isn't well-known is that the mysterious Ediacaran biota didn't evolve much. they stayed much as they were the whole time until they all died out. No known survivors. If evolution is such a powerful and ubiquitous force, why didn't it change them? They were wiped out despite their 90 million year head-start on the Cambrian life forms.

The Great Ordovician Diversification event is another puzzle. After the Cambrian explosion, evolution returned to its background level of small, slow changes around a mean. Then suddenly a vast array of ocean orders started diversifying radically at once.  Then they returned to stasis. How did they all know to do that in a synchronized fashion? 

Something similar even happened within the Ichthyosaurs. A vast burst of diversity comes on suddenly when the type shows up, then a long period of stasis. The next crisis that comes along, it doesn't change again to adapt to it, it goes away. 

The same thing happened with the emergence of land animals. They underwent radical and sudden change, while what is supposed to be their immediate ancestors stayed the same. As the report puts it...

"On the other hand, we discovered the evolutionary lineages leading to the first tetrapods broke away from that stable pattern, acquiring several of the major new adaptive traits at incredibly fast rates that were sustained for approximately 30 million years," said Simões.

I suggest reading the whole link for more details, but the essence is that the opening of a new niche does not itself have the power to change life forms to fit that niche. Under naturalism, you must have that rare event by chance happen at just the time it is useful. None of this fits with the pattern of all of those useful rare events happening in clusters, sometimes in very different kinds of organisms. 

Nor does this, while all this great change is taking place, the formation of new species is rare. New families or sub-orders show up as a single species for a long time, and only after a while begin to diversity. There is a disconnect between macro and micro "evolution". You would think the latter happens faster, if naturalism is the explanation. But this isn't what we see. When big changes happen, they happen faster than the small changes. As they put it. ...

"What we've been finding in the last couple of years is that you have lots of anatomical changes during the construction of new animal body plans at short periods of geological time, generating high rates of anatomical evolution, like we're seeing with the first tetrapods. But in terms of number of species, they remained constrained and at really low numbers for a really long time, and only after tens of millions of years do they actually diversify and become higher in number of species. There's definitely a decoupling there," said Simões.

When nature was done with the dinosaurs, the non-avian ones went away. They were on their way out before the asteroid. They quit adapting. The rest of the reptiles quit evolving in big ways, but mammals started doing so. How is it that one group can evolve when the others don't, if for example "climate change" is responsible? How is it that a group that had a lot of "punctuated equilibrium" at its beginning loses all of its mojo and that propensity for "rapid change" goes to another group? 

The pattern of change fits the ID hypothesis more than the "blind nature at work" hypothesis. 

                                                                     You Tube Channel

The Scholars are Wrong. Refuting Their Claims that Genesis was too Late to be from Moses

 

The Cosmos had a Beginning

 Attempts to evade a beginning fall flat says this researcher. 

The Birthplace of Abraham

 

I read a paper claiming that Genesis could not have been written until after the exile. A section of proof was "Six place names that help date the text". One of the claims had to do with the birthplace of Abraham: 

Genesis 11:28, 31. These verses refer to “Ur of the Chaldeans”. The Chaldeans did
not occupy Ur until around the tenth century (1000 BCE). The only pre-exilic use ofthe phrase
“Ur of the Chaldeans” in the Old Testament is in Genesis 15:7, which was clearly written at least as early as the eleventh century (possibly by Samuel), by which time the term “Ur of the Chaldeans” was already the common term for the area.
The only other use of “Ur of the Chaldeans” is in Nehemiah 9:7, a post-exilicbook

So here the writer Jonathan Burke is saying that this part of Genesis is old, but not old enough to be from Moses since the phrase "Ur of the Chaldeans" wasn't used until after the Chaldeans occupied it. 

The problem with that is that there was another "Ur" long before the larger and better-known Ur wound up in Chaldean hands. This site today is known as the city of Urfa. Search for "Urfa man" and you will see that it is the site of some fabulous ancient religious art and in the same area as Gobleki Tepe et al. This is also one of the places I think the garden of Eden may have been.

It is north of Haran, and that fits the journey described in Genesis much better. If Terahh had come from the southern Ur then he would have turned west long before he reached Haran. 

Please see this excellent paper on the subject for more details.

