gregor

I am loathe to respond to aChristian's justifications, but some commentary and explanation of the statements is needed.


1. for "I established" read - "I've been brought up to unquestionably accept"

2. for "[Wilson] show[s] them to be false" read - "I can't enumerate any reasons, but here's an apologist that I'll ride coat-tails on"

a) "authors" versus "writers" - means someone doesn't understand the difference between synonyms and two different stories. By this reasoning God and Satan are the same person, because in one story Satan inspired David's census and in another God inspired David's census.

"all of history" believed Moses wrote the pentateuch
and
"in no way implies" different authors - Exaggerate much?

b) for Wilson reviewed the linguistic challenges - read, "I can't string together the argument, trust me though, this one guy is better than your dozens of scholars with logical explanations supported by archeology."

c) two conflicting stories means it happened twice, just different the second time, with support through a car accident analogy - As Jon Stewart would say "Whaaaaa?" Really, maybe the worst analogy ever. Were there two of every animal on the ark or seven - or by your logic nine? Was man created once or twice and in what order - or by your logic there are two distinct species created separately?

d) for the "late words" argument, repeat fallacy number b), above.

e) "archeology confirms the OT" - you can't be that ignorant of the discusions on this forum.

f) "DH makes up religious history out of thin air" - the irony is strong with this one.

3) All people, everywhere, all of them, every last one, believed that Moses wrote the pentateuch until 1987 - exaggerate much?

4) Liars cannot pull off the OT - Another "Whaaaaa?"

For "I suggest reading the OT itself along with other conservative scholarship" - read, "well, strike that, just read the first thing, the second thing might lead to sin (or thinking independently)."

aChristian

No, we have one tradition, not two. The one tradition is that Moses wrote accurate history. The fantasy of multiple authors comes 3000 years later. The passage in Exodus is most likely stating that God had not revealed himself in the personal way to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the same way he was revealing himself to Moses.

spin

Including his own death. Ground control to aChristian...

Codec

Not to mention the world and his ancestors creation.

judge

Hi yourself I can accept the same.

But what does this mean? Which version is true?

This may or may not be true. There seems to be no reason to accept it except for traditions sake.



Maybe, and maybe not. Jesus calls then the books of Moses, but this is not the same as Jesus attributing authorship to Moses. He is living in a culture that called them such and he refers to them as such.



The issue is never raised. We don't know what he thought.

It will take a while to go over the rest of your points so I will come back.

judge

But this is not what the DH claims. It doesn't say this had to be the case but notes the usage and considers this as one piece of evidence.



But the bible does not tell us this at all. It does not tell us who wrote them.

Showing (if it is so) that the process is more complicated then the instigators of this theory saw. But this does not disqualify the general idea (of many redactions)

pharoah

No, it's saying exactly what it said. You don't like what it said so you made something up. Let's look at the verses again:

Exodus 6 2 God also said to Moses, "I am the LORD [YHWH]. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty [El Shaddai], but by my name the LORD [YHWH] I did not make myself known to them.

The verses clearly state that God was known to the patriarchs as El Shaddai and that they never knew him as YHWH.

I posted this originally to indicate that the problems with trying to maintain Mosaic authorship are insurmountable. There are hundreds of indicators throughout the Torah, some more devastating than the example I posted, that show no single author could have written these books.

It's possible that the DH could be wrong, although it seems to me to be the theory that best accounts for all the evidence. Even if it's wrong Mosaic authorship is an impossibility. There's zero evidence to support it and a mountain of evidence against it.

judge

Hi again.

But which version of the OT should we read?

There appears to be two versions of some stories, David and Goliath being one.
It looks very much like there were two stories of david and Goliath that were combined into one story.

Here is an excellent article/post on this. Tell me what you think.

david and goliath a pastiche of two stories.

all the best

Doug Shaver

It's a sure sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of your position when you must impugn the integrity of anyone who disagrees with you.

spin

It's ok, Doug, when you're a member of a mickey mouse religion, you feel vulnerable.


spin