|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: could moses have written the first five books of the bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:I think you're losing track of what we were discussing on this particular point. Remember, the issue was about "Ur of the Chaldeans." You are the one that brought up early Hebrew presence in Palestine. Which is a separate part of the debate. I was just pointing out, that the question of early Hebrews in Palestine, doesn't negate the fact that you still have no evidence for Chaldeans not being in Mesopotamia in Abraham's time. quote:I got this. Still, this is not evidence that they were not in Mesopotamia in Abraham's time, the crucial point that we are debating. quote:Let us suppose hypothetically that there were Hebrews in Palestine in Moses' time. Now this still does not enable you to refute my point and that is that you have no evidence that the Chaldeans were not in Mesopotamia in Abraham's time. You have to win on that critical point to win on that critical point. Whether there were Hebrews in Palestine a few hundred years later, is frankly irrelevant to that point. Besides, what evidence do oyu habve that Melchizedek was Hebrew anyways? quote:Maybe they weren't in Palestine at the time? I don't see how this is an issue. Abscense of their being mentioned is not evidence that they were not in Mesopotamia earlier. How does your assumption here logically follow that they couldn't have been in Mesopotamia earlier? quote:Well assuming that the other descendants of Eber were called Hebrews as well, than ya he could have been. But that doesn't in any way invalidate the claims of the Bible. And AFAIK, other descendants of Eber are not referred to as hebrews in the OT, not that their being called this as well changes anything. quote:This does not logically follow. quote: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. Besides those medieval rabbis were not arguing against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, only Mosiac authorship of a handful of lines in the Pentateuch. There is a mountain of difference between their views and the JEDP theory. If they were alive today and participating in this debate, although they may not agree with me 100%, they would decidedly be on my side in this debate, not yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:Good eye. I concede your point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:I'm not arguing against names' of God being used interchangeably. I'm arguing against names of God, consistently and only, being used because one of the alleged J, E, D, or P authors only knows one of those names. Now if you make a list of the known names of God, in the OT, you will find that those names have a tendency to have relevent specific context to their usage. Does that mean that 100% of the time, there is a clear cut context to their usage? I honestly don't know. I suppose some of them are just used because it was a known name for God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I'm not arguing against names' of God being used interchangeably. I'm arguing against names of God, consistently and only, being used because one of the alleged J, E, D, or P authors only knows one of those names. no, you're still missing it. yahweh is a name.elohim is a title. the elohist uses ONLY elohim until exodus 6. the jahwist uses yahweh and elohim together ONLY. the elohist does, indeed, know god's name. he uses it after it's revealed to moses.
Now if you make a list of the known names of God, in the OT, you will find that those names have a tendency to have relevent specific context to their usage. well, you see, that sort of thing isn't possible if you're not willing to identify the cultural contexts and focii of various documents. why do you accept differing cultural contexts and focii -- but fail to see that they lines up with the way the documents divide?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote: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. quote:The changes in the terms that Jacob had to work for Rachel and Leah is a separate 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. quote:I've already addressed this and I see no problem with the way I view it, neither have you said anything that causes me to have to seriously consider otherwise. quote: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. quote: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. quote:We've already gone over this, no new information here, so I'm just going to skip answering. quote:We've already gone over this. I realize that as far as online debates are concerned, I happen to have a very long attention span and almost always keep track of the points made in debates better than my opponents. But I don't see why I should be punished for this. So if you want an answer here, just re-read what I've already posted. Sorry but I don't see any new information in the rest of your argument on this point, and I feel I gave good answers for it already too. So I'm going to skip responding to this part of the debate, unless you present new info.quote:Did it ever occur to you that perhaps not all 10 are mentioned to avoid being longwinded? quote:I've already responded to this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:This doesn't change anything. quote:And? I happen to think Moses used both. So what? I think he edited Genesis. So no problems here for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:It's more like they somehow think it doesn't apply to their own views. quote:This doesn't negate what I just said. The NEW theory isn't necessasarily better or more accurate. Information is sometimes lost or ignored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:I'm aware of all of this. You're missing my point. There should be a logical split in the storyline and that would be where two different stories were combined. Now if there is no logical split like that, then you have to assume that the story was merely edited and then by implication the editor made an ilogical change. IOW, he lied, and clumsily. I find that hard to beleive and happen to think that Moses writing in that way, simply matter of factly, makes more sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I think you're losing track of what we were discussing on this particular point. Remember, the issue was about "Ur of the Chaldeans." You are the one that brought up early Hebrew presence in Palestine. Which is a separate part of the debate. I was just pointing out, that the question of early Hebrews in Palestine, doesn't negate the fact that you still have no evidence for Chaldeans not being in Mesopotamia in Abraham's time. i'm making a logical point here. you cannot prove there was not a single hebrew in palestine just before the exodus. it's hard to prove an abscence. what you're saying is the equivalent of "there is no evidence for god, therefore he exists." it doesn't follow. the burden of proof is on YOU to establish that there were chaldeans in mesopotamia during the time of moses. i don't know how you fail to see what i'm saying here. maybe i'm not being straightforward enough? too subtle? i cannot prove that there were no chaldeans in mesopotamia during moses's time anymoe than you can prove there were no hebrews there either. i brought to point up to turn your own claim about on you, and demand the same thing of you that you demand of me. if you can't do it -- why should i be able to meet your demand? rather, i have demonstrated that chaldean presence in babylonia is unlikely with the evidence we have -- the evidence that they invaded from the arabian peninsula.
