2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 547:
Line 547: + + + +
→Intentions
: The colophon was, as I said, like the "signature" of the writer. So when it says that this is the account of Adam, it means that it's Adam's account; that Adam is the author of it.
: The colophon was, as I said, like the "signature" of the writer. So when it says that this is the account of Adam, it means that it's Adam's account; that Adam is the author of it.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:25, 10 December 2007 (EST)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:25, 10 December 2007 (EST)
The colophon says "this is the written account of Adams line", which it is, and it is not an "account by Adam". This wouldn't make much sense anyway because this account is really an "account of Adams line". It describes the line that starts with Adam and his sons, and ends with the sons of Noah, a few hundred years after Adams death.
Of course do modern scholars propose different interpretations because they thing they know better. They do exactly the same as you, when you look at style, wording, context to determine the meaning. You also think that you know better than the traditional interpretation. Asserting that a different style might be explained by a single author changing his style, is an unsupported assertion, and given the fairly substantial differences multiple authorship is at least as believable. You explanation has quite a few "could haves" and "mights", and is not exactly convincing or necessary.
And there is still more evidence that Moses wasn't the only author. For example that the Pentateuch describes his death, and events that happened afterwards, and the fact that the books use names for biblical places that weren't used in the time of Moses, but only centuries later. However, we work as agreed to work under the assumption that the audience at the when it written was able to understand it, which means it should have been written when those names were actually used. Of course, we cannot go back in time an check it, nor do we have eyewitness accounts, but neither have you.
And you can claim that there were ghostwriters, you should be a bit more specific. An eyewitness account which is passed down through works of unknown a ghostwriters isn't an eyewitness account anymore. If you explanation would be anymore vague, it could also apply to urban legends. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:31, 10 December 2007 (EST)
===Scientific Claims===
===Scientific Claims===