|
To perform a search, click on ==> Search
 Who is the Author of
the Pentateuch?
by Nic Samojluk
Introduction. The question of origins is being debated right now like never before, and if we want to be able to understand the issues involved in this controversy, it is urgent that we become familiar with the question posed by the title of this posting: Who Wrote the Pentateuch? After all, the first five books of the Bible are the ones dealing with the question of origins, and the first one of them is the book of Genesis. Tradition ascribes the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses, but critics have raised serious questions that need to be analyzed if we want to have a correct understanding of this problem. I am currently reading the Bible one more time, and I have been highlighting certain passages that are pertinent to this question. I want to share with you my initial conclusions related to this hot topic.
Reasons Used to Support the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch. I would like to start by citing a few reasons that are used to support the Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible:
A. Evidence found in the Pentateuch itself.
B. Evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures.
B. Evidence from the Gospels.
C. Evidence from the Epistles.
D. Evidence from Jewish Tradition.
E. Evidence from the Church Fathers.
Evidence From the Pentateuch. There are numerous pasages in the first five books of the Bible making reference to Moses writings. Here are some of them:
| Quote: |
*Exodus 17:14 "Then the Lord instructed Moses, 'Write this down as a permanent record...'"
*Exodus 24:4 "Then Moses carefully wrote down all the Lord's instructions."
*Exodus 34:27 "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Write down all these instructions, for they represents the terms of my covenant with you and with Israel.'"
*Leviticus 1:1 "The Lord called to Moses from the Tabernacle and said to him, 'Give the following instructions to the Israelites...'"
*Leviticus 6:8 "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Give Aaron and his sons the following instructions...'"
*Deuteronomy 31:9 "So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests."
*Deuteronomy 31:24-26 "When Moses had finished writing down this entire body of law in a book..." |
Evidence From the Hebrew Scriptures. The Hebrew Scriptures, known by Christians as the Old Testament, provide additional evidence that Moses was credited with the writings we find in the Pentateuch.
| Quote: |
*Joshua 1:7-8 "...Obey all the laws Moses gave you."
*Joshua 8:31-34 "He followed the instructions that Moses the Lord's servant had written in the Book of the Law..."
*Joshua 22:5 "...obey all the commands and the laws that Moses gave to you."
*2 Chronicles 34:14 "...Hilkiah the high priest...found the book of the Law of the Lord as it had been given through Moses." |
Evidence From the Gospels. In the Gospels we find several references to the writings of Moses. It is evident that both Jesus and John the Baptist did believe that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch.
| Quote: |
*Matthew 19:7-8 "...why did Moses say a man could merely write an official letter of divorce and send her away?", they asked. Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted divorce...'"
*Matthew 22:24 "Moses said, 'If a man dies without children...'"
*Mark 7:10 "For instance, Moses gave you this law from God..."
*Mark 12:24 "...haven't you ever read about this in the writings of Moses, in the story of the burning bush..."
*Luke 24:44 "...I told you that everything written about me by Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must all come true."
*John 1:17 "For the law was given through Moses..."
*John 5:46 "But if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me because he wrote about me. And since you don't believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?"
*John 7:23 "...do it, so as not to break the law of Moses..." |
Evidence From the Epistles. In the New Testament Epistles, we find additional references to the writings of Moses.
| Quote: |
*Acts 26:22 "...I teach nothing except what the prophets and Moses said would happen..."
*Romans 10:5 "For Moses wrote..." |
Evidence Form Jewish Tradition. It is a well known fact that Jewish tradition has always ascribed the authorship of the first five books of the Bible to Moses.
| Quote: |
| J.W. Hayford writes: "Jewish tradition lists Moses as the author of Genesis and of the next four books....we notice a number of loanwords from Egyptian that are found in Genesis, a fact which suggests that the original author had his roots in Egypt, as did Moses." |
Evidence From the Christian Church Fathers. Early Christian Church Fathers did not hesitate in atributing the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses.