Abscense of their being mentioned is not evidence that they were not in Mesopotamia earlier. How does your assumption here logically follow that they couldn't have been in Mesopotamia earlier? normally, and on its own, it doesn't. but taken that the babylonia empire was one of continually invading and conquering empires -- one of which was the chaldeans -- the lack of evidence of them anywhere in the bible until they point we know we they invaded helps corroborate the idea that they came from somewhere else.
because they said "children of israel" we could infer that it was not a country. i pointed out two things: having a king would make them a nation, so this is not suprising (your point is not a point at all) and second that they are STILL called the childrean of israel WHILE they are country. This does not logically follow premise: the phrase "children of israel" indicates the abscence of a hebrew nation at the time of authorship premise: the bible was written mostly contemporarily, and the end of kings is a later epilogue. evidence: the phrase "children of israel" is used in the book of kings while israel and judah are nations. reducto ad-absurdum. pick a premise to be wrong.
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. ok, let's have some of these ancient rabbinic traditions. cite me some specifics. does closer mean correct? do you believe in the apocrypha and pseudepigraphica? those are some pretty ancient rabbinic traditions, some older than the nt. if you accept the new testament, why not the apocrypha?
Besides those medieval rabbis were not arguing against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, only Mosiac authorship of a handful of lines in the Pentateuch. they doubted the authenticity of the tradition that moses wrote ALL of the torah. they were arguing that there parts in the torah in that moses did not write. to refute a claim of entirety or perfect, one needs only show one counterexample.
There is a mountain of difference between their views and the JEDP theory. yes but one is logically derived from the other.
If they were alive today and participating in this debate, although they may not agree with me 100%, they would decidedly be on my side in this debate, not yours. yeah? shall we ask some of today's rabbi's?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:Do I demand you read lengthy books about Evangelical refutations of the JEDP theory? No. So no hypocrisy here on my part. quote:Arach, just re-read the definition a few times till it clicks. Key in on words like "or" which split the meaning of a word up into separate meanings. See many words have multiple meanings any time you see "or" in its definitions. I never used the word "ambiguous" to mean "vague" in our debate here. Never! And I still used the word correctly too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
This doesn't change anything. it's called background information.
And? I happen to think Moses used both. So what? I think he edited Genesis. So no problems here for me you could happen to think that god himself presented moses with a cd-rom copy of the chumash and halftorot, laid in solid gold. i don't care. you're refuting the evidence with your personal opinion. that doesn't work. the evidence is for inconsistent usage. it's like oil, and water -- not thoroughly mixed. you also missed another point: j and e continue into exodus. so if they are sources moses editted together, then he editted exodus together, too. this is starting to look like the bit where joshua cites another book in reference to his own life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:To me the story already makes sense. I see no reason to suppose multiple original authorship. I think it's possible that Moses used more than one source, but I see no reason to have to assume this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:I think that it is more meaningful to debate specific passages, rather than an overall interpretation of the Pentateuch's authorship. As I've already explained, I don't see how the superficial divisions of the JEDP theory are compelling. Remember, I think Moses wrote most of the Pentateuch, shortly after each event happened. That makes alot of sense out of different words being used interchangeably.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Arach, just re-read the definition a few times till it clicks. Key in on words like "or" which split the meaning of a word up into separate meanings. See many words have multiple meanings any time you see "or" in its definitions. I never used the word "ambiguous" to mean "vague" in our debate here. Never! And I still used the word correctly too. you know what's really funny? you like to smooth out the contradictions and inconsistencies of specifics in the bible -- but when present with very similar definitions you point how markedly different they are. let's resort to a math analogy again. 1. let X be the set of integers greater than 1.2. Y = 2. 3. true or false: Y is an element of set X. 2 > 1, true. 1 was the mathematical definition of "vague." 2 was the mathematical definition of "ambiguous." ambiguous is a subset of vague. you really should, like, take a logic class or something. you're like my high school teacher who couldn't understand that "most" is a subset of "some." he'd ask questions like "t/f, some people sleep at night" and would mark us all down when we said was true. as for "intended to decieve" perhaps you were ambiguous about which part of the first definition you meant. or is it just vague?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I'm aware of all of this. You're missing my point. There should be a logical split in the storyline and that would be where two different stories were combined. it's been pointed out to you ten times! it's in genesis 2:4. one half is the last words of chapter 1's story, and the second is the introduction to chapter 2.
IOW, he lied, and clumsily. I find that hard to beleive and happen to think that Moses writing in that way, simply matter of factly, makes more sense. perhaps you should look up the definitions of "edit" and "lie."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024