Moses compiled the accounts, but how was the book of Genesis passed down to him?

My theory on these issues, according to my study of the Word.

by Sandy Simpson, 4/26/26

I am not saying my arguments are unassailable on these issues. There are various other interpretations that are out there, most of which have some validity, which I will briefly address. I first got some of my ideas from books by Henry Morris and other Creation Scientists. Let’s go through what happened, starting in Genesis.

God gives Adam an account of creation.

Since Adam was not in the picture until the sixth day of Creation, God had to tell Adam what he had done previously.

Adam leaves a written account, likely in Hebrew, since the names are Hebraic.

First, let’s look at names in Genesis.

ADAM = Mankind OT:120 ‘adam (aw-dawm’); from OT:119; ruddy i.e., a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):

SETH = Appointed To OT:7896 shiyth (sheeth); a primitive root; to place (in a very wide application): KJV appoint

ENOS = Feeble, Frail, Mortality (#582 FROM #605) OT:582 ‘enowsh (en-oshe’); from OT:605; properly, a mortal (and thus differing from the more dignified OT:120); OT:605 ‘anash (aw-nash’); a primitive root; to be frail, feeble

CAINAN = A Fixed Dwelling Place OT:7064 qen (kane); contracted from OT:7077; a nest (as fixed)

MAHALALEEL = God Who Is Praised OT:4111 Mahalal’el (mah-hal-al-ale’); from OT:4110 and OT:410; praise of God

JARED = Comes Down, Descend OT:3382 Yered (yeh’-red); from OT:3381; a descent;

ENOCH = To Instruct, Train Up OT:2596 chanak (khaw-nak’); a primitive root; properly, to narrow, figuratively, to initiate or discipline: KJV – dedicate, train up.

METHUSELAH = A Man Sent Forth (#4968 FROM #4962, #7973) OT:4968 Methuwshelach (meth-oo-sheh’-lakh); from OT:4962 and OT:7973; man of a dart; OT:7973 shelach (sheh’-lakh); from OT:7971; a missile of attack,

LAMECH = To Be Beaten, Smitten, And Tortured OT:3929 Lemek (leh’-mek); from #4347 OT:4347 makkah, a blow, by implication, a wound; figuratively, carnage, also beaten, slaughter, smote, X sore, stripe, stroke, wound((-ed)).

NOAH = To Bring Rest, A Quiet Peace OT:5146 Noach (no’-akh); the same as OT:5118; rest OT:5118 nuwach (noo’-akh); or nowach (no’-akh); from OT:5117; quiet:

I suppose it is possible that Moses gave them Hebrew names when he compiled Genesis. But I can’t see why he would do that, since he would have known their original names, whether written down in the records passed to him or transmitted orally.

As to the nature of Adam’s account …

Gen. 5:1 (NOG) This is the written account of Adam and his descendants. When Elohim created humans, he made them in the likeness of Elohim.

Gen. 5:1 (NIV) This is the written account of Adam’s family line. When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God.

Gen. 5:1 (NASB) This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

Romans 3:2 (KJV) Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

A book would be a written account, even though it is questionable if it would have been in book form, more likely a scroll/scrolls. It could also have been transmitted as stone tablets, though I view that possibility as remote. Here is one claim I am not sure I believe.

A second answer comes from the writings of the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus. He claims that Methuselah was an ancient historian of his day, who recorded the history of the world (as told by Adam, who was still living during his lifetime) on stone obelisks. These obelisks were carried by Noah onto the ark, and after the ark came to rest, Noah deposited the stone tablets in Arabia. Later, during the desert wanderings, Moses was directed by God to discover these obelisks, where he learned the history of the world and repeated it in the Jewish scripture. The obelisk was inscribed in Hebrew (the first language of mankind), so only a Jewish man like Moses could have deciphered it. (Verse by Verse Ministry)

However, the accounts from the pre-Flood world could also have been written on papyrus, skins, or paper. There is no reason to assume, given their long lifespans, that they could not have developed a written language (Hebrew). Moses would have had to read and understand the accounts written down, likely on scrolls. Lest we forget, the pre-Flood people developed many things. We know that they made the first musical instruments, discovered how to smelt iron and bronze, etc. These were invented in the pre-Flood world (Gen. 4:20-22). Interesting how modern science thinks that no one knew about iron till 1200 BC.

