|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: could moses have written the first five books of the bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I've already argued that "law" in the Bible most likely refers to the Law. This is also the view that ancient rabbis had. 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. 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. 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.
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. i can only assume that you don't actually want to debate here at all. you say that you have no intention of SHOWING what people meant by "the law" and when. rule number four says:
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. 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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:Ancient rabbis certainly did beleive Moses wrote the Pentateuch. This is common knowledge. And if you're challenging this, you need to provide evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:One cure for that is to refer (link) the questioner back to where you gave the supporting argument and evidence, so you don't have to restate it. Posts and arguments can be missed, especially really long ones. There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
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 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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Please provide evidence that the story holds together. I already did this Purple, ad-hoc rationalizations that require one to infer elements not in the story are not "evidence."
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. what's highly annoying the john-roberts act on your part. i provided you with not only my question (which went unanswered) but a suggested method of providing an answer for me, in a way that would actually convince me and others here. there are two assumptions i can make based on your lack of a response. either you are unable to answer the question, or you are unwilling. which is it?
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. odd, you'd think it was the evangelicals that have the religious attachment.
I'm merely trying to show you that Evangelical scholars have answers, and logical ones too, for all these alleged problems with Mosaic authorship. right, and on to step two, where we are questioning those supposed answers.
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. being that this is a science forum, yes, you do. tradition and religion do not fly in the science forums -- just like biology and archaeology do not fly in the religious forums. you still need to substantiate what the tradition is (with evidence -- try looking the talmud or something), when certain books became part of the canon (using the bible or other contemporary sources), and THEN prove that the tradition has any real standing historically and factually. welcome to the science forums, btw. This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 01-13-2006 03:58 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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 did, look back a few pages. it might be hard to find between all of the semantics and dogmatic positioning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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. and we've heard this particular sentance how many times?
I don't agree that "10 times" is merely an expression. even as i used it as such.
And I've already expounded on my history of studying the Bible, so this question need not be asked of me. yes, that's right, i don't. here's a pervious argument you made:
quote: and your argument now:
quote: so. huge book, but not long-winded? ambiguous, but not vague? you're full of semantics today.
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. again, "yes" or "no" would be much, much shorter. or, hey, copy and paste a link. that's pretty short too, AND proves you already addressed it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote: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:Sigh. OK man. Not like it's hard to find this type of information. quote:Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia This is from your Wikipedia article about the Documentary Hypothesis. quote: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: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: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I did. See Message 217. There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
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:AiG has a good article on this one. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Well, I can assure you that if you bother to read Isaiah 53 in context, it is not talking about Jesus at all. The vast majority of Rabbi's don't consider that passage messanic. The writer of Isaiah 53 says exactly who the servant of the Lord is. That is the nation of Israel.
Note: Israel is called 'JACOB' traditionally. Chapter 41:8 But you, Israel My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, who loved Me, 9 Whom I grasped from the ends of the earth, and from its nobles I called you, and I said to you, "You are My servant Chapter 44:1 And now, hearken, Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen. 2 So said the Lord your Maker, and He Who formed you from the womb shall aid you. Fear not, My servant Jacob, and Jeshurun whom I have chosen. ... 21 Remember these, O Jacob; and Israel, for you are My servant; I formed you that you be a servant to Me, Israel, do not forget Me. Chapter 45:4 For the sake of My servant Jacob, and Israel My chosen one, and I called to you (i.e. Cyrus) by your name; Chapter 48:20 Leave Babylon, flee from the Chaldeans; with a voice of singing declare, tell this, publicize it to the end of the earth; say, "The Lord has redeemed His servant Jacob." Chapter 49:3 And He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast." So, repeatedly, just before Chapter 53, the servent is identified as Israel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Hey ramoss,
As I understand it, the rabbinical tradition sprang from the Pharisees or vice versa. Did the Sadducees feel that Moses was the author of the First Five Books? Do we know what they thought? Thanks There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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. translation: "point conceded."
AiG has a good article on this one.