********************************
"The references to Genesis 1-11 (Primeval History)  themes are rare and most mentions come after the exile (where they were exposed to Babylonian myth). "

Mentions may be rare if Gen. 1-11 describes a planet whose very nature was altered by Adam's sin resulting in previously unknown death and decay, followed by a global flood that extincted all animal life on earth outside the ark. But they are not unexpectedly rare compared to what the Christ-centered model teaches about chapters 1-11. 

That leaves only the point that themes from Gen. 1-11 come up more often in books from after the exile than before. The answer to this point is that it is simply factually incorrect. 

After the exile there are 11 books. Three of them mention Primeval History themes, 1 Chronicles, Ezekiel, Joel. There are 27 books (besides Genesis) that were written before the exhile period. 

It is generally acknowledged that Exodus 20:11 (and chapter 31) refer back to Genesis when they say "in six days the Lord made the earth". It is also considered that Isaiah 51:3 reference to Eden indicates a knowledge of Genesis. 

But what about Numbers 13:33 and its reference to the Nephilim? That is a reference which hearkens back to Genesis. That's not counting that Num 13 says that the sons of Anak came from the Nephilim and that the Anakites are mentioned in Joshua, Judges, and Deuteronomy. 

What about Job 28?

Will you keep to the old path that the wicked have trod?
They were carried off before their time, their foundations washed away by a flood.
They said to God, “Leave us alone! What can the Almighty do to us?”
Yet it was he who filled their houses with good things… (Job 22:15-18a, NIV)

This seems to be a reference to the flood of Noah, as understood by the Christ-centered approach to the text. In addition, the portions of the book speaking of creation take a view of the text which fits with Genesis chapter one. The overall theme is similar and many Christian scholars teach that Job retells Genesis 1-3. 

Jeremiah 4:23 is almost a quote from Genesis 1:2

The temple described in 1 Kings has themes consistent with the temple being a model of the garden of Eden. Including a lampstand that had the shape of a tree and figures of flowers, pomegranites, and date palm carved into it. I don't buy that Genesis 1 was talking about a temple, but rather that the Temple harkens back to the garden, a place where God met man. 

So there are six places outside of Genesis which reference things from the Primevial history of Genesis, or ten places if you count references to the Anakites. Including Genesis, that is seven mentions of these kinds of themes in the pre-exile writings as opposed to three mentions afterward. Or ten to three if you count the references to Anak as a Nephilim. That is extremely consistent in both sets of literature given that the post-exile books are fewer in number. The emphasis on these themes is consistent. 

*****************************

"Certain vocabulary in Genesis 1-3 is used elsewhere only in books written during the monarchy or later, such as
ʾēd
(source of water, Genesis 2:6), - SAME AS STRONG'S 108 "ED", WHICH WAS USED EARLIER AS SMOKE FROM FIRE OR EMBERS. PRIMATIVE ROOT WHOSE MEANING EXPANDED

neḥmād
(pleasant, Genesis2:9; 3:6), WRONG, IT IS USED IN MANY EARLY BOOKS
tāpar

(sew, Genesis 3:7), WRONG. USED ONLY 4 TIMES, ONE IN JOB. AND IT IS FROM A PRIMITIVE ROOT WHICH MEANS ABOUT THE SAME

ʾēbāh
(enmity, Genesis 3:15),- WRONG, A FORM OF IT IS USED IN NUMBERS, AND IT IS FROM AYAB (STRONG''S 340), A PRIM. ROOT WHICH MEANS "BE HOSTILE TO"

šûp
(bruise/wound,Genesis 3:15) - ANOTHER PRIM. ROOT USED ONLY 4 TIMES IN SCRIPTURE, TWICE IN THIS VERSE, ONCE IN JOB, AND ONCE IN PSALMS. 
ʿ
eṣeb
(labor, Genesis 3:16),- VALID EXAMPLE, BUT COULD BE NOT MENTIONED BY CHANCE.

tĕšûqāh
(longing, Genesis 3:16)." - USED ONLY ONCE OUTSIDE OF GEN, IN SONG OF SOLOMON. FROM AN UNUSED ROOT. HARD TP BELIEVE THIS WORD WASN'T AROUND BEFORE THE KINGS. 

