Kathy Part 4

1,038 thoughts on “Kathy Part 4”

1. One little omitted “>,” and I get two paragraphs of italics! Sorry, Laura, it’s WordPress —

   LikeLike

2. Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll look up documentary hypothesis soon.

   LikeLike

3. Nate, in response to your comment on part 3 concerning the point about Dan…

   Scroll down to “Answering a few objections”.

   “For one thing, the two different creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 show that more than one author was involved.

   Why can’t BOTH be written by Moses?

   “In places like Deut 31, we’re told that Moses wrote the law, but it’s spoken of as though it’s in a different book than the one we’re reading: ”

   sorry, I’m not following this point.. ?

   “Furthermore, Deuteronomy contains the death, burial, and period of mourning for Moses. How did he write that?”

   Obviously someone else wrote this part.

   LikeLike

4. Finally I got my comment above to post.. but I had to remove the Answers in Genesis link.. did you block Answers in Genesis links Nate? or links all together?

   Here’s what was in the link..

   “Answers in Genesis / did Moses write Genesis?”

   “Answering a Few Objections

   A number of objections have been raised by the proponents of the documentary hypothesis. Space allows us to respond to only a few of the most common ones. But the other objections are just as flawed in terms of logic and a failure to pay careful attention to the biblical text.
   1.Moses couldn’t have written about his own death, which shows that he didn’t write Deuteronomy.

   The death of Moses is recorded in Deuteronomy 34:5–12. These are the last few verses of the book. Like other literature, past and present, it is not uncommon for an obituary to be added at the end of someone’s work after he dies, especially if he died very soon after writing the book. The obituary in no way nullifies the claim that the author wrote the book.18

   In the case of Deuteronomy, the author of the obituary of Moses was probably Joshua, a close associate of Moses who was chosen by God to lead the people of Israel into the Promised Land (for Moses was not allowed to because of his disobedience), and who was inspired by God to write the next book in the Old Testament. A similar obituary of Joshua was added by an inspired editor to the end of Joshua’s book (Joshua 24:29–33).
   2.The author of Genesis 12:6 seems to imply that the Canaanites were removed from the land, which took place well after Moses died?

   Genesis 12:6—”Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh. And the Canaanites were then in the land.”

   So the argument is that an author after Moses had to have written this statement to know that the Canaanites were removed in the days Joshua who began judging the Canaanites for their sin after Moses died.

   Two things can be said in response. First, Moses could have easily written this without knowing that the Canaanites would be removed after his death, because due to warring kingdoms or other factors, people groups did get removed from territories. So, it was just a statement of fact about who was living in the land at the time of Abraham. But secondly, it could also be a comment added by a later editor working under divine inspiration. The editorial comment would in no way deny the Mosaic authorship of the book of Genesis. Editors sometimes add to books by deceased authors and no one then denies that the deceased wrote the book.
   3.Genesis 14:14 mentions the Israelite region of Dan, which was assigned to that tribe during the conquest led by Joshua after Moses died. So Moses could not have written this verse.

   Genesis 14:14–15—”Now when Abram heard that his brother19 was taken captive, he armed his three hundred and eighteen trained servants who were born in his own house, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. He divided his forces against them by night, and he and his servants attacked them and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus.”

   Genesis 14:14 mentions Dan. However, Dan in this context is not the region of Dan, that Israelite tribe’s inheritance given when the Jews took the Promised Land, but a specific ancient town of Dan, north of the Sea of Galilee that was in existence long before the Israelites entered the land. Jewish historian Josephus, just after the time of Christ, says:

   “When Abram heard of their calamity, he was at once afraid for Lot his kinsman, and pitied the Sodomites, his friends and neighbours; and thinking it proper to afford them assistance, he did not delay it, but marched hastily, and the fifth night attacked the Assyrians, near Dan, for that is the name of the other spring of Jordan; and before they could arm themselves, he slew some as they were in their beds, before they could suspect any harm; and others, who were not yet gone to sleep, but were so drunk they could not fight, ran away.”20

   This specific place was known to Abraham as one of the springs of Jordan. It is possible that Rachel was already aware of that name, as it meant “judge,” and used it for the son of her handmaiden (Genesis 30:6). It seems Rachel viewed this as the Lord finally turning the tide in judgment and permitting her a son. In the same way, this was where the Lord judged his enemies through Abraham.