| Quote: |
| Ancient Jewish and Christian writers, such as Ecclesiasticus, Josephus, Philo, and Origen were essentially in full agreement that the Pentateuch was written solely by Moses. The Mishnah and the Talmud also confirm this. Tradition during the first millennium of Christian history agrees with this belief. |
Reasons for Questioning the Authorship of the Pentateuch. The logical question we might ask is: Why do most modern biblical scholars do not believe, or question, the Mosaic authorthip of the first five books of the Bible? Given the consistency with which the entire sacred Scripture, the Jewish tradition, as well as the record of the Church Fathers speak with one voice asigning the writing of the Pentateuch to one man: Moses, why would modern scholars advance a differing opinion on the subject? Let me enumerate some of said reasons:
Expressions Pointing to the Past. I discovered numerous instances where the writer used the expresion "to this day" in reference to biblical events and places. Such statements are evidence that either Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, or else someone edited those books long after the death of Moses. I found said statements not only in the Pentateuch, but also in the books that followed, including Kings and Chronicles. Here are some examples:
| Quote: |
| Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the first-born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-Am-mi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.[Genesis 19:37-39] |
| Quote: |
| And he called it She-bah:therefore the name of the city is Beer-she-ba unto this day. [Genesis 26:33] |
| Quote: |
| And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day. [Genesis 22:14] |
A List of Edomite Kings. The most serious reference I discovered is found in Chapter 36 of Genesis. We have there the list of eight kings who reigned in Edom prior to the reign of Saul, the first king of Israel. If Moses wrote the book of Genesis, then someone edited it and inserted this list of Edomite kings long after Moses was dead. The other option is: Genesis was written by someone else, probably during the kingdom of David, relying on whatever Moses had written before. Here is the troublesome reference:
| Quote: |
| And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel. [Genesis 36:32] |
Other Questionable References. There are many other biblical references cited by Bible critics that allegedly point to somebody else as the author of the Pentateuch.
A. The reference to Moses' humility.
| Quote: |
| Numbers 12:3: This verse states "Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth." (NKJ) If Moses were that humble, it is unlikely that he would have described himself in these glowing terms. |
B. The reference to Moses' death and burial.
| Quote: |
|
Deuteronomy 34:5-9: These verses describe the death, burial, age at death, physical condition at death, and morning period for Moses. It is difficult for an individual to describe events at and after his or her death. Some have suggested that this portion of the Pentateuch (and only this portion) was written later by Joshua. However, R.E. Friedman wrote: "...in the sixteenth century, Carlstadt, a contemporary of Luther, commented that the account of Moses' death is written in the same style as texts that precede it. This makes it difficult to claim that Joshua or anyone else merely added a few lines to an otherwise Mosaic manuscript."
|
C. Biblical reference to Moses as a prophet like no one else.
| Quote: |
|
Deuteronomy 34:10 This states "There has never been another prophet like Moses..." (NLT) This sounds like a passage written long after Moses' death. Enough time would have had to pass for many other prophets to have arisen, to [have] passed from the scene, and to have been evaluated.
|
Double Accounts of Apparently the Same Story.
| Quote: |
|
*Two creation stories in Genesis.
*Two descriptions of the Abrahamic covenant.
*Two stories of the naming of Isaac.
*Two instances where Abraham deceived a king by introducing his wife Sarah as his sister.
*Two stories of Jacob traveling to Mesopotamia
*Two stories of a revelation at Beth-el to Jacob.
*Two accounts of God changing Jacob's name to Israel
*Two instances where Moses extracted water from two different rocks at two different locations called Meribah.
|
Final Comments. Considering the numerous biblical references pointing to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, coupled with the Jewish tradition, and the opinion of the early Church Fathers, I believe that Moses must have either written those books himself, had a scribe do this under his orders, or left enough recorded information for posterity which enabled a future editor to do this.
