could moses have written the first five books of the bible

quote:

---

Actually we haven't.

---

Oh yes we have. We have covered this topic precisely.

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Nonsense! I've already done this and quite well IMO. If you disagree, then we agree to disagree and it's that simple.

quote:

---

Please provide evidence that the story holds together.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Ancient rabbis certainly did beleive Moses wrote the Pentateuch. This is common knowledge. And if you're challenging this, you need to provide evidence.

I'm not going to address any of your argument here about the passage in Genesis referring to Jacob and Laban, as your demands on me here have already been responded to, and although you may not realize it, you're merely repeating yourself here and with no new information.

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't agree that "10 times" is merely an expression. And I've already expounded on my history of studying the Bible, so this question need not be asked of me.

quote:

---

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.

---

Why don't you go back and read my earlier posts on this topic and look for the response that I claim I already gave to this question. Then when you can't find it, accuse me of not having responded to it already, as I claimed.

quote:

---

you have not substantiated this "most likely" claim, by showing us when we know certain books or sources were part of "the Law," using the bible as a reference.

---

Oh yes I have. And whether you like it or not I 100% refuse to repeat myself here. So please stop denmanding this of me.

quote:

---

you also have not provided a single claim by "ancient rabbis" after the biblical period as to what was in the torah, let alone who wrote it.

---

Sigh. OK man. Not like it's hard to find this type of information.

quote:

---

The traditional Jewish view is that God revealed his will to Moses at Mount Sinai in a verbal fashion. This dictation is said to have been exactly transcribed by Moses. Based on the Talmud (tractate Git. 60a), some believe that the Torah may have been given piece-by-piece over the 40 years that the Israelites wandered in the desert.

​

The Pentateuch itself does not imply as much. The expression "God said to Moses" shows only the Divine origin of the Mosaic laws, but does not prove that Moses himself codified in the Pentateuch the various laws promulgated by him. It does, on the other hand, ascribe to Moses the literary authorship of at least four sections, partly historical, partly legal, partly poetical. The voice of tradition, however, both Jewish and Christian, is so unanimous and constant in proclaiming the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch that down to the 17th century it did not allow the rise of any serious doubt. [1]

---

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia This is from your Wikipedia article about the Documentary Hypothesis.

quote:

---

you have to back up your claims here. and it's about time you did so. this debate could actually be very interesting and informative if you stepped up to the plate a bit and provided the actual evidence that is needed -- i'm sure some of it exists. instead you choose to dodge and claim you addressed the point already. but we're still waiting for the evidence.

---

This has got be the most absurd claim I've seen you make in this debate so far and seriously makes me question the strength of your memory. At any rate, it is a good indicator that this debate is winding down.

quote:

---

you have not provided any evidence for what the tradition actually is at the time in question, nor have you reasoned why we should accept that tradition.

---

That's because it is common information, just as your main source in this debate, right at the beginning of it, points out. Did you even actually read your source? I mean sheesh, I've seen other comments by you in this debate that would suggest to me that you put little effort into actually reading things you cite. Very catostrophic debating technique bro. Cuz then folks like me turn your own sources against you in the very debate you're using them to support your argument with, as I've done before in this debate already.

quote:

---

you sir are in violation of the rules here. please try to actually contribute, as some of us are actually interested in the question of what was considered "law" and what was not, even if you are not. but this circling around and claiming you addressed points you've dodged, and then refusing to reply to people when they ask to substantiate your claims?

---

Why don't you go complain to a forum moderator about it and stop bothering me with something I clealry view as false. Your demands are quickly spilling over into the harassment category.

quote:

---

it's just dishonest, and doesn't contribute to the debate. and if you're gonna do that, why bother posting at all? it doesn't make you look any mroe "right" than if you had just ignored the post altogether.

---

Anyone who wants to can peruse this whole thread, beginning with my first post, and see for themselves whether or not your accusations here are true or false.

I don't see any new info in the first part of this post, so I'm not going to respond to any of it.

quote:

---

STUPID? retarded.

​

quotero 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

​

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

​

how did they put two completely opposite verses one right after the other the other in proverbs? did they not recognize that they contradicted themselves?

​

or, do you think, there was another purpose? or perhaps that it didn't bother them?

---

AiG has a good article on this one. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

according to joshua, the book of jasher contains descriptions of the events in joshua's times. why would joshua, writing shortly after the event itself happened, having witnessed it firsthand, refer us to another book, already written and finished, by someone else?

---

Same way that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus, it's obviously prophetic literature. And as I accept the Bible at face value, that's hardly problematic for me or my argument.I think I'm done with this debate. New information in it is becoming quite scarce. It's been good guys, overall. Let's leave on a happy note here, if possible. Perhaps in the future we can debate other topics again.