   But again, even if “near Dan, for that is the name of the other spring of Jordan” was added by a later inspired editor, this would not mean that it was inaccurate to say the Moses wrote Genesis.21″

   LikeLike

5. 2nd half of my comment..

   “The Books of Moses also use the phrase “to this day” quite a bit, and it’s used to show a long passage of time. The phrase is even used when talking about things within Moses’ own lifetime (Deut 2:22; 10:8; 34:6), which would make no sense if he were the author.”

   We can certainly say “to this day” within our lifetime. If a person carves their initials in a tree as a child, they can certainly say “to this day they are still there”.. see Nate? you make assumptions without seeking possible answers that you might not like. That’s a lack of objectivity.

   “So who wrote these books, and when were they written? And if Moses really did write something, why don’t we have it?”

   Why don’t we have something that was written 5,000 years ago? We don’t have a lot of things from that long ago.

   “The fact is, these kinds of context clues are found throughout the entire Old Testament, not just the first 5 books.”

   They’re not clues.. there are explanations for all of these.

   “Maybe that’s information that you just weren’t aware of, but that’s why we keep asking you to actually research your own religion. In fact, The Age of Reason covers some of these very points and many more.”

   Again, I AM researching.. I don’t know a better place to learn about the argument from the other side than on a blog. The popular claim that everyone is making that I’m not open to other points of view fails miserably.. I wouldn’t be here if that were true. Again, I’m the only one here who is actually asking questions.. very rarely do any of you.. you just attack my points of view when I give possible answers to the only questions being asked… THE questions at the root of this topic.

   LikeLike

6. Obviously someone else wrote this part.

   Yes, but how much more than that did they write? Who were they? How do we know they were inspired and authorized to write down the word of God?

   “In places like Deut 31, we’re told that Moses wrote the law, but it’s spoken of as though it’s in a different book than the one we’re reading: ”

   sorry, I’m not following this point.. ?

   Thanks for the question — I’ll try to clarify. Consider this passage from Deut 31:24-26:

   When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end, 25 Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, 26 “Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.”

   Deuteronomy is typically considered to be one of the books of the law. Moses supposedly wrote it. Yet this passage in Deuteronomy talks about something Moses did once he finished writing the book — yet how could that be recorded if this is the book in question? Obviously it was still being written. Do you see the point I’m making?

   So what we’re reading is obviously not what’s being talked about in this passage. It must have been a different book. But where is it? Why don’t we have it? And who wrote this one?

   Finally, the 2 creation accounts in Genesis probably weren’t written by the same person, because they say two different things. Chapter 1 says that plants were created on the 3rd day and animals and man were created on the 6th. But chapter 2 says that man was created before there were any plants in the land. Scholars have long thought that these two different stories come from two separate creation myths that had both been recorded by the Jews. When they were put together to form the book of Genesis, the scribes of the time didn’t feel that their pay grade was high enough to decide which of these stories was the right one… so they included both. Had there been one single writer, this section would have been put together a bit better so it didn’t lead to such confusion.

   LikeLike

7. No, I haven’t blocked anything. If you include more than 3 links, it will hold your comment in moderation, but yours was apparently moved straight to spam. Not sure why…

   LikeLike

8. @Moses

   Why can’t BOTH be written by Moses?

   Er … because, Kathy, Moses did not exist. He was made up. There was no real live walking talking writing down stuff on papyrus leaves and camel’s bottom biblical character-person called Moses.