The Bronze Age generally spanned from approximately 3300 BCE to 1200 BCE, bridging the Stone Age and the Iron Age. (Britannica)

If the accounts were passed down orally, it’s true that only a fairly short line of individuals would have had to memorize them: i.e., Adam, Methuselah, Noah, Shem, and Abraham. Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. But I believe the written-record scenario is far more likely, especially since it is specified that Adam’s account was in writing. How would Moses have known the validity of the facts unless he read them in Hebrew?

The Adamic account was likely given to either Methuselah or Lamech, then to Noah.

Adam lived in the lifespans of the above, so would likely have handed his written account to one of them, who would, in turn, have handed it to Noah before the flood.

On a related subject …

They began to “call upon the name of Yahweh (YHWH)”.

Genesis 4:26 (NOG) A son was also born to Seth, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to worship Yahweh.

Genesis 4:26 (NASB) To Seth also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then people began to call upon the name of the Lord.

The NASB is a correct translation. The Hebrew word qara’ means to call or proclaim. The word worship is not in the definition of qara’. Also, most English translations use “Lord” instead of the actual name they were proclaiming: YHWH.

Genesis 9:26 Praise Yahweh, the Elohim of Shem! Canaan will be his slave.

Elohim was the generic term for “God” or “deity,” the plural of El. Isn’t it interesting that the Jews have referred to God for ages as a “plural” form of God! Elohim can also refer to angels. Elohim was not His name, which was YHWH, but rather a description of Who He is.

The word elohim can refer to the true God, to a false god, to angels, and to human beings. Genesis 1:1, Exodus 18:11, 1 Kings 11:5, Psalm 8:5, Exodus 21:6.

Noah's account would have then been given to Shem, who, in turn, likely passed it to Abram. Terah's account was also likely given to Abram. Shem, who I believe was Melchizedek, probably gave Abraham the written accounts.

By the way, I believe Abraham knew who Melchizedek was, since he was likely his distant grandfather and would have known this through his father Terah.

But who is this mysterious figure called Malki-Tzedek? The name "Malki-Tzedek" literally means "my king" (i.e., יִכְּלַמ, from ךְֶלֶמ, "king") is "tzedek" (i.e., ק ֶדֶצ, "just, righteous"). Note that it does not mean "King of righteousness" (as is sometimes claimed by Christian theologians), since the word "malki" contains a possessive personal pronoun (i.e., "my king"). Jewish tradition identifies Malki-Tzedek as Shem (םֵשׁ), the firstborn son of Noach, who settled in Salem (םֵלָשׁ) sometime after the great Flood. To understand how Shem became the first high priest and king of Zion, we need to go back and reconsider the lineage of the patriarchs. (by John J. Parsons)

Let me give you the two major views on who Melchisedek was.

A Christophany

A recent, very popular view is that Melchizedek is actually a preincarnate Christophany in Genesis. In other words, some claim that Melchizedek is Christ, having no beginning or end, not dying, and remaining a priest. Ambrose was one of the earliest proponents of this hypothesis. For support, they will cite verses such as Revelation 1:8 and 22:13, in which Christ calls himself the beginning and the end. The mention that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham (Hebrews 7:4–7) is also used to support the Christophany position (compare John 8:53–58). However, there are some serious flaws with this position. Namely, that Melchizedek is mentioned as having no father or mother, yet Christ plainly has a heavenly Father and later an earthly mother. Second, Christ is mentioned as a priest after the order of Melchizedek, which would be akin to saying “Christ is a priest after the order of Christ” if Melchizedek were a Christophany. This plainly makes no sense. Lastly, Melchizedek is said in Hebrews 7:3 to be “resembling the Son of God,” which again becomes nonsensical if we say that “the Son of God was resembling the Son of God.” We must consider that if Melchizedek was the king of Salem, he had to have lived, eaten, worked, interacted with his subjects, and been known by his people and also other kings (like the king of Sodom and probably the other four kings of the plain mentioned in Genesis 14:2). He had to have attained his kingship through succession or by conquest. So the idea of Melchizedek as Christ just popping into history to take over as king of Salem seems to be a phenomenal thing that, if it were otherwise, would be mentioned in Scripture. It also leaves the problem of to whom this Melchizedek (if a Christophany) left his kingdom and priesthood when he departed back to heaven? For these (and other) reasons, this theory must be rejected. (Answers in Genesis)

