|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: could moses have written the first five books of the bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Actually we haven't. quote:You have not shown evidence that the "scroll of Moses/Law" referred to within the five books is the same "Scroll of Moses/Law" being referred to by later tradition or that it encompasses the first five books. You have not shown that other Biblical authors are referring to the first five books as a group. You have not supported your viewpoint. I'd appreciate it if you didn't repeat yourself, but would show support for your position. There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Just because you think the story makes sense isn't support for your position of Mosaic authorship. You cannot reconcile the differing details of the agreement and Jacobs statements to support one author. Please provide evidence that the story holds together. There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:According to the History of the Jews, Jewish intellectuals felt that the Law, as it was currently written, was not very old and certainly did not go back to Moses. There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 643 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Do you have a suggested reference for that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
According to Jacob, He did and I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Jacob was lying, so AFIAC, until you can present such evidence, you have no point to press here. you see, when someone does something, and then tells someone that someone else did that thing instead, we call that "lying."
The changes in the terms that Jacob had to work for Rachel and Leah is a separate issue. yes, it is. that's the issue.
It seems clear to me that your argument for Jacob setting the terms and not Laban is pointless. The fact is that they both agreed to them. It seems likely to me that Jacob felt obligated to fulfill the full amount of years of work for the share in the flock that he got off the bat. If the sheep and goats kept giving birth to speckled and spotted offspring than it makes sense to me that Laban would object and probably even suspect foul play on the part of Jacob. Jacob, was getting additional sheep and goats out of the deal, and he also was connected by marriage to Laban. That he didn't say, "hey wait a minute, this is not what we originally agreed on" and then promptly left because Laban renigged on his initial agreement, makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps this is unimaginable to you. But I view it as quite logical and in no way a problem for Biblical honesty. that's great, but that's not the story in the bible. the story in bible goes like this: laban says to jacob, "let me pay you." jacob replies "keep your money." laban says, "no, really. let me pay you." jacob says, "well, if you insist. but i want sheep, not sheckels. actually, i don't even want good sheep, i want the rejects. i'll go through your flock, and pick out the nasty-looking ones, and those will be mine." laban says "deal," and then promptly instructs his sons to collect all of the ones jacob would take and hide them three days walk away from jacob -- making jacob's share nothing. jacob sees this and is unphased. he grabs some poplars and almonds and whatnot, and makes the sheep throw spotted and streaked young. he makes the product of two strong sheep spotted, and the product of two week sheep clean. and so he takes all of the strong offspring for himself, leaving laban a bad flock of good-looking sheep. then he leaves with his sheep, his wives, and his kids. he tells his wives that god vindicate him by making all the sheep spotted and streaked. those are the facts of what the biblical account is. it's a rather simple story, i don't know why you're having such a problem understanding what's going on. laban rips jacob off for twenty years straight, but jacob outsmarts him.
do you really think jacob had nothing to do with it? This has already been addressed and no offense but I get tired of the repititon. If you want an answer to this, simply re-read my earlier posts and try to spot what evidently you have forgotten. perhaps you can show the act of god in genesis 30? or where the angel speaks to him? because all i see is jacob doing something and affecting the outcome. now, you're saying that the bible is being deceitful, in that there was really a miracle in there somewhere they just failed to acknowledge. the only thing getting repetitive here is "I've already addressed this." especially when you haven't. you've also failed to notice that one story has laban ripping jacob of one way, and the other story has laban ripping him off the other way. and you didn't answer how speckled and spotted he-goats and he-sheep were the only ones "jumping on the flock" when they were 3 whole days away, hidden from jacob.
He schemed to rip Laban off. Was he actually doing this? No. But in the Bible not all sin is an action, sometimes it's a thought or a motive. so he thought up the scheme and went through the actions -- which didn't actually do anything. god did all the work, and joseph's actions were inconsequential. had he not placed the rods before the sheep, the outcome would have been the same. right? why did jacob think this scheme would work? nevermind that it did -- what lead him to believe that some twigs would make goats throw spotted young? please note that even in jacob's LATER version where god tells him something, god neither indicates that jacob needs to take action (the male cattle do all of that), nor is anything mentioned about "rods." so for your view to make sense at all, something is completely left out of both accounts and god omits something.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps not all 10 are mentioned to avoid being longwinded? i've told you ten times already that it's just an expression. and no, it never occurred to me. have you, uh, read the bible? it's quite long-winded at times.