   Even Martin Noth recognised this was not a real person and thought at best it was a composite.
   Ask the Jews. The majority of them know he wasn’t a real person either.Read Finkelstein or Wolpe.
   Neither was Abraham. So …. No Abraham, no Moses … therefore, no Ten Commandments. Therefore no Yahweh and … wait for it …no Jesus of Nazareth.

   LikeLike

9. Here’s some background info, Laura – understand, I am NOT trying to turn you into an atheist, just show you a few things you won’t learn in church, about how, why, and by whom the Bible was written. Most Christians believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, the ones that say, “According to Moses.” Many biblical scholars believe that he did not, that those five books were written at widely differing times, locations, and by writers with often conflicting agendas, and that a Redactor (editor) wove many, if not most, of the stories together like a patchwork quilt. This is extremely important if you’ve spent your life believing that the Bible is seamless and inerrant.

   By the seventeenth century a number of scholars had wrestled with the problems of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Carlstadt, a leader of the Reformation movement in Germany, wrote a pamphlet in 1520 arguing that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, for the style of writing in the verses reporting Moses’ death (Deut. 32:5-12) was that of the preceding verses. In 1574, A. Du Maes, a Roman Catholic scholar, suggested that the Pentateuch was composed by Ezra, who used old manuscripts as a basis. Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher, concluded in 1651 that Moses wrote only parts of Deuteronomy (Leviathan III:33). In Tractatus theologico-politicus (1677), Baruch Spinoza, the Jewish philosopher, recognized as one of the founders of modern biblical criticism, reached a conclusion much like that of Du Maes, that Ezra compiled Genesis to II Kings from documents of varying dates. Shortly afterward, Richard Simon, a Roman Catholic priest, often called “the father of biblical criticism,” gathered together the substance of critical analyses up to his time and raised the problem of literary history, thus opening the door to the application of techniques used in the study of non-sacred literature to the Bible.

   In the eighteenth century Jean Astruc, a celebrated physician, published a treatise on Genesis in which he postulated that Moses used two major sources in writing the book of Genesis. The source in which the name “Elohim” is used for God, Astruc called “A,” and that which used “Yahweh” was labeled “B.” Ten fragmentary sources were also recognized and given alphabetical designations. Additional criteria for defining sources were worked out by J. G. Eichorn, sometimes called “the father of Old Testament criticism” or, on the basis of his five volume “Introduction” to the Old Testament, “the father of the modern science of introductory studies.”

   Others built upon these foundations. In 1806-7 W. M. L. DeWette, a German scholar, published a two volume introductory study of the Old Testament in which he suggested that the book found in the temple in 621 B.C., during the reign of King Josiah of Judah (II Kings 22-23), was the book of Deuteronomy. In the work of Julius Wellhausen, who built upon the research of K. H. Graf and Wilhelm Vatke, the most significant analysis of the Pentateuch was made. The thesis known as the Graf-Wellhausen theory, or as the Documentary Hypothesis, still provides the basis upon which more recent hypotheses are founded.

   The Graf-Wellhausen analysis identified four major literary sources in the Pentateuch, each with its own characteristic style and vocabulary. These were labeled: J, E, D and P.

   The J source used the name “Yahweh” for God, called the mountain of God “Sinai,” and the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine “Canaanites,” and was written in a vivid, concrete, colorful style. God is portrayed anthropomorphically, creating after the fashion of a potter, walking in the garden, wrestling with Jacob. J related how promises made to the patriarchs were fulfilled, how God miraculously intervened to save the righteous, or to deliver Israel, and acted in history to bring into being the nation.

   E used “Elohim” to designate God until the name “Yahweh” was revealed in Exod. 3:15, used “Horeb” as the name of the holy mountain, “Amorite” for the pre-Hebrew inhabitants of the land, and was written in language generally considered to be less colorful and vivid than J’s. E’s material begins in Gen. 15 with Abraham, and displays a marked tendency to avoid the strong anthropomorphic descriptions of deity found in J. Wellhausen considered J to be earlier than E because it appeared to contain the more primitive elements.