Next, the Shem view.

Melchizedek as Shem

Theological Tradition: Jewish sources (including Targum Yonathan, Genesis Rabbah 46:7, and the Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 32b) unanimously identify Melchizedek as Shem, the son of Noah.

Chronological Possibility: Based on Genesis chronologies, Shem lived for 600 years and was alive during Abraham’s lifetime.

Role as Patriarch: Shem is recognized as the High Priest of his generation, having received the priesthood from Noah.

Reign over Salem: Tradition holds that Shem was given the land of Salem (later Jerusalem), making him the "king of Salem" and "king of Righteousness".

Biblical and Traditional Evidence: Book of Jasher (16:11-12): Explicitly states, "And Adonizedek king of Jerusalem, the same was Shem, went out with his men to meet Abram".

Symbolic Meaning: Shem means "Name" or "Renown," which some believe is a title, while Melchizedek ("King of Righteousness") functions as his title as the righteous ruler of Salem. While the Book of Hebrews (7:3) describes Melchizedek as having "no father, no mother, no genealogy," this is commonly interpreted in this tradition as a description of his priestly role. (Wikipedia)

The Great High Priest: There can’t be two high priests presiding at the same time. Shem was the great high priest of his day. Abraham honored the high priest Melchizedek by seeking a blessing at his hands and paying him tithes.

Order of Priesthood: Abraham stands next to Shem in the patriarchal order of the priesthood and would surely have received it from Shem, but Hebrews Teaching says Abraham received it from Melchizedek.

Reign over Salem: Shem inherited the land of Salem, and Melchizedek was the king of Salem.

King of Righteousness: Shem reigned in righteousness (Melchizedek’s name means King of Righteousness), and the priesthood came through him. (Ginsberg, Legends of the Jews, p. 233.)

Name as Title: If Shem is indeed Melchizedek, the name is then used as a title, not an actual name. This title would seem to fit the biblical account of the Godliness and righteousness ascribed to Shem.

Hebrew Tradition: Shem, Noah’s son, who was still alive at the time of Abraham, and that would make him the oldest man alive, qualifying him as a candidate for the order of Melchizedek. (Amazing Bible Timeline with World History)

It does not make sense to claim, in my opinion, that Melchisedek was a Christophany, even though that is a view held by many theologians. That is for a few reasons. It was widely believed at the time that Melchisedek had no father or mother. However, if he were Shem, and since he had changed his title, those who later knew him could not remember a mother or father. Jewish scholars have no problem getting past the following mention in Heb. 7:3.

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.

Maybe this is splitting hairs, but it says Melchisedek was “made”. Jesus was never “made”. I can understand that the assertion that he “had no beginning of days or end of life” and that “he remains a priest perpetually” would make people think he was Christ. But it could also simply be a restatement of his unknown genealogy by the time of Abraham. In any case, Abram did not treat Melchizedek as if he were God, since he had previously talked with “the angel of the Lord” and would have recognized him as such and worshipped Him.

Genesis 12:4 So Abram went away as the Lord had spoken to him; and Lot went with him. Now Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.

Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High.

Genesis 22:11 But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.”

“The angel of the Lord” is a Christophany of Jesus Christ as opposed to “an angel of the Lord” such as Gabriel.

Hebrews 7:17 For it is attested of Him, “You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.”

Jesus is likened to Melchizedek, not that he was him, but he was to be both a King and Priest, as was Melchizedek.

