Summations Only

Yeah, that's your hypothesis. With no evidence for it whatsoever.

Exactly a hypothesis. And if you read what is written on it, you will see that is based on some information other than the bible and in general is just trying to explain, for example, why the bible shows different god types or why the bible is as it appears.
If you decide on a conclusion first, as you routinely do, then look to make things fit your conclusion, you end up with stuff like this;
" Many scribes working under Moses but it was all Moses' production".
That for example is not a hypothesis, it is fantasy. Not only can you not provide any outside the bible information ( like the hypothesis does) but it is completely implausible.
So indeed remember the difference between the Documentary hypothesis and what you try and routinely do.

Actually no Faith, it is not just overheated imagination. And the Documentary Hypothesis is just one fairly simple and clear method of Biblical Analysis. Some great examples are Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 as well as the fact that Matthew and Luke copied parts of Mark and also copied from another source.But it is just one path to enlightenment. There is also Textual Criticism as you have been shown. Even though you try to make up explanations the fact is that the Bible stories are filled with contradictions. You can, as so many have simply make shit up to try to explain them, but they still exist and the fantasies you and the commentators make are just plain not in the Bible Stories.There is the Historical Criticism that is based on outside evidence. That neither Biblical Flood ever happened. The Earth is billions of years old, the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan never happened and man is not a special creation but rather the product of Evolution.Finally there is Redaction Criticism, the editing, adding, removing, rearranging of material done by many individuals and groups over the ages. An example is the long ending to Mark and the later addition of "son of God" to the beginning.No Moses did not write the Pentateuch and may never have even existed.But you are right that all of this is a fairly recent development and mostly happening over the last 300 years or so but that is mostly thanks to the invention of new devices that can be used to ascertain facts. As soon as they appeared the facts began to show the Biblical errors and falsehoods and since then every new development has simply supported reality over fantasy.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin the ---> that

Yes, of course, it's a hypothesis developed to explain certain facts about the Pentateuch. In this context the word "proof" should be used in a scientific sense to mean "tentatively supported with evidence." The documentary hypothesis is a framework of interpretation for the Pentateuch text. For one simple example, in some places the Pentateuch refers to God as Yahweh, in other places as Elohim, and these places appear to be interwoven. The documentary hypothesis proposes how this and many other features came to be using facts from the Pentateuch and a wealth of historical, archeological and textual evidence. For another example, the different writing styles and vocabularies are representative or evocative of the circumstances of different historical periods. Moses lived six or seven hundred years before the Pentateuch was written down during or after the exile. There's a tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch but no evidence, and both the internal and external evidence discredit the idea.--Percy

Believers have NO problem with any of the supposed discrepancies you all have. There are no different "god types," there is God. Too bad you all can't see it. The Bible is to be believed, not torn to pieces.

This is good summary of the pitfalls, in my view.
With things in life that are accepted fact. They start out with evidence and evidence builds until it's established fact and further information continues to support it.
With Christianity we have the reverse. It started out with a dubious assortment that was deemed fact. Numerous traditions deemed fact.
There was not the possibility to analyze the "fact" for the first say 1700 years because it was not available on a broad scale to the public. The fact needed to be just accepted.
The last few hundred years have allowed research into the purported facts. Instead of the "facts" being supported by research in all areas (from scientific to theology) and thus becoming established as fact. It's been the opposite. The more information becomes available the worse it looks. It's not improving with research it's getting worse with research.

The Pentateuch was written by Moses. The most hideous evil thing the revisionists do is redate the writings. The Jews had the books of Moses from Moses' time. They were found lost in the temple in Josiah's time, BEFORE THE EXILE. THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE IN THE HISTORICAL USAGE OF THE BOOKS. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There are important differences between Commentary and Biblical Criticism and it may be worthwhile to examine each approach.In Commentary contradictions are noted and the question "Is there a way we could explain away the contradictions". But it stops there. There is no attempt to take the next step and see if the explanations are supported by evidence or facts.Biblical Criticism takes the next step. It notes the discrepancies but then goes on to see if there is evidence instead of just an idea that would explain the issues. It looks at what is actually written and finds that some passages use the term "Yahweh" (J tradition) to refer to God and others use the generic term Elohim (E tradition). In "J" the God is anthropomorphic and very human with human flaws and foibles like those seen on Genesis 2&3 where the God character doesn't quite know what to do and creates by hand. The "E" version of God though is more abstract and also uses different names for things, Horeb instead of Sinai as the Tablet Mountain.While the evidence is overwhelming that there were multiple authors of the Pentateuch there are still ongoing versions of how it happened with the strongest evidence being that it was an ongoing process with the involvement of different traditions as well as later revision and editing by various groups.Advancements is science over the last few hundred years also contribute to a better understanding of the Bible. The evidence again is overwhelming that neither of the Biblical floods ever happened, that man is not a special creation and is simply one result of evolution of life over billions of years, that the external evidence shows most of the historical narratives found in the Bible simply never happened.So the current state breaks down into two camps, one that simply accepts possible explanations for all of the problems but never tests any of those explanations while the other accept what the evidence actually shows even if it goes against what folk might like to believe.

The true believers of any religion have no problem with the problems of their religions. That's because they have blinders on. This is just something that people do for everything. "My football team is the best." "My school is the best." "My town is the best." "My country is the best." "My religion is the best." This tendency of people to think well of what is closest and most important to them is just human nature. It has little basis in fact.What you need for this thread is evidence, not believers. There's no evidence here. This is merely a call to faith. You could just as meaninglessly have said, "There are no different "god types," there is Allah. Too bad you all can't see it. The Quran is to be believed, not torn to pieces."--Percy

You have no evidence, why should I?

Another non-unique piece of information that is so ubiquitous, it might be fact.
True believers of any religion, never let inconvenient facts opposing their view, interfere with their view.
So you have that going for you. More just " the same" as other religion's stuff.

On the contrary, Paul said that we should analyze it:

quote:

---

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

---

He also seemed to be wary of commentaries:

quote:

---

2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

---

There couldn't be a more perfect example than your post of wrongly dividing the word of truth.

But you said that the Bible is not to be "torn apart" at all.

The very fact that The Bible can be "torn to pieces" is proof itself that it's the Word of Man and not the Word of God.Even men can write books that can't be torn to pieces.
You don't see controversy like this over books about math proofs or books about how the earth is spherical.
Sure, there's fringe loonys... but there's always fringe loonys.The controversy over The Bible is very large (in North America, anyway). Such controversy just doesn't exist over many works of man simply because you have to be a loony to attempt to go against it.Therefore... either God did not write a Bible that is as reliable as The Word of Man, or The Bible actually is the word of man, just a poor one. Or at least, poor by today's standards, I'm sure it was a very reliable Work of Man a few thousand years ago.