   The Deuteronomic source, D, is confined largely to the book of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, contains very little narrative, and is made up, for the most part, of Moses’ farewell speeches to his people. A hortatory and emphatic effect is produced by the repetition of certain phrases: “be careful to do” (5:1, 6:3, 6:25, 8:1), “a mighty hand and an outstretched arm” (5:15, 7:19, 11:2), “that your days may be prolonged” (5:16, 6:2, 25:15). Graf had demonstrated that knowledge of both J and E were presupposed in D, and having accepted DeWette’s date of 621 B.C. for D, argued that J and E must be earlier. J was dated about 850 B.C. and E about 750 B.C.

   The Priestly tradition, P, reveals interest and concern in whatever pertains to worship. Not only does P employ a distinctive Hebrew vocabulary but, influenced by a desire to categorize and systematize material, develops a precise, and at times a somewhat labored or pedantic, style. Love of detail, use of repetition, listing of tribes and genealogical tables, does not prevent the P material from presenting a vivid and dramatic account of Aaron’s action when an Israelite attempted to marry a Midianite woman (Num. 25:6-9) or from developing a rather euphonious and rhythmical statement of creation (Gen. 1). The Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis noted that P contained laws and attitudes not discernible in J, E, or D and reflected late development. P was dated around the time of Ezra, or about 450 B.C.

   The combining of the various sources was believed to be the work of redactors. Rje, the editor who united J and E around 650 B.C. provided connecting links to harmonize the materials where essential. Rd added the Deuteronomic writings to the combined JE materials about 550 B.C., forming what might be termed a J-E-D document. P was added about 450-400 B.C. by Rp, completing the Torah.

   Most present-day scholarship accepts the basic premises of the documentary hypothesis – namely, that different source materials are to be found, that the labels J, E, D, P, are acceptable for major sources, and that the order of development is that proposed in the Graf-Wellhausen thesis.

   But much development away from the hypothesis has taken place too. Back of each of the four sources lie traditions that may have been both oral and written. Some may have been preserved in the songs, ballads, and folktales of different tribal groups, some in written form in sanctuaries. The so-called “documents” should not be considered as mutually exclusive writings, completely independent of one another, but rather as a continual stream of literature representing a pattern of progressive interpretation of traditions and history. Perhaps this idea can best be illustrated by reference to the account of the plagues in Egypt in Exod. The J account tells of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, of Yahweh’s threat to befoul the waters of the Nile and kill the fish, and of the execution of this threat (Exod. 7:14-15a, 16-17a, 18, 21a, 23-25). The E writer reinterpreted the story, adding to the account the rod of the wonder-worker and Moses’ threat to strike the water and turn the Nile to blood – a threat which he fulfills (Exod. 7:15, 17b, 20b). The Priestly author made other changes: Aaron, not Moses, is the wonder-worker, and it is Aaron who waves the rod not only over the Nile but other rivers, canals, ponds and pools, and all waters are turned to blood, including water stored in containers. The P writer explains that this terrible plague did not change Pharaoh’s mind, for Pharaoh’s priests can perform the same miracle. The important change made by the P editors is that Aaron, the symbol of the high priesthood in Israel, acts as the priest-magician-agent of God, performing the divine will. The interpretive pattern can be traced quite easily through the subsequent plagues by reference to the lists which delineate the contents of the various sources.

   The process of progressive interpretation did not exclude the incorporation of new materials, and some of the new material may have had a long history – oral or written – in circles outside of those which produced the earlier writings. For instance, in 1929 a Canaanite temple library, which can be dated from the fourteenth century B.C., was discovered at Ras es-Shamra, a site on the Syrian coast. The religious documents were found to contain words most familiar to us through Priestly writings of the Pentateuch, suggesting that part of the P material may be based upon sources as ancient as those used in J. Thus, we are confronted with a literary problem that is more difficult than the simple straight line analysis would suggest. Not only do we have materials coming from different periods of time and from different groups within society, and not only are these materials brought together and blended at different periods of history, but those who added the extra materials employed an interpretive principle in accordance with their theological convictions expanding, and, in a sense, expounding the writings with which they worked. Further, at some points the fusion of materials is so complete that it is impossible to distinguish sources – particularly where J and E are combined.