But, considering the many passages which have been used by Bible scholars to allege that Moses cannot be the author of those books, we need to admit that Moses was either not the author of the final version of the Pentateuch, or else he did write those books, but a later unknown editor inserted those many comments into the original text. My opinion is that, very likely, the final version of the first five books of the Bible was written during or after the reign of David. My reason is as follows:
The list of eight Edomite kings who ruled Edom before there was any king in Israel suggests that the book of Genesis must have been either written or edited during of after the reign of Saul, the first king of Israel. Nevertheless, since the above quoted expression "unto this day" is a common biblical expression running from Genesis through the books of Kings and Chronicles, then the most likely author of the final version of the Pentateuch must have lived perhaps during the reign of David, or even during the time of Esdras. I counted a total of over fifty instances where the expression unto this day appears from Genesis through Chronicles. Of course, you have the right to disagree. If you do, I would like to learn why!
*********
To read more about this topic, click on the link listed below:
Who Wrote The Pentateuch?
http://search.hp.netscape.com/hp/boomframe.jsp?query=who+wrote+the+pentateuch&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Dcf051b5613958c2c%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dwho%2Bwrote%2Bthe%2Bpentateuch%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.religioustolerance.org%252Fchr_tora.htm%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DHPPavTop%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religioustolerance.org%2Fchr_tora.htm
Divergent Stories of Esau's Wives
by Sean Pitman
| Quote: |
|
Recently some have argued in SS class that there is an obvious error between different listings of the wives of Esau in the Bible. Perhaps this particular example of a Biblical error is not quite as obvious as it might seem at first glance?
•Critics frequently point to what they believe is a contradiction in the Book of Genesis. According to Gen. 26:34 and 28:9, Esau's wives were as follows:
–Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite (Gen. 26:34)
–Bashemath, daughter of Elon the Hittite (Gen. 26:34)
–Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth (Gen. 28:9)
•However, according to Gen. 36:2-3, his wives were:
–Aholibamah, daughter of Anah, granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite
–Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite
–Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth
An interesting paper discusses this apparent discrepancy: http://nabataea.net/edomch2.html
|
| Quote: |
|
Esau's First Wife, Judith-Abolibamah
Esau's first wife was Judith. She was the daughter of Beeri, a Hittite. In Genesis 36: 2 this woman is called also "Aholibamah." It was very common in those days for persons to bear more than one name. Almost endless examples could be cited, such as Abram = Abraham; Sarai = Sarah; Jacob = Israel; Esau = Edom; Ben-oni = Benjamin; Zaphnath paneah = Joseph; and so on. So also this woman is known by two names, Judith = Aholibamah. For the sake of our study, we will use the first name, Judith.
|
| Quote: |
|
Esau's Second Wife, Bashemath-Adah
Esau's second wife, (though he appears to have married both women at about the same time, Gen.26:34) was Bashemath or Adah. (Another instance of dual names.) She was the daughter of Elon, a Hittite. In Genesis 36: 10 this woman is named first in rank, and so evidently became Esau's chief wife.
|
You may find this explanation of the apparently contradictory biblical reports by accessing the following story:
The Hyksos, Kings of Egypt and the land of Edom
http://nabataea.net/edomch2.html
A Question for Sean Pitman
by Brian Bull
Sean
I read the attached article with great interest.
I have a question for you. How convincing, on a scale of 1-10 did you find the explanation? One=almost totally unconvincing, 3 unconvincing, 5=a tossup, 7= fairly convincing and of course 10=almost totally convincing. And a second question. If these two accounts were to be found in some other ancient book, not the Bible, would you score the account's 'convincingess' the same?
I find the explanation possible but unlikely.
Brian
Esau's Apparently Three Wives
by Sean Pitman
Dear Dr. Bull,
It seems to me at least reasonably likely that Esau did in fact marry two Canaanite women and then a third Semantic [Semitic] woman later on to appease his parents - a total of 3 women. This seems to be confirmed in that the list of Esau's descendants only mentions 3 women. It also seems at least reasonably plausible that different names could have been used for the same woman - especially given the consistency of the father's names.