The idea is that the version of the text that was standardized was the one found under the reign of Good King Josiah, prior to the exile. All copies were off shoots of that one. Did some words that had fallen out of use get updated either in that copy or from that copy of the text? Very probably. We do it all the time. For example imagine we had no remaining copies of the original King James version of the bible.  The New King James version contains many words not in use in the original King James version. That does not mean that there were no English versions of scripture prior to the New King James Version. They expressed the same thoughts, in large part from the same documents, with more updated words. 

The use of more modern terms in itself proves nothing. Did they represent older original words which had fallen out of use by the Temple Period?

I am not sure all the words claimed here are legit either- sup is also used in Job, which many think came well before the monarchy. But it wasn't written in the stream of Mosaic literature, but as "a man of the east". So we would have to check and see if these words were used ELSEWHERE before the monarchy in Israel. Were they used in Egypt or Mesopotamia for example? Or, as is the case with several of these, was it from a more primitive root word? IOW, maybe the original used the same root word, but since that time the same thought was now expressed with a derivative of that root. 
*********************************************

"Some names appear as personal names before the exile, but as place names only during or after the exile. A few names appear only in Genesis 10"

This is somewhat disingenous because some of the examples given for such claims are well known as being connected to existing ancient places. Erech equals the ancient city of Uruk for example. 
|
But the larger picture is that listings from "the table of nations" should not even be included as evidence to date early Genesis because this was a table that was meant to be updated as time when on, much like a genealogy. Obviously, all of those nations were not in existence as soon as Noah and his sons got off the boat. They took time to develop. You can't use a table that is meant to be updated over the generations to determine the original date of the document. 

***************************
Cities date the text late. 

"Assyria came late. Asshur built in 2500 BC but not its own empire until later"

Gen 2:14 is obviously a scribal note added later for clarification. Gen. 10 actually says "Asshur" which was their word for Assyria. The comment in Genesis 10 doesn't mention Asshur (the people) building a city named Asshur. Those people in conjunction with Nimrod went and built other cities. So there is no conflict with history and a proper reading of the text. I would suggest these events happened between 3800 BC and 3100 BC. Long before the time they are even looking. 

"Genesis 10:11. This verse refers to Nineveh as part of Assyria, but it was not untilthe reign of Assuruballit I (1363-1328 BCE), that Nineveh became part of Assyrianterritory. Note that Nineveh is mentioned in Genesis 10:11-12, but not mentionedagain until 2 Kings, written during the exile; this supports the conclusion thatGenesis 11 was not written before the exile."

No it doesn't. It says that Asshur, either the clan or the man himself long before his descendents became Assyria, built Ninevah. The second part of his statement is also factually incorrect because Jonah mentions Ninevah. Even if it wasn't mentioned until the exile, it doesn't support his claim. The exile was just when they got back around this area. 

Genesis 10:11-

12. This refers to the city of Calah as “that great city”. Calah did notexist until 1750 BCE, and was a mere village until the ninth century BCE, when itbecame "that great city" during the reign of Assurnasirpal II, who made it the capitalof Assyria

. It could not have been called “that great city” until

after the reign ofSolomon

The text is actually unclear as to whether Calah or Resen is being described as a "great city". Indeed it is unclear whether Calah is even afforded the status as a "city", because it specifies Rehoboth as a city but not Calah. It doesn't say the status of Calah at that time. It could have been a fort, or a trading outpost (as part of the Uruk expansion). The village and the city would only come much later, perhaps built on the original site. Again the time-frame where they should be looking for a settlement of some kind is around 3800 to 3100 BC, not the Calnah we know from later in history. 

Genesis 10:19. The boundaries of Canaan described here did not exist until 1280BCE by a peace treaty between Ramses II and Hattusilis III in 1280 BCE; it istherefore unsurprising that the borders of Canaan described here do not match thedescription of Canaan in Genesis 15:18 or Numbers 34:2-12, or any text of Moses'time. This verse could not have been written earlier than 1280 BCE.

After 1280 BC would be consistent with the late date for Moses and the Exodus. So then Moses could have well written this verse based on where Canaan was at that time. But again this is the table of nations and is SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN UPDATED so that even with an early Exodus Joshua or someone from a couple of centuries later could have added this to the text. That's if the treaty really did bring a new thing into being rather than just reflect the facts on the ground as they had been for a very long time.