   Because the documentary hypothesis is the most widely accepted of all theories of Pentateuchal analysis, this book will utilize, in principle, the conclusions reached by this method of research. One important change in the thesis accepted by many scholars will be observed: J and E, dated in Wellhausen’s time in the ninth and eighth centuries respectively, will both be placed in the tenth century, for reasons to be discussed later. Such a change does not deny that additions were made to each in the years before they were combined, but implies that the time of Solomon’s reign best fits the period for the accumulation of the core of J, and the early years of the divided kingdom are most appropriate for the writing of E.

   It should be remembered that the documentary hypothesis, no matter what form it takes, is nothing more than an hypothesis – a proposition – assumed to explain certain facts (in this case doublets, contradictions, etc.). which provides the basis for further investigation. There is no way of proving that a J collection ever existed. Such a body of writings is assumed on the basis of evidence previously discussed.

   When you wade through this, and do some looking on your own, get back with me, we’ll kick it around.

   LikeLike

10. what if none of it was inspired?

    and what, other than the bible saying so, makes you think it was inspired, and that isn’t just the claims of men?

    And let’s consider some of the HUGE claims.

    1) A virgin birth. I don’t think this one quite sinks in because we’ve been raised around the notion of this, but a virgin giving birth is completely outside the norm. It is so crazy that there is no way we’d believe it if anyone else claimed it to have happened to anyone other than mary and jesus. What proof is there? what evidence? I don think there is any. I think it’s just taken on faith, on a “said so.”

    2) people raising from the dead and flying into heaven… No photo graphs. No video. we have claims that there were witnesses… Eyewitness testimony is far from the best, and we’re skeptical of bigfoot photos and video and bigfoot isn’t even supernatural…

    3) Dead bodies coming out if their graves at jesus’ crucifixion and walking around, and no one else thought this was significant enough or at all noteworthy to record?

    4) the sun moving backward a few degrees as a sign to Hezekiah. No one else recorded this? none of the astronomy anal cultures of that day bothered recording the sun moving east instead of west?

    5) the sun standing still for joshua to fight? same questions as above.

    there of course are more. So many questions. So many many pieces that should be there, and so many outrageous claims without substantial backup. instead we’re given lines about “the wise of this world will think it foolishness,” etc – which to me is just a real life version of the “emperor’s new clothes” children story.

    again, if there is no evidence, then okay. you believe i dont. Maybe you’ve witness miracles or maybe god’s spoken directly to you or maybe… whatever, but the point is I dont have any of that, and so far, I dont have evidence either.

    LikeLike

11. Kathy, I haven’t read your second post of info from ApologeticsPress yet, but are you honestly comfortable with their explanation that some of that info could have been added by an “inspired editor”? That’s not an idea I would have been comfortable with when I was a Christian.

    If God’s inspiring the original author, why would anything need to be edited? And why should we think such an editor was actually inspired? Anyone at a later time could have written those details, because they would have been known — no inspiration necessary.

    This seems like a very weak argument… Do you honestly find it the most likely explanation? Especially since none of these books actually claim to be written by these authors anyway?

    LikeLike

12. Why don’t we have something that was written 5,000 years ago? We don’t have a lot of things from that long ago.

    You’re missing my point.

    If Moses was truly inspired by God, and he really did write something down, why wouldn’t we have it? Obviously it would have been something that God wanted people to have access to — I mean, it was God’s law, right?

    LikeLike

13. Ratamacue – I mentioned my theory earlier, regarding the Amurrites (Amorites) – Amurrite information is readilyh available, but here’s a source linking the Amurrite “El Shaddai” with the Bible’s “El Shaddai”:
    Wm. F. Albright, “The Names Shaddai and Abram,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LIV (1935)

    What are the odds that Mrs. Shaddai had TWO boys and named them both “El”? – “Hi, I’m Larry – this is my brother El, and that’s my other brother, El!”

