By whom and when was scripture written?

[LittleLes]

There are other anachronisms in the Genesis legend of Abraham which strongly suggests that it was written many years after the events it describes and the events are not necessarily historical.

For example: Gen 14:14 claims that: "When Abram heard that his nephew had been captured, he mustered three hundred and eighteen of his retainers, born in his house, and went in pursuit as far as Dan." (NAB).

But there's a problem here. The city of Dan didn't exist when Abraham is suppose to have lived.

From the Jewish Virtual Library, " Dan the Biblical City, " there is this:

"Above the destruction level of the last Canaanite city, a new occupation level was revealed, very different in architectural character and material culture. This new settlement pattern represents the conquest and settlement of the city by the tribe of Dan during the 12th century BCE. The tribe of Dan had previously occupied a small area in the western foothills of the Judean mountains. The Bible relates how 600 members of the tribe migrated northward and after conquering Laish ...called the name of the city Dan after the name of Dan their father. (Judges 18:29) "

This was in the 12 century. Abraham is suppose to have lived about 2,000 B.C. So the city of Dan did not exist in his time. The story had to have been written even later than the time of Moses. This, too, suggests the 990-770 BC literary creation of the Jahwist.

Are we dealing with history or legend?

[LittleLes]

In addition to anachronisms in the legend of Abraham, we have outright contradiction.

Gen 22:13-14: "Do not lay your hand on the boy," said the messenger. "Do not do the least thing to him. I know now how devoted you are to God, since you did not withhold from me your own beloved son." As Abraham looked about, he spied a ram caught by its horns in the thicket. So he went and took the ram and offered it up as a holocaust in place of his son. Abraham named the site Yahweh-yireh; hence people now say, "On the mountain the LORD will see."

Note: Abraham named the place "Yahweh-yireh" or 'the LORD will see."

But:

Exodus 6:3 "As God the Almighty I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but my name, LORD, I did not make known to them. "

So God said that the patriarch's didn't know his name. But Genesis claims that Abraham did. (Do you think it was a lucky guess

And some claim that scripture is both historical and inerrant.

[LittleLes]

Continuing with "Who and When" in the writing of the Bible, we'll take up the issue of Moses's possible authorship of the first five books of the bible separately, but for now lets review this short contradiction regarding the tent in which Moses was claimed to have spoken with God.


Ex 33: 7-9 "The tent, which was called the meeting tent, Moses used to pitch at some distance away, outside the camp. Anyone who wished to consult the LORD would go to this meeting tent outside the camp. Whenever Moses went out to the tent, the people would all rise and stand at the entrance of their own tents, watching Moses until he entered the tent. As Moses entered the tent, the column of cloud would come down and stand at its entrance while the LORD spoke with Moses."

But the "Tent" or "Dwelling" wasn't built until Exodus 35:11-19:

"Let every expert among you come and make all that the LORD has commanded: the Dwelling, with its tent, its covering, its clasps, its boards, its bars, its columns and its pedestals; the ark, with its poles, the propitiatory, and the curtain veil; the table, with its poles and all its appurtenances, and the showbread; the lampstand, with its appurtenances, the lamps, and the oil for the light; the altar of incense, with its poles; the anointing oil, and the fragrant incense; the entrance curtain for the entrance of the Dwelling; the altar of holocausts, with its bronze grating, its poles, and all its appurtenances; the laver, with its base; the hangings of the court, with their columns and pedestals; the curtain for the entrance of the court; the tent pegs for the Dwelling and for the court, with their ropes; the service cloths for use in the sanctuary; the sacred vestments for Aaron, the priest, and the vestments worn by his sons in their ministry."

Thus Moses is seen visiting the "Dwelling" before it was constructed. Does this suggest that two different legends were merged at this point?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 25 2005, 07:55 AM']RESPONSE:

Mea maxima culpa!  I have sinned. God may forgive me but the Air Force never will! [right][snapback]622759[/snapback][/right][/quote]
Use as many run-on sentences as you want. I don't need an apology. Please recall that I'm not the one citing Air Force grammar texts to discredit people who use sentences with more than 18 words.

But, if I were tempted to criticize some particular aspect of grammar, I would be sure that I was practicing what I preached.