There are other possibilities. Here is one.

Ver. 3. Without father, without mother, without descent, &c.] Which is to be understood not of his person, but of his priesthood; that his father was not a priest, nor did his mother descend from any in that office; nor had he either a predecessor or a successor in it, as appears from any authentic accounts: or this is to be interpreted, not of his natural, but scriptural being; for no doubt, as he was a mere man, he had a father, and a mother, and a natural lineage and descent; but of these no mention is made in Scripture, and therefore said to be without them; and so the Syriac version renders it; "whose father and mother are not written in the genealogies"; or there is no genealogical account of them. The Arabic writers tell us who his father and his mother were; some of them say that Peleg was his father: so Elmacinus {d}, his words are these; Peleg lived after he begat Rehu two hundred and nine years; afterwards he begat Melchizedek, the priest whom we have now made mention of. Patricides {e}, another of their writers, expresses himself after this manner. (John Gill Commentary)

It is a big stretch to say Peleg begat Melchizedek based on the following verse, since there is no mention of Melchizedek being one of Peleg’s sons, which would have been a glaring omission.

Genesis 11:19 and Peleg lived 209 years after he fathered Reu, and he fathered other sons and daughters.

Accounts were then passed down to Moses in written form.

Possibly orally, or on tablets as Josephus wrote, or in written form, as evidenced in Genesis being the “written account” of Adam. By the way, please notice it was a “written” account, not “chiseled”. Orality is kind of a long shot, as there would have been too many details for even a short line of individuals to memorize without mnemonics.

Mnemonics are memory-enhancing techniques that transform complex information into easier-to-remember formats—such as acronyms, rhymes, or mental images—by connecting new information with existing long-term memory. They improve recall by providing structure and retrieval cues, allowing for faster learning of lists, formulas, and vocabulary. These methods, originating from ancient Greek traditions, allow users to create personal, often vivid, and memorable associations. (Wikipedia)

Pacific islanders who navigated to Micronesia and Polynesia used mnemonic techniques to memorize vast amounts of navigational information. Though this was not likely tied to the Greeks, it was in evidence probably as early as 300 BC. But I suppose it is still statistically a slight possibility that the oracles were communicated orally.

Moses did not use other creation accounts, such as Gilgamesh's, which were highly inaccurate.

Gilgamesh claims he survived the Flood, but the Biblical account is that no one did, except those on the Ark. The fallen angels (sons of God), who are spiritual beings and could not be killed in a flood of water, then proceeded to sire giants via human women, such as Nimrod and his wife/mother, Semiramis; Gilgamesh; the sons of Anak; and others after the Flood. Thousands of giant bones have been found worldwide, and live giants were seen into the 20th century in some places. Bones have been found at 2,000-3,000 locations in the US alone, and most were confiscated by the Smithsonian, as evidenced by numerous newspaper accounts of the time. In Europe and the Middle East, the Vatican also confiscated many giants remains, though they deny it.

See my video called Gilgamesh Lied! here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krJzKnYA5Wc&t=535s

The Rephaim Connection: According to some interpretations, the Canaanite giants (Rephaim, Anakim) migrated across the Mediterranean from the Levant. (Wikipedia)

I believe that Nimrod was a giant.

The first thing we learn about Nimrod is that he began to be a mighty man [gibbor] on the earth. This most certainly implies that Nimrod somehow supernaturally transformed himself into a giant warrior, a mighty man of renown, like the Nephilim before the flood [Genesis 6:1-4]. One reason I conclude that Nimrod somehow became a giant like the Nephilim is by applying the rule of first reference. The term used here for mighty man is the Hebrew word “gibbor”, which is first used to describe the giant offspring of the sons of God in Genesis 6:4. Even though this word can refer simply to a valiant warrior, it often refers to giants. (Marcus Walker Van Every)

For more information on Nimrod, see my articles and videos on that subject here:

https://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/nimrodandbabel.html

https://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/monotheisminancientcultures.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoqVjjbqX18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y-SgceBpJU