    LikeLike

14. Kathy, you’re completely devoid of knowledge and determined to stay that way.

    LikeLike

15. We can certainly say “to this day” within our lifetime. If a person carves their initials in a tree as a child, they can certainly say “to this day they are still there”.. see Nate? you make assumptions without seeking possible answers that you might not like. That’s a lack of objectivity.

    But Kathy, even with your example it indicates a substantial period of time. You wouldn’t say that about your initials the next day, or even a year later. If you came back to the tree 20 years later and showed your children, then that might be appropriate.

    As a contrast, consider this passage from Deut 34:

    So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord, 6 and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day.

    If your earlier article is right in saying that Joshua added this just after Moses’ death, how much sense would it make to include “to this day”? When did he write this? A week later? A month? Years??? How do we know it was even Joshua?

    LikeLike

16. Now let’s see, Kathy – you expect US to read all of your propaganda, while you ignore our information – is THAT how it works?

    Why should we?

    LikeLike

17. Laura,

    First, I’m not angry that you don’t agree, I LOVE sincere (insult free) disagreement.. I would like to give counter arguments to your points and I hope that you don’t see that as me being angry.

    You said:

    “I may regret commenting, but I do have something to add. I’m a Christian, so I probably agree with Kathy on certain issues. But when I read through the list of “evidences” she’s provided, I don’t find them compelling, either.
    Martyrdom is no sign that the person believed (and died for) something absolutely true; they believe it to be true, but that doesn’t make it true.”

    Laura, I don’t claim that martyrdom is proof of Christianity’s Truth. I do call it very compelling evidence (which “evidence” is not necessarily “proof”.. it’s evidence) I don’t know how anyone can claim that someone giving their life for their belief wouldn’t be compelling. Of course, if the person has serious mental issues.. if they give their life for Santa Claus … it’s not going to be compelling. But when you combine Christian martyrdom with all the other evidence that supports Christianity, it’s amazingly compelling. People wouldn’t give their lives if it weren’t powerful testimony.. there’d be no point.

    “Prophecies don’t work, either. Whether someone believes them to be proof depends on whether that person believes the text (in this case, the Bible) to be true. And yes, some of those prophetic passages are difficult for even me to see as prophetic, even after multiple readings. ”

    You don’t have to believe in the Bible to see prophecy fulfillment. If historians can establish/ have a consensus the dates of the writings that is enough. Prophecies are most certainly powerful compelling evidence for the Truth of Christianity.

    “The length of time and number of authors doesn’t work for me, either. It really doesn’t mean much; it’s interesting, but it’s not proof of anything in particular. ”

    Again, it’s very compelling evidence.. the odds are heavily against dozens of authors over 1500 years spread out over thousands of miles agreeing on the doctrine / message.

    You may not see any of this as compelling evidence but it’s believed to be compelling by the overwhelming majority of Christians.. what makes it compelling is the odds. The odds of a rational person taking their life for a lie or something that they don’t see as having compelling evidence is almost none. It makes no sense.

    “As far as our existence as proof and evidence of a god, I can sort of buy, though I can see where another person wouldn’t.”

    Again, it’s comes down to the odds. There is no other more valid explanation for our existence.

    ” I know there are some Christian apologists who offer better philosophical arguments and scientific arguments. I can’t possibly do justice to them. But Hugh Ross has interesting scientific ideas, and I’ve heard some good material from Ravi Zacharias and his organization.”

    Could you post some examples?

    LikeLike

18. “I’m the only one here who is actually asking questions.. very rarely do any of you..” – Kathy, I’ve asked you a myriad of questions, you’ve ignored all except those few you felt comfortable answering. Don’t EVEN go there —

    LikeLike

19. Finally, your article said that the reference to Dan in Genesis 14:14 might have been referring to a city already named Dan at that time. But there’s NO evidence of any such town. And we know that in Judges 18, the town that the Danites took and named “Dan” was formerly known as “Laish.”

