HEI TPU! imi puteti spune cine ar putea fi autorul sau autorii carti geneza din biblie? avand in vedere ca in biblie nu exista ABSOLUT NICI O DOVADA CA MOISE AR FI, oricum eu nu il exclud pe moise, dar am cautat foarte atent in toata biblia si nu apare nicaeri ca el ar fi scris-o, cat despre celelalte 4 (torah, sau legea ) adica exodul, leveticul, numeri si deuteronom stim clar ca el le-a scris. dar vreau sa aflu cine ar putea fi scris aceasta carte. Astept raspunsurile dumneavoastra.

A fost scrisa de Moise pentru ca se foloseste expresia,, cartea legii lui Moise'', iar unele traduceri folosesc in loc de Geneza, Prima carte a lui Moise

Textele Genezei sunt aduse de rabinii elenisti din filozofia populara a elenilor!

Nu te lua dupa cei care doar CREFD si nu stiu!
Uire aici adevarul:
http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm#.Ur4KZOVuHfI

Salut

Într-adevăr, în Biblie nu găsim o dovadă directă care ar demonstra acest lucru.


Însă tradiţiile evreieşti susţin idea că iudeii i-au atribuit lui Moise scrierea acestei cărţi.

Iată aici un citat dintr-o enciclopedie biblică (Insight on the Scriptures) pe această temă:

The "Documentary Theory" of Critics. A theory has been set forth by some Bible critics that Genesis is not the work of one writer or compiler, namely, Moses, but rather that it represents the work of several writers, some of these living long after Moses’ time. On the basis of supposed differences of style and word usage, they have advanced the so-called documentary theory. According to this theory, there were three sources, which they call "J" (Jahwist), "E" (Elohist), and "P" (Priest Codex). Because of a double mention of a certain event or because of similarity of accounts in different parts of Genesis, some would add still further sources to the list, going so far in dissecting the book of Genesis as to claim that there were up to 14 independent sources. They contend that these various sources or writers held different views and theologies yet that, nevertheless, Genesis as an amalgamated product of these sources somehow forms a connected whole. There are many absurdities to which they go to support their theories, a few of which may be mentioned.
The original basis for the documentary theory was the use of different titles for God; the critics claim that this indicates different writers. The unreasonableness of such a view, however, can be seen in that in just one small portion of Genesis we find the following titles: "the Most High God" (ʼEl ʽEl·yohn′, Ge 14:18); "Producer of heaven and earth" (14:19); "Sovereign Lord" (ʼAdho·nai′, 15:2); "God of sight" (16:13); "God Almighty" (ʼEl Shad·dai′, 17:1); "God" (ʼElo·him′, 17:3); "the true God" (ha·ʼElo·him′, 17:18); "the Judge of all the earth" (18:25). Trying to use this as a basis for attributing each of these sections to a different writer produces insurmountable difficulties and becomes absurd. Rather, the truth is that the different titles applied to God in Genesis are used because of their meaning, revealing Jehovah in his different attributes, in his various works, and in his dealings with his people.
Other examples are: Because of the use of the word ba·raʼ′, "created," Genesis 1:1 is said to be written by the source called "P." Yet we find the same word at Genesis 6:7 in the source supposed to be "J." The expression "land of Canaan" appearing in several texts (among which are Ge 12:5; 13:12a; 16:3; 17:8) is said to be a peculiarity of the writer known as "P," and therefore these critics hold that "P" wrote these passages. But in chapters 42, 44,  47, and 50, we find the same expression in the writings attributed by the same critics to "J" and "E." Thus, while the critics claim that their theories are needed to account for supposed inconsistencies in Genesis, examination shows that the theories themselves are riddled with inconsistencies.
If the material attributed to each theoretical source is extricated portion by portion, and sentence by sentence, from the Genesis account and then reassembled, the result is a number of accounts each one of which by itself is illogical and incoherent. If we were to believe that these various sources were used and put together by a later compiler, we would be forced to believe that these incoherent accounts, before being amalgamated, were accepted as historical and were used for centuries by the nation of Israel. But what writer, especially a historian, would even construct such disconnected narratives, and if he did, what nation would accept them as a history of its people?
Illustrating the unreasonableness of the advocates of the "documentary theory" is this statement by Egyptologist K. A. Kitchen: "In Pentateuchal criticism it has long been customary to divide the whole into separate documents or ‘hands’. . . . But the practice of Old Testament criticism in attributing these characteristics to different ‘hands’ or documents becomes a manifest absurdity when applied to other ancient Oriental writings that display precisely similar phenomena." He then cites an example from an Egyptian biography that might, using the theoretical methods employed by the critics of Genesis, be attributed to different "hands" but which work the evidence shows "was conceived, composed, written, and carved within months, weeks, or even less. There can be no ‘hands’ behind its style, which merely varies with the subjects in view and the question of fitting treatment." (The New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas, 1980, p. 349) The weakness of the critics’ theories actually gives added strength to the evidence that only one man, Moses, recorded the connected, coherent account found in Genesis as inspired by God.