If I look at the list of names again:
•According to Gen. 26:34 and 28:9, Esau's wives were as follows:
+ Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite (Gen. 26:34)
^ Bashemath, daughter of Elon the Hittite (Gen. 26:34)
* Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth (Gen. 28:9)
•However, according to Gen. 36:2-3, his wives were:
+ Aholibamah, daughter of Anah, granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite
^ Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite
* Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth
There is something interesting about the lists. I've been reading a few things on these names, which seems to me to be quite interesting:
The name Bashemath (or Basemath) probably comes from the Semitic word-stem meaning "fragrant" or "perfumed" (for example, besem means "balsam" in Hebrew). When the Hebrew feminine ending –ath, is added you get Basemath, "fragrant woman." The possibility exists that Mahalath (daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebajoth) and Adah (daughter of Elon the Hittite) were both given the nickname "fragrant woman" (Douglas 1982: 124). In other words, the Bashemath, daughter of Elon, in Gen. 26:34 is the same as the Adah, daughter of Elon, in Gen. 36:2, while the Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, in Gen. 36:3 is the same as Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, in Gen. 28:9.
- Stephen Caesar holds his master's degree in anthropology/archaeology from Harvard. ( http://www.rae.org/esauswives.html )
This leaves Judith and Aholibama. The father of Judith is listed as Beeri, the Hittite. It is interesting that the father of Aholibama is not listed, only her mother and maternal grandfather. It seems reasonable to me, then, that Aholibama and Judith could be one and the same - with both the maternal and paternal lineages listed.
The question is, of course, how likely is this scenario vs. the likelihood of a transcription error or multiple stories? I would say that it is pretty much a toss up. It could be either way. In short, this particular case does not seem to be a slam-dunk example of a Biblical error or discrepancy. There are certainly others that are slam-dunks, but this one doesn't seem to be one of them - at least not as I see it.
In any case, such discrepancies, even when "real" don't seem to me to be a problem since the meaning of the story doesn't change at all on such details. However, if one changes the interpretation of the 7-days of creation to mean long periods of time covering millions of years, the meaning of the story changes dramatically. The same thing happens if the story of Noah's flood is interpretted as a local event vs. a world-wide event. The meaning of the story, its internal consistency, and many implications that are derived from it change dramatically. I don't believe the Bible is subject to such dramatically meaningful "errors".
All our sources of recognized "inspiration", from the perspective of the SDA church at least, back me up on this one. All throughout the Bible, the writers refer to the Genesis account of creation and of the world-wide flood in very literal terms. Even Jesus supports this literal interpretation. It seems, then, to be quite an inportant interpretation that is not countered by any of the Biblical writers. And, as far as the SDA church is concerned, this interpretation is backed up by Ellen White many times. She wrote a whole chapter entitled, "The Literal Creation Week".
You argue that the nature of inspiration allows for different interpretations of such things, but Ellen White does not seem to back you up on this one in the way you indicated in your lecture last week. She claims to have been shown in vision that the literal 7-day creation week would never be overturned with additional light. She claims that her "inspirations" were not just some vague thoughts and feelings. She often says that an angel talked to her. She even claims to have talked to Jesus himself with real words spoken to her by Jesus - in plane English! Certainly I've never experienced anything close to this type of inspiration myself. Now, either she is lying about this sort of experience, is deluded, or she is telling the truth. I don't see how anyone can accept that some of the things she claims to have been shown in vision are inspired in such a direct manner while other things are not inspired or are inspired in such a way as to make their literal interpretation no longer true.
"The Bible recognizes no long ages in which the earth was slowly evolved from chaos. Of each successive day of creation, the sacred record declares that it consisted of the evening and the morning, like all other days that have followed. At the close of each day is given the result of the Creator's work. The statement is made at the close of the first week's record, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created." Genesis 2:4. But this does not convey the idea that the days of creation were other than literal days. Each day was called a generation, because that in it God generated, or produced, some new portion of His work.
God designed that the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history; but men, with their vain reasoning, fall into the same error as did the people before the Flood--the things which God gave them as a benefit, they turn into a curse by making a wrong use of them.
