Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts

actually, it's quite obvious to the educated reader that genesis could not have been written by moses. starting with the fact that it contains many (sometime contradictory) independent accounts. these accounts are named in part according their phrasing of the name of god. j- for the yahweh texts, e- for the elohym texts, and p- for the priestly (record keeping, genealogies) text. these are three independent accounts in genesis.the individual elements are also filled with anachronisms. camels. kings in israel. chaldeans. babylonian stuff. descriptions of metals moses would never have known how to control. it's clear that genesis was written WELL after moses, and collected sometimes during or even after the babylonian exile. it appears to be a collection of traditional histories, legend, and mythology. not factual history as in kings.so when jar asks "what authority does genesis have?" he's being totally serious, and completely on topic. the book has very, very little authority. it was not written by people who witnessed the events, even in the original separate forms. moses neither witness creation, nor wrote genesis -- this simply traditional dogma. i'm sure i could churn up about the same for the quran.similarly, we could compare the quran to the other judaic off-shoot, pauling christianity. we're currently discussing in another thread about how paul seems to have had nothing to do with judaism at all, but rather hellenistic greek mythology. what basis he does having in the "old testament" is blatantly out of context, and a misinterpretation of the faith. so paul is very similar out of context. and all we have to back up his authority is luke's account in acts. luke, admittedly was NOT an eyewitness either.and paul himself just speaks with some kind of authority to make decision for the christian church at the time -- even thought jesus left peter in charge. hm. use of the word does not mean it is valid. in fact, most of the uses are either of god ("let god be my witness") or inanimate objects, such a pillar or altar.added by edit:it should also be noted that i think the bible does have some more authenticity than the quran, and certainly the book of mormon. i don't believe any of either of those two, as a strictly a personal beliefs. but i also find much of the bible equally suspect for the same reasons.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-25-2005 02:30 AM