I cited your grammar criticism because it's part of a pattern of behavior that you exhibit. You throw out various criticisms--presumably hoping that something will stick--to discredit anyone who disagrees with your "facts," even if you yourself could be subject to the same criticism. It's a nice way to insulate yourself from considering perspectives different from your own; but not very effective at getting to Truth.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 26 2005, 12:53 PM']Continuing with "Who and When" in the writing of the Bible, we'll take up the issue of Moses's possible authorship of the first five books of the bible separately, but for now lets review this short contradiction regarding the tent in which Moses was claimed to have spoken with God.

...

Thus Moses is seen visiting the "Dwelling" before  it was constructed. Does this suggest that two different legends were merged at this point?
[right][snapback]624303[/snapback][/right][/quote]
The footnote for [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus33.htm#foot1"]Exodus 33:7-11 in the NAB (link)[/url]:
[quote]The meeting tent is mentioned here by anticipation; its actual construction is described in the following chapters.[/quote]
The tense of the verbs in Exodus 33:7-11 shows that what is being described is not a particular event in a history; but something that happened more than once. I don't see any reason why Exodus 33 would be contradictory because of the order. To illustrate my point, consider the following text:
[quote name='Example']Whenever it snowed, I would clean my driveway with a shovel. 
(random text in between)
My driveway was built with asphalt.[/quote]
Does this order of sentences constitute a contradiction? Is the construction of an aspalt driveway a mere legend because I mentioned that it needs to be shoveled each time it snows? The questions sound absurd; they are meant to show the arbitrariness of the demands you are placing on Holy Scriptures.

As a general note, I would question how productive it is to use the "machine gun" technique of throwing out a variety of supposed contradictions. Personally, I think that the thread loses its readibility when it's just a hodge-podge of alleged contradictions. It may be more helpful to create a separate thread for each alleged contradiction so that the responses don't bleed into one another. Though I don't have any Air Force manuals to back me up, I hope that you might agree with me.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 26 2005, 10:46 PM']The footnote for [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus33.htm#foot1"]Exodus 33:7-11 in the NAB (link)[/url]:

The tense of the verbs in Exodus 33:7-11 shows that what is being described is not a particular event in a history; but something that happened more than once.  I don't see any reason why Exodus 33 would be contradictory because of the order. 





As a general note, I would question how productive it is to use the "machine gun" technique of throwing out a variety of supposed contradictions.  Personally, I think that the thread loses its readibility when it's just a hodge-podge of alleged contradictions.  It may be more helpful to create a separate thread for each alleged contradiction so that the responses don't bleed into one another.  Though I don't have any Air Force manuals to back me up, I hope that you might agree with me.
[right][snapback]624903[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

The "by anticipation" argument is obviously flawed. First one thing happened, then a second thing happened. But the scripture inverted the logical order. This suggests two writings joined at this point, or merely legend, not history.

I'm certainly NOT using the "machine gun" approach. Please note that I am quoting one pasage at a time, generally allowing half a day to a whole day for response, then quoting another.

There are just so many errors and contradictions in Genesis that it becomes extrememly unlikely that the writing as a whole is historical.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 27 2005, 07:28 AM']The "by anticipation" argument is obviously flawed. First one thing happened, then a second thing happened. But the scripture inverted the logical order. This suggests two writings joined at this point, or merely legend, not history. [/quote]
The first thing was a description of a repeated pattern of events (i.e. God speaking to Moses in the tent was not a single event), and the verbs' tense shows this. It is obviously [i]not[/i] flawed. It is only "obviously flawed" to rigid deconstructionists.

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 27 2005, 07:28 AM']I'm certainly NOT using the "machine gun" approach. Please note that I am quoting one pasage at a time, generally allowing half a day to a whole day for response, then quoting another.[/quote]
A semi-automatic machine gun is still a machine gun. Just as you asked for individual posts to be short, I would offer my opinion that threads benefit from being concise. Nobody reads through a thread with hundreds of posts because the arguments bleed into eachother.

If a particular challenge to Holy Scripture is brought up in its own thread (as opposed to a single thread with a general attack on Scriptures), people will tend to read through the smaller thread: "Brevity is the soul of wit."

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 27 2005, 07:28 AM']There are just so many errors and contradictions in Genesis that it becomes extrememly unlikely that the writing as a whole is historical.[right][snapback]625116[/snapback][/right]
This is a great example of the fallacy [i]begging the question[/i].

