Summations Only

Instead of these threats why don't you try and figure out why you're always wrong.

The evidence we have says that the Pentateuch had many authors over a long time period, and that the two accounts in Genesis derived from two similar but divergent traditions by different authors that were later combined into one.

There is no evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

If I'm reading you correctly Faith, you realize the study of biblical inerrancies & contradictions takes a lifetime of commitment, a tremendous undertaking you are just not able to do.So you rely & depend on scholars you trust, knowing that they have taken the time to study all of the Bible over the course of decades. You must have faith that they have all the answers to support your position.

And we are to take your word for it,

and stop bringing up all these pesky Bible quotes that seem to be contradictory - they have been all answered by someone, somewhere, who knows better than we.

But when it comes to the other side of this discussion site, evolution, you take the opposite position. Those of us who rely on experts in the field are ridiculed, and you scoff at all of the time & study scientists have put into understanding evolution & the role it plays in life on this planet.

Do you see your hypocrisy?

Moses lived six or seven hundred years before the Pentateuch was written down during or after the exile.

There's a tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch but no evidence, and both the internal and external evidence discredit the idea.

Does the little we know of John Mark from the New Testament present any difficulty to identifying him as the author of the second gospel? Some scholars think so, pointing to Mark’s alleged ignorance of Jewish customs and errors about Palestinian geography.[14] But neither difficulty stands up to scrutiny; careful and sympathetic interpretation of the alleged problem passages reveals no errors in such matters. In contrast, two features of Mark and his career as they are presented in the New Testament fit the author of the second gospel. The Greek style of Mark’s gospel is simple and straightforward and full of the kind of Semitisms that one would expect of a Jerusalem-bred Christian.[15] And Mark’s connection with Paul may help explain what many scholars have found to be a Pauline theological influence in the second gospel. Both features are far too general to offer any positive evidence toward an identification. But the important point is that nothing in the second gospel stands in the way of accepting the earliest tradition that identifies John Mark as its author. Our decision, then, will rest almost entirely on external evidence, and especially on the tradition handed down through Papias and Eusebius from the unnamed presbyter. ‘Those who are sceptical of the reliability of Papias conclude that the author of the gospel is unknown.’[16] Yet, as we have seen, there is nothing in the New Testament that is inconsistent with Papias’s claim that Mark wrote the second gospel. And since we have no indication that anyone in the early church contested Papias’s claim, we see no reason not to accept it.

Most think that geography plays a significant role in the gospel’s structure, and there is truth to this. But the significance of the geography lies not in some particular theological scheme of Mark’s but in the actual sequence of the ministry of Jesus. As C.H. Dodd has noted, the sequence of Mark’s gospel follows the same sequence revealed in the early church’s preaching.[73] In the table note the parallels between the preaching of Peter in Acts 10:36—40 and the structure of Mark.While the sequence in the table is to a considerable extent dictated by the actual course of events, Mark’s straightforward, action-oriented account preserves the sequence more clearly than do the other gospels.