    You might also find this interesting. Check out this passage from Genesis 36:31-43:

    These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites…

    It goes on to list the Edomite kings. The first interesting thing about this is that it shows an awareness of kings in Israel, which didn’t occur until long after Moses. First of all, in Moses’ day, Israel was still called Canaan. Secondly, Moses wouldn’t have referred to this prophetically because it wouldn’t make sense to his immediate audience. It would be like referring to “ground zero” before Sept 11, 2001 — it would make no sense. Also, if you remember, God was initially against the Israelites having kings. How could he have blamed them for choosing a king, if this passage had already foretold that they would have them? It only makes sense that this portion of Genesis was written sometime after Israel had had kings.

    Secondly, this exact passage can also be found in 1 Chron 1:43-54. The book of Chronicles wasn’t written until after the Babylonian captivity. Is it possible that some of the “Books of Moses” weren’t written until then as well?

    Some of this information likely comes as quite a blow, so I would recommend you take a little time to think about it all before you respond.

    LikeLike

20. Gen 1, Nate, was written in Babalonian captivity by the Priestly Souce, with the intention that it would totally replace the more anthropomorphic Gen 2, written by the Yahwist Source in the Southern Kingdom of Judea, 450 years earlier. The editor decided, “I ain’t takin’ that risk, they don’t pay me enough!” and left them both in.

    LikeLike

21. “but yours was apparently moved straight to spam. Not sure why…” – I think I bit my tongue off!

    LikeLike

22. Nate,

    “As a contrast, consider this passage from Deut 34:

    So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord, 6 and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day.”

    I do see your point here.. but there could be explanations for this.. being inspired by God, Joshua could have known that Moses place of burial would be kept secret, that this was God’s will. Or, yes, it could have been written years later by Joshua.. he did have a lot on his plate after Moses died. For some situations, like Moses burial, stating “to this day” could mean months later.. if it was a huge issue to the Israelites which I would imagine it would be.

    It’s not enough Nate, to dismiss the belief that Moses and Joshua were the authors. And again, how does not factually knowing who the authors were even matter?? How does this disprove the truth of what was written? Clearly the authors of the books of the Bible were not pertinent to what was actually being written/ said. If this is all a fabrication, why wouldn’t they insert author names?

    LikeLike

23. kathy, here’s what i’ve seen you give for evidence:

    1) martyrs, even though every religion and many non-religions have them. If they’re compelling evidence then they’re compelling for every religion – santa excluded.

    2) our very existence – which no one knows how that started, but even if you must land on god(s), you must go back to that book of claims to get to jesus.

    3) there were miracles, but as it turns out, those dont happen today, and end up being more claims by the same men who claim they speak for god.

    4) the fulfilled prophecies we’ve discussed weren’t really prophecies at all, or had to be viewed so figuratively that it’s difficult to show anything precise about them other than location (maybe) in order to claim they’re actually fulfilled. if you have better ones than tyre, please provide.

    5) 40 authors taking 1500 years to write the bible. But there’s nothing miraculous about men writing books, editing books, and being inspired to write a book or letter after reading an older book.

    LikeLike

24. “There is no other more valid explanation for our existence” than MAGIC?

    LikeLike

25. Kathy, when I first found out that the Book of Daniel had actual historical problems, I first thought that there’s no way that alone could overturn the mountains of evidence in the Bible’s favor. But then I started to ask myself what all those “mountains of evidence” really consisted of. What actual prophecies were there? Which ones could actually be shown to be fulfilled? Were there other areas where history, archaeology, or even other parts of the Bible contradicted something the Bible claimed?

    After spending some time doing some hard research, I found that all those “mountains of evidence” had really just been a house of cards. It’s not easy to come to terms with, but try to open yourself up to that possibility.

    LikeLike

Comments are closed.