I'd like to bring you a little further out of the shadows by asking you a simple question: do you believe that the Book of Genesis is inspired by God? You have two possible answers: yes or no. Please don't respond by mocking the Holy Bible or giving an involved response that "accidentally" doesn't include an answer. Please note: you've used these techniques in the past to avoid answering simple questions.

I'd like you to be open with your position before we get into the details of alleged errors and contradictions.

[LittleLes]

Still more evidence of the non-Mosaic authorship of Genesis can be found in Gen 36:31 which proposes to give a list of kings who reigned over the land of Edom before any king reigned over the Israelites.

But the first king of Israel was Saul whose reign dates from 1010 B.C. Moses would have been long since dead. So how could he have written of when kings began to reign over Israel?

Gen 36:39 mentions King Baal-hanan who is also mentioned in 1 Chron 1:49. He lived around the time of David, long after Moses.

Unless someone wants to claim a "mystery" here, Moses could not have know of these events about 500 years before then occurred, so he could not have included them in any account he wrote.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 27 2005, 11:08 AM']

I'd like to bring you a little further out of the shadows by asking you a simple question: do you believe that the Book of Genesis is inspired by God?  You have two possible answers: yes or no.  Please don't respond by mocking the Holy Bible or giving an involved response that "accidentally" doesn't include an answer.  Please note: you've used these techniques in the past to avoid answering simple questions.


[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Can a book inspired by God contain errors? If Genesis does, then we have to reconsider what claims of inspiration (and inerrancy) really mean.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 28 2005, 07:42 AM']RESPONSE:

Can a book inspired by God contain errors? If Genesis does, then we have to reconsider what claims of inspiration (and inerrancy) really mean.
[right][snapback]626074[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
OK, would it be safe to say that your answer is no?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 28 2005, 07:40 AM']Still  more evidence of the non-Mosaic authorship of Genesis can be found in Gen 36:31 which proposes to give a list of kings who reigned over the land of Edom before any king reigned over the Israelites.

But the first king of Israel was Saul whose reign dates from 1010 B.C. Moses would have been long since dead.  So how could he have written of when kings began to reign over Israel?

Gen 36:39 mentions King Baal-hanan who is also mentioned in 1 Chron 1:49. He lived around the time of David, long after Moses.

Unless someone wants to claim a "mystery"  here, Moses could not have know of these events about 500 years before then occurred, so he could not have included them in any account he wrote.
[right][snapback]626072[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Continuing with the machine gun strategy...

[Quietfire]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 24 2005, 08:22 AM']So what do you think of my avatar?
[right][snapback]621383[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, since no one else will say...I will.


Oh, and Diducus.....Love the avatar!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 28 2005, 10:05 AM']Continuing with the machine gun strategy...
[right][snapback]626161[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Continuing with hard evidence that Moses wasn't the author of Genesis!

[Quietfire]

LittleLes,
You still havent answered the question.

Yes
or
No

[LittleLes]

The final book of the first five books of the Bible claiming Moses as their author (The Pentateuch), is that of Deuteronomy. Its last chapter, Deut 34, describes in some detail the death, burial, and period of morning for Moses.

It is doubtful that someone will try to argue that Moses was the author here!

So, from its contents, we can conclude that the Pentateuch was written sometime after 1000 B.C. This fits well with the "documentary hypothesis" of the four authors writting sometime between 922 and the Babylonian captivity.

Of course, many of the oral traditions might trace to Moses' time, and perhaps he even kept some notes. But he didn't write the Pentateuch!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jun 29 2005, 06:26 AM']LittleLes,
You still havent answered the question.

Yes
or
No
[right][snapback]627172[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I'm afraid you have fallen into the "either-or" fallacy. Many writings are inspired to some degree. But in the case of the Bible, this does not mean that it is inerrant. It contains errors and contradiction.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

Genesis contains a doublet, two creation accounts which conflict regarding the sequence of events.

Genesis chapter 1

1:10-13 creation of vegetation.
1:20-23 creation of fishes and birds
1:24-25 creation of animals
1:27 creation of man and woman

Genesis chapter 2

2:7 creqtion of man but not woman
2:8-9 creation of vegetation
2:19-20 creation of animals
2:20-25 creation of woman from man's rib.

Question:

Are either of these considered to be historical? If so, which?

[LittleLes]

Interim summary:

As has been shown, internal evidence strongly suggests that the first five books of the Bible, the Penteuarch, traditionally said to have been authored by Moses about 1500 B.C., most likely was actually written between 990 and 770 A.D. by two or more authors.