•It is one of Satan's devices to lead the people to accept the fables of infidelity; for he can thus obscure the law of God, in itself very plain, and embolden men to rebel against the divine government. His efforts are especially directed against the fourth commandment, because it so clearly points to the living God, the Maker of the heavens and the earth.
•There is a constant effort made to explain the work of creation as the result of natural causes; and human reasoning is accepted even by professed Christians, in opposition to plain Scripture facts. "
EGW, The Literal Creation Week, PP 111-116
Sean
Should Names' Methamorphosis
Surprise Us?
by Nic Samojluk
I feel tempted to share with the readers of this forum my own reaction to this exchange of ideas dealing with the double account of Esau's wives. We have numerous biblical examples where individuals were known by more than one name. Saul of Tarsus became Paul. Daniel and his companions were assigned new names when they were taken to Babylon. Jacob the deceiver became Israel, and Simon was baptized with a new name by Jesus: Peter. It seems that people's names were subject to change whenever the individuals were found in new circumstances. Look at what happened to Daniel and his companions:
| Quote: |
Among these were men of Judah: Daniel, Hannaniah, Mishael, and Azariah. The chief chamberlain changed their names: Daniel to Belteshazzar, Hananiah to Shadrach, Mishael to Meschach, and Azariah to Abednego.
|
And this should not surprise us, since some of us have lived through a similar experience. My birth certificate says that my name is Mikolay, my mother and all my Ukranian relatives called me Kola until we emigrated to South America. There my name was transmuted to Nicolas, but a friend of the family always called me Nicolito, while many of my personal friends called me Nicola. When we came to the U.S., my name was subject to one more transformation, and I am now known as Nic. Someone reading my story a few centuries from now might wonder whether all these names belong to the same individual! Even today, my Ukranian relatives in Europe know me as Kola; nevertheless, if you ask my own children or grandchildren whether Kola and Nic are the same person, they would deny this!
A few years ago I received an E-mail from a student at the Montemorelos SDA University. He was assigned by one of his music teachers to write the story behind one of the Spanish SDA Hymnal songs. The author of the lyrics is shown as Nicolas Samojluk. He spotted the name Nic Samojluk as a result of an Internet search, and he wanted to know whether I was somehow related to the author of those lyrics. I had to explain to him what happened to my name following my emigration to the U.S. If he had doubted the genuiness of my claim, I would not have blamed him for doing so! Imagine what would have happened had I used my original birth name: Mikolay. Does Mikolay sound like Nic? Actually, had not my name mutated to Nicolas, my nic name would now have been Mike instead of Nic!
What Does the Genesis' Internal
Evidence Reveal?
by Nic Samojluk
Next I want respond to the many arguments Sean Pitman enumerated in defense of a literal reading of Genesis. I think that his arguments are quite compelling, and that there are many more reasons for taking the story of creation rather seriously. Nevertheless, if we want to be true to the internal evidence we find in Genesis, then we have to admit that a one hundred percent strict literal reading may not be justifiable. My reasons are based on the following considerations:
First Reason: Jewish tradition, and Ellen White point to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. Does this mean that Moses is responsible for the final version of those books. For many years I did believe that that was the case, until I read the following in the book of Genesis:
| Quote: |
The following are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the Israelites ... Bela ... Jobab ... Husham ... Hadad ... Samlah ... Shaul ...Baal-hanan ...Hadar ... [Genesis 36: 31-39]
|
Here is what the author of the Bible translation I have in front of me wrote as an explanation for this surprising biblical statement:
| Quote: |
Before any king reigned over the Israelites: obviously this statement was written after the time of Saul, Israel's first king.
|
Common sense forces us to admit that this internal evidence demands an acknowledgement that either Moses was not the author of the final version of the Pentateuch, or else a later writer edited the original draft of Genesis.
