Doctor X

Jim:

Why you need to read, Who Wrote the Bible?:

The writer of the openning--the P author--is different then the J writer who writes his own creation and some of more interesting parts.

It is not what I believe, it is what actually happened. Wander over to E or C forum or the Science forum and play with cosmology. More important is your persistance in the delusion that Moses wrote the Pentateuch . . . including the descriptions of his death persumably. . . . I cannot help you if you do not wish to avail yourself of the fruits of scholarship. The book recommended is inexpensive, readable, and will demonstrate why Moses could not write the damn thing. Furthermore, please, also, disabuse yourself with the "inspiration" myth. There is, as I have explained before, no such tradition in the formation of texts. This is late apology and has no place here.

I believe in my torrid affair with Uma Thrumon . . . to use a crude example from an author I like, "My daddy told me to put faith in one hand and shit in the other. See which hand fills up first."

--J.D.

Jim Larmore

Dr.X

I will avail myself of the fruits of scholarship and will make my own conclusion. However, it seems to me the scholarship you speak of has its own agenda that precludes the existence of an almighty God. I'm researching a lot and will read this book you recommend but I gotta tell ya if it preaches the non-existence of God I'll consider for the most part its bunk.

King Rat

I'm kinda thinking it's time for another council soon. What with DNA, gays, liberated women, and that quantum uncertainty thing and all...

Doctor X

"Better late than never," perhaps; however, one cannot make an educated conclusion based on ignorance.

This is Poisoning the Well. You have already judged the book and your have not even seen the cover.

The existence of a deity remains irrelevant to the question on authorship of the OT. As such, the text does not address the issue.

--J.D.

Jim Larmore

Doctor X

Jim:

If I read you correctly, your preconceived notion is that a god exists. I would also wager based on the claims you have made that you take much of the OT rather literally and base your understanding of your god on the text.

Two issues arise which, despite appearances, are not necessarily relevant.

Your Faith is yours . . . it may be correct, incorrect, ridiculous . . . the only problem you have is tying it to a book that may not support your faith.

Biblical Scholarship . . . is interested in learning many things, one of which is what the individual authors wanted to argue, what they believed . . . what the people around them believed, et cetera. As above, this becomes a problem to you if you tie your belief to a text without understanding what it actually says.

Hence, your appeal to Moses as author. Fine that you do not know that this has been debunked more frequently than Alanis Morrisett's singing ability, but you imply an "authority" based on the theory--one person wrote this . . . he heard/received it from his god. Problem is that this has been proven false. Thus you cannot justify or argue your faith based on it and expect it to convince anyone else.

Perchance you will take the Magus Challenge?

Somewhere on the Evolution page, methinks, I remonstrated Magus for similar claims of inerrancy--one author, et cetera. I informed him he will not convince anyone if he does not address the evidence. I recommended Who Wrote the Bible? because it is a very concise and understandable presentation of the evidence . . . it would be unreasonable to ask him or anyone else to respond to a 2,347 page tome with all the biblical passages given in untranslated Hebrew and Greek . . . and . . . this does happen! . . . "conclusions" based on "seminal works" cited in untranslated German!

I did not consider this a formal "debate." What I wanted him to do--and he has failed to acknowledge, frankly--is explain where he disagrees with scholarship. I do not expect him to read the book and dance up and down proclaiming it. I, myself, have a few objections here and there.

However, at least he . . . and now you . . . would be able to address the evidence.

--J.D.

Jim Larmore

Dr.X
I've always been ,if nothing else, about what is the truth. I do research and I study the evidence. For instance I have just about completed a pretty hearty research on the book of Daniel and its dating. Both sides of the arguement have some valid points to make and depending on which side you choose to cast your "faith" on you can take the evidence and run with it. Some evidence is better than others. The problem is ( for critics that is) most of the time recently I've found that the preponderance of the evidence will favor the Bible's accuracy and validity not the critics claims. I'm not saying this just because I'm a christian. I will make a post soon concerning Bernard's evidence and claims of Daniel being a fraud. You judge for yourself. All I ask is to look at what I have to say, look it up, verify it and make a common sense conclusion for yourself.

I'm sure the same can be said about this "evidence" on the authorship of the pentatuch. I don't know this for sure yet , but if it follows suit with most of the other Biblical scholarship I've read so far it will. I will study it as soon as I get done with Daniel.

Seems to me liberal critics lead the pack on ripping the Bible's credability to pieces and the conservative scholars follow behind looking for holes in their logic or in some cases finding archeological support for what the Bible originally said.

Doctor X

Bring in archaeology, and it is a whole new subject. Current scholarship rather ruins the historical accuracy of the OT in areas such as the Patriarchs, and Exodus-Conquest.

As for stating:

I find that hard to accept as genuine since science has rather abolished the Creation myths and Flood myths, the origin of languages--that takes care of Genesis--archeaology overturns Exodus-Joshua . . . Chronicles rewrites the Deuteronomistic History . . . you are running out of places for this "accuracy." That a passage mentions something that is "true"--like a certain king existed--does not make the whole story "true."

--J.D.

Jim Larmore

You say science has "rather abolished the creation and flood myth", I have to disagree there. I have read some credible science which supports both the creation and the flood. I'll agree they are by far in a minority but they are credible and they have some very valid evidence to consider.

Doctor X

Show it.

Show the "credible evidence" for the Flood Myth.

In fact, wander over to Evolution versus Creationism and you will find some threads which will show you what would happen if any of the details of the two flood myths--for there are two stitched together--were true.

--J.D.