Nothing in these books can be proven to be fully historical.

Next, the big question. Is the story of the Jewish Exodus from Egypt allegorical or historical. What evidence besides the Bible exists to establish that this was a real historical event?

Littleles

[LittleLes]

(1) Literary analysis suggests that there were four writers involved in the creation of the Pentateuch, none writing earlier than 922 B.C. The two most involved with the first few books of the Pentateuch were the Jahwist from the southern kingdom and the Elohist from the northern kingdom. Later these writings were merged.

(2) And, as we have seen, since Genesis lists the late Edomite kings, the last living about the time of Saul (c 1,000 B.C.), clearly Moses (c. 1500 B.C.), being long since dead, was not the author, or at the very least had his writings added to and modified.

(3) Thus the Jahwist and Elohist were writing legends most likely passed on by word of mouth (and embellished) of events happening more than 500 years previously. This would be roughly similar to myself writing a story about the discovery of America from the legends I had heard about it.

(4) Next lets look at the legend of Moses and Exodus. Because legends usually have a very slight basis in some event or person in the past, lets see how these stories probably originated and what evidence exists to support them, as well as when and by whom they were recorded.

[Quietfire]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 30 2005, 03:20 PM']RESPONSE:

I'm afraid you have fallen into the "either-or" fallacy. Many writings are inspired to some degree. But in the case of the Bible, this does not mean that it is inerrant. It contains errors and contradiction.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]628541[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is my second response to this particular post. I walked away from the first because it would have resulted into something that you would have wanted...
turning the attention toward you and away from the main point...God.

You accuse me of the "either-or" fallacy..(your words).

True.
And why?


Faith. Its the most logical place to start.
I believe in God. I hope in God. I love God.
All because of faith.
To believe is to accept as true. We believe something when we give our definite and unquestioning assent. Not in the sense of using it loosely, such as "I believe its gonna rain tomorrow". In that sense, I am only expressing an opinion. An opinion is not really a belief.
Faith means certainty.
But not all certainty is faith. I dont say I believe something if its something I can plainly see and understand. Like 2+2=4. I know that 2+2=4. Thats something I can understand and prove to my own satisfaction.
Belief/faith is the acceptance of something as true on [i]the authority of someone else.[/i]
Hey, Ive never been to England. But I know alot of people who have been to England and they have assured me its really there. This kind of knowledge is called human faith. Since there is so much we dont understand in life, and so little time for investigating everything for ourselves, then one must admit that most of our knowledge is based on faith. If we dont have confidence in our fellow human beings, life would stand still. If the man who says, "I only believe what I can see," or "I dont believe it unless I can understand it." really lives up to his words, he will accomplish very little.

This kind of faith spoken of above, this acceptance of a truth on the say-so of another human is called [i]human[/i] faith. The adjective "human" distinguishes it from the faith which accepts a truth on the authority of God. When our minds accepts as Truth simply because God has said that it is so, our faith is called [i]divine faith[/i]. It is plain that divine faith is a much more certain knowledge than merely human faith.

It is not likely, but it is possible, for all human witnesses to be mistaken about a particular fact... eg: Scholars may have once thought that the world is flat. It is not likely, but it is possible for all available human witnesses to be deceivers. But God cannot be mistaken, He cannot deceive, He cannot lie. He is infinite Wisdom and infinite Truth. Concerning the truths that God has made known to us, there can NEVER be the faintest shadow of a doubt. This is supernatural faith, an infused virtue of divine faith.

To entertain doubts about a truth of faith willingly is to question either God's infinite knowledge or His infinite truthfulness. To speculate, " I wonder whether there really are three persons in God?", or " I wonder if Jesus is really present in the Holy Eucharist?" is to question the credibility of God and deny His authority. It is, in effect, to reject divine faith.

For the same reason, true faith must be [i]complete[/i]. It would be folly to suppose that we can pick and choose among the truths God has revealed, according to our taste. To say, " I believe in Heaven, but not in Hell", or "I believe in baptism but not in confession" or " I believe in God but feel that there are errors and contradictions within His inspired written word...the Holy Bible", is the same as saying, in effect "God can be wrong." The logical conclusion then is...


Why believe in God at all?



Pax.

Edited July 1, 2005 by Quietfire