Second Reason: The only portion of the Bible allegedly atributed to God himself is the Decalogue. Can you think of anything that would require a more literal reading than this? Well, the fact is that we have two versions of the Decalogue. One is found in Exodud 20, and the other in Deuteronomy 5. Both versions seem to be a mirror of each other, with the exception of a single statement connected with the fourth Commandment. In one of them the reason for keeping the Sabbath is creation, and in the other one is the liberation of the children of Israel from slavery:
| Quote: |
| Remember to keep holy the sabbath day ... In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. [Exodus 20: 8-11] |
| Quote: |
Take care to keep holy the sabbath day ... For remember that you too sere slaves in Egypt ... that is why the Lord, your God, has commanded you to observe the sabbath day. [Deuteronomy 5: 12-15]
|
I ask: which one of these two reasons for keeping the sabbath holy is the valid one, the one actually written by God's finger? Someone might say, "Both." I agree! Both are good reasons for keeping the sabbath holy, but common sense forces me, at least, to admit that such interpretation does not represents a stricltly literal reading of the text. Internal evidence forces me to admit that someone edited what God had stated. Was it Moses, or a later editor? Nobody knows the answer to this question.
Third Reason: If we compare two biblical events: the story of creation and the giving of the Decalogue, we would probably agree that both events are extremely important from the religious point of view; and I would venture to submit that the story of creation is probably more important than the giving of the Ten Commandments. My question is: If Moses is the author of both biblical stories--and I think that he did write the original version of those stories--then why is it that Moses took pains to tell us the source of the second story; while keeping us in the dark about the source of the first?
Read the 19th chapter of Exodus and notice how detailed is the account concerning the circumstances under which he received the Ten Commandments. Now go to Genesis one. Here I find no information about how he learned about the circumstances surrounding the creation events. He could have prefaced his creation story, not with en entire chapter, but at least with a sentence like this one: "While I was keeping my father-in-law sheep, the Lord revealed to me the story of creation," or perhaps, "While I was on Mount Sinai, during those 40 days and nights, the Lord revealed to me the details of the creation."
Moses' silence regarding the source of the creation events leads me to conclude that the story of creation was not the result of a visionary experience nor the outcome of a direct revelation from heaven, but rather the knowledge he must have inherited from his parents and his Jewish tradition. Since Joseph, also a Hebrew, had been the prime minister of Egypt, I would venture that the Jewish heritage must have been included in the Egyptian library which must have been accessible to Moses, who was educated in Pharaoh's court.
Does this mean that the story is less reliable? I don't think so. According to the Bible, Adam and his immediate descendants lived long lives, and they must have told the story of creation to their children hundreds of times. Eventually, someone, perhaps Joseph, must have recorded this for posterity. Now, where did Adam learn about the details of the creation events? Probably directly from God, who communed directly with him prior to his fall. I believe that the story is trustworthy, although not necessarily infallible in all its details.
If we have two versions of the Decalogue, which was written with God's finger; we should not be surprised to find two stories of creation, with differing details about the order of creation events. You might have noticed that in Chapter one of Genesis we are told that the Lord created the animals on day six, then the first pair of human beings; while in chapter two this order is reversed: He creates man first and then the animals. Which story is the correct one? Who cares? The truth is not in the details, but rather in the story atributing to God the origin of all life.
Other Reasons: There are other reasons for rejecting a strictly word for word accuracy of the sacred biblical record up to the minutest detail, but I think that the ones I described should suffice as a starter. The reader should feel free to search for more on his own. Every time I read the Bible in a different version, I discover new details confirming what I am stating here. Should I reject this great work of literature because it might contain minute imperfections? I don't think so. The Bible is clear and infallible as far as redemption is concerned, and my religious duty is clearly delineated. For this I should be grateful!
Conclusion: Once upon a time, a Christian preacher was talking to an agnostic who argued that the Bible contained some errors and contradictions. The preacher, who was familiar with the moral conduct of this man responded: "True, the Bible does contain some errors and contradiction; nevertheles, it is very clear concerning adultery and fornication." His agnostic friend became speechless. There is no doubt that God's book is very clear about our moral duty both to God and man.
Read also the following posting dealing with the same topic:
How Fundamental is the Literal Six-Day Creation Week?
http://sdaforum.com/page61.html
 Free Mailing List Club!
If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.
|