do you agree that characters in the bible lie? or no? I've already responded to this. no, actually, you did not. besides, you have to make 33 keystrokes to write "I've already responded to this." "yes" has only 3, and "no" has only 2. far, far less effort and much more clear. because the actual answer is far shorter than your non-repsonse, i can only assume that you're dodging the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I already explained this to you. It is the ancient Rabbinic tradition that matters, that is what is closer to the time of the authorship of the OT, and its canonization. Medeival divergences from the orthodox rabbinc views don't matter because they are much later. i responded to this already, but i don't really feel like waiting for you to post that you don't actually have any real answers to my request for the specifics of ancient rabbinic tradition. so i'll give you a specific.
quote: this the fourth book of ezra, from the apocrypha. most date it to around the 2nd century ad -- it claims that the torah we have, as well as the nevi'im, kethuvim, and other sacred writings not found in the standard canon were lost in a fire, and over a period of 40 days ezra himself, inspired by the lord, dictates some 200 texts to five scribes. 2nd century ad rabbinic tradition claims that ezra wrote the torah. saint jerome in the 4th century even acknowledges that there was no objection to people saying that the prophet ezra renewed the torah. how much further back do you want me to go?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Hey ramoss,
This was from "A History of the Jews" by Paul Johnson, page 101. It was apparently about 175 BC, but it looks like Antiochus Epiphanes was a little too enthusiastic about the reform movement and how it would help his own agenda. His extreme measures caused a backlash, which as I understand it lead to the Maccabean incident. Does all that sound about right or did I misunderstand? There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:The fact of the matter is the context with which I used the word ambiguous should have made it clear to you what way I was using the word. I never used it the same way one would use vague in this entire debate. And I challenge you to find one single post of mine where I clearly did this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:Actually I just took a look at the passages in question and it seems to me that beginning with Genesis 2:4, another source was likely used. I'm guessing this is your take on the matter too and as "Lord God" is then used in instead of "God" it makes sense too. So unless we have any true disagreement here, I think we should move on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:Oh yes we have. We have covered this topic precisely. quote:I've already argued that "law" in the Bible most likely refers to the Law. This is also the view that ancient rabbis had. quote:I have no intention of doing either and from now on will ignore posts of yours demanding I address this point yet again. I feel that I've given a good answer for it already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
look, this is silly. you know that ambiguous (a few meanings) and vague (more than one meaning) have very similar definitions. you're just playing this game because i called you on a contradiction.
besides, your ORIGINAL quote did not use the word "vague," either:
quote: you said "clumsy with .. grammar." ambigous and imprecise grammar could be considered "clumsy." you are putting your own presuppositions onto your perceived "ambiguous" grammar, and using it support your falsehoods. that is very hypocritical, and you know. stop making excuses and playing semantics with your own clumsy grammar and just admit that you goofed up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Actually I just took a look at the passages in question and it seems to me that beginning with Genesis 2:4, another source was likely used. I'm guessing this is your take on the matter too and as "Lord God" is then used in instead of "God" it makes sense too. So unless we have any true disagreement here, I think we should move on. so you are starting to see how easily and sensibly the torah (or at least genesis) can be divided into different sources? do you agree then that the documentary hypothesis has some pretty good ground, at least for this book?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Are you saying two different authors or are you saying Moses, as the author or compiler, used a different source for his information? We are saying that the stories were written by two different authors and stuck together later by a redactor. There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:Nonsense! I've already done this and quite well IMO. If you disagree, then we agree to disagree and it's that simple. quote:I already did this Purple, just like I already expounded on my argument for "law" referring to the Law. And I do not care to go over it again. No offense Purple, but I find it annoying that I give an argument and point to evidence to support it and use logic and then you keep saying over and over that I haven't done squat and then keep demanding that I address the issue. It's highly annoying. Look if you disagree or you think my evidence or argument is just not good enough, then fine, we disagree. I seriously doubt that I will convince even one of you staunch JEDP theory supporters. I'm merely trying to show you that Evangelical scholars have answers, and logical ones too, for all these alleged problems with Mosaic authorship. I support my argument with logic and evidence, just as the forum rules say I must. But if that logic and evidence just isn't good enough for you personally, well, that's just too bad. I don't have to live up to your standards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:I consider it to be possible that Moses, deliberately wrote the early part of Genesis based on multiple sources and simply wrote in this fashion. However, I think this is unlikely. I think the most likely explanation is that Genesis 2:4 is a split and he merely recited one creation account after another. It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't change one word of the both of them.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024