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
and now i get to continue my demonstration of why aig is bs.
quote: time and again people fail to "win" arguments here with their biblical foundations. ...even in the religion forums. but this is quite exemplary of the standard fundamentalist attitude around here: i don't need your stinkin' evidence. see, oh, well, this thread. as many have noticed, you're arguing from "the bible" or rather on particular reading of it, instead of the evidence -- which in this case is still the bible. the problem is not our presuppositions but yours. the bit about moses authoring the entire torah? it's not biblical. it's exactly what you claim it to be: tradition. but more importantly, you have completely missed the point again. maybe i shouldn't be so "subtle." the point was not that these two verses are a contradiction, but that they aren't. the apparently contradiction is pretty obvious, isn't it? such that aig feels the need to clarify. but let's face the other obvious fact: the book of proverbs is a book of proverbs.
quote: quote: the problem is that aig is defending a book of popular adages as if it were the law of god. it's not; it's a collection of thing people say. and both, btw, happen to be true -- as we can see in this debate. (my most subtle ad hominem yet) further, proverbs is a collection. it's like benjamin franklin's "poor richard's almanack." franklin didn't "write" it per se, he just collected the popular sayings of the day. it's no big deal that some seem to contradict some others. in fact, with these two proverbs, one is probably the answer to the other one (in either direction).
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 see. so, joshua cites a book that hasn't been written yet in order to refer to his own life? the problem here is that you DO NOT take the bible at face value. you take it according to your preconcieved notions. face value says thath "proverbs" is a book of proverbs. and face value says that citations are citations and prophecy is prophecy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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. evidently not, otherwise you wouldn't keep saying this. further, my claim was:
quote: if you HAVE shown us specific references to what specifically is in the law at what time, and not just "the law of moses" as a whole, using the bible, please show me where you did so. post a link. please note, this is what i'm looking for:
quote: so either deuteronomy or this part of exodus was in "the law of moses" when joshua was written. judging by the italicized phrase, we can tell it's deuteronomy, so the statement doesn't say anything about exodus. i'm asking you to substantiate the claim that, in effect, the "law of moses" refered to in the bible has roughly the same composition as "the law of moses" that he have today. this will take at the very least all of these such verses you can find, but some good logical ability would help a lot too.
shttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JEDP#History_of_the_hypothesis This is from your Wikipedia article about the Documentary Hypothesis. yes, but your claim was "ancient." now, i've shown you the opinion of a 2nd century ad author, who wrote at least one of the books of ezra. so when did this overwhelming tradition begin? was it around in biblical times? i'm trying to play by YOUR presuppositions here, but you can't seem to nail them down. is the bible your source, or tradition?
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. tradition is not evidence. we're waiting for something actually substantial. actually, we're waiting for something regarding the origin of 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. let me break this down for you:
quote: the time in question, set by you, is "ancient." biblical. what did the biblical authors think? you have argued that medeival tradition means nothing. what about 2nd century ad?
quote: what reasons do we have to accept tradition as factual? what evidence is there that this particular tradition is correct, in light of the evidence against it?
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. because in this forum you have to justify your claims with evidence. viewing something as false is fine -- but if you can't demonstrate what that belief is true, expect this kind of "harassment" over not providing anything besides opinion.
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. all of the comments i've heard are "form has lost and doesn't want to admit it." and no, i didn't make that up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
In the book by Johnson, A History of the Jews, I found this information interesting.
Thus scattered, leaderless, without a state or any of the normal supportive apparatus provided by their own government, the Jews were forced to find alternative means to preserve their special identity. So they turned to their writings - their laws, and the records of their past. From this time we hear more of the scribes. Hitherto, they had siply been secretaries, like Baruch, writing down the words of the great. Now they became an important caste, setting down to writing oral traditions, copying precious scrolls brought from the ruined Temple, ordering, editing and rationaliziing the Jewish archives. For a time indeed they were more important than the priests, who had no temple to underline their glory and indispensability. The exile was conducive to scribal effort. I think the rabbinic tradition grew from this rationalization. The oral Torah is supposed to make sense of the written Torah. Johnson goes on to mention that the ordinary Jews were apparently not taught in the Law.
If the individual was responsible for obeying the Law, he must know what the Law is. So it must not merely be set down and copied, but taught. This is probably the reason the Deuteronomic author added:
Deuteronomy 6:6-9 "These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. It also seems that the ordinary Jews were not practicing the rules of purity, cleanliness or diet.
Hence it was during the Exile that ordinary Jews were first disciplined into the regular practice of their religion. There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024