---

אָרַח

why, worried it'll challenge some issues of, well, faith? this is the primary bit we're questioning. and we're questioning it because paul's teachings just seem to have nothing to do with judaism, at all. they blatantly misrepresent the jewish faith. however, there are a few ideas that seem plucked straight from greek mythology... according to luke. who wasn't there to see any of it. ok, in a ranom bible laying around, first one i pick up, the nt occupies pages 735 to 953. that's 218 pages. paul's letters take up pages 862 to 917 (or 55 pages). according to my calculations, that's about a quarter. in fact, almost exactly a quarter.so, no, we're denying about a quarter of the new testament. although it's closer to 40% if you throw in acts. this is strictly dogmatic crap and i suspect you know it. i could equally as easily claim the same things about muhammed and quran, couldn't i? he's got the trust of millions of muslims, doesn't he? they say god directly imparted this stuff directly to him, right? no in genesis he's not. he's not even alive. either during the events themselves, or the writing, take your pick. works both ways. again, not during the events in genesis. in fact, at the END of genesis have something on order of only a dozen families of israelites. the start of each tribe. hardly the multitude that exodus starts out with. i've got a thread i made reference to earlier tonight along the same lines. it's called "the forgery of deuteronomy." look it up, if you want. deuteronomy presents quite a problem. the text clearly indicates that moses could not have written it. it starts with moses on opposite side of the jordan from the israelites. ie: someone in the promised land wrote it, not moses. what's even more suspicious is that we KNOW, point of fact, that the israelites (or the judah-ites for that matter) did not have this text until the reign of king josiah. it outlines a couple of key theological concerns that josiah impliments, such as destroying every temple but the one in jerusalem. it also (very anachronistically) discusses the hebrews having a KING. genesis has a breif mention or two, but hardly prophesy. and there's no other mention of it in the torah. not in exodus, not in leviticus, not in numbers.this book is then used as the standard by which israel (as in "not judah" israel of the divided kingdom period) is judged as idolatrous, according to the sin of jereboam. it's only a sin in reference to deuteronomy, and no other book.so let's review.
1. not written by moses.
2. "lost" until josiah.
3. used to condemn israel.
4. still called part of "the law of moses"see, what we're dealing with is ATTRIBUTED authorship, and tradition. not literary analysis. also, it brings up another point.if they didn't have deuteronomy until the reign of josiah, are the references to "the book of the law" including deut? no, obviously not. if they didn't have genesis until 600 bc, did the people who wrote about the law of moses before then include it, do you think?so are they lying when they talk about the law of moses, or are they simply not refering to it in the modern sense? and are we lying today when we call it "the law of moses" even if it's not laws and not written by moses? nor did i the first dozen times i read it. people on this board assume i just started out hating the bible or something. no, i'm interested in learning the truth, even if it's sometimes dirty. i find this book truly interesting, and i find genesis the most interesting part of it. if i didn't, i'd go read the hitchhikers' guide to galaxy or something.you see, i started out with the idea that it all lined up perfectly. it has to, right? it's the word of god. not only that, i also started out with the idea that in some way it represented reality. not coincidently, a passage in genesis is the reason i'm a christian. (maybe i shoulda been jewish, come to think of it.) it was the bit about abraham's calling. something there struck me as fundamentally true. and so it piqued my interest.i've read the whole book a half a dozen times, but some sections i've read many, many more times. and the better translations i got, the more i looked into it, the less it lined up with reality. and the less it lined up with itself. it went, in my mind, from days describing logarithmic periods of creation, to being strictly metaphorical. but you know what? it still didn't work out.so on my last complete read-through, for my bible class, i decided that i would just leave all my assumptions behind, and see what it was really about. and it's still one of my favourite books.but my "inability to reconcile" them is not my problem: the texts themselves cannot be reconciled. were plants made before or after humans? were animals made before or after humans?these are fundamental to understanding the nature of the text itself, and therefor its message. is genesis trying to tell us some boring history of what order god made things in? or is there something else to it? the answer lies in understand WHY those questions didn't matter to the redactors.i'm not REJECTING revelation, i'm determining the precise nature of it. and it doesn't appear that god is personally imparting text word for word to moses. it looks more like god is telling different people different things that contain the same essential, if vague, truths. both accounts agree that plants and animals were made for humans, they just can't agree on whether god had them set up beforehand or after. both texts tell us that we are like god in some importan respect. one says we're made in his image, and one says our life -- our souls -- come from his breath. one story tells us why we should take saturdays off, and the other why we marry: "it is not good for man to be alone."these are revelations from god. is the bit about whether there plants before the sun? no, probably not. it's good to know what exactly is the work of men, and what of their work was influenced by some higher power. but it is just plain ignorant and stupid to randomly assume that it's all the words of god literally dictated to however the church tells you it was dictated to, and that that means it's all literally true. it's just ignoring the book itself, and doing a complete disservice to actual truths and revelations involved, not to mention blatantly misunderstanding it. really? pick up an scholarly book on the torah. i guarantee you that they'll talk about five sources in the torah:

• J: uses "yahweh" or "yahweh elohym" to refer to god.
• E: uses "elohym" alone to refer to god. (probably later than j)
• P: the priestly text. the stuff we skip.
• L: the levitical source.
• D: deuteronomy.

scholars tend to cite AT MOST one of those as moses. probably the j one, since god revealed his name to moses, and j includes exodus. got any jewish sources? they usually have something different to say about their own book. but i'll look at the ones you've got anyways.

---

אָרַח

according to christian fundamentalists, the author of genesis is god. i consider this blasphemy. god would not write such mish-mashed contradictory accounts just to confuse us.but hey, while we're on the topic, what about the qabala? supposedly, it was actually WRITTEN by god himself, and given to the angels, not intended for human consumption. it supposedly contains explanations about where the power of god comes from, and describes in detail the process of creation. somehow, this got into the hands of man, and has safely been handed down to only the wisest of rabbis.and i think god is the ultimate eyewitness, don't you?so. dogmatic bullshit, or accurate account?

---

אָרַח

i agree.personally, i think if god did it, they're a discredit to his name. certainly GOD, of all people, could write a more internally consistent, coherent, and to the point book, that quite plainly lays out important philosophies. maybe he'd even do it in a manual format, make it nice an easy for us.

quote:

---

The New Bible,
By God.

​

(Page one)
1. I'm the only God. No idols, no foriegn gods, no spirits, none of that crap. Love me, because I love you.
2. Love your neighbor
3. Love people who aren't your neighbors, too.
4. In fact, be nice and considerate to everyone as general principles, and people will not only like you, but Me was well for telling you to do so. People like when I inspire grooviness.
5. If you mess up and do something mean, I'll forgive you, because I'm a nice God. But try not to do it anyways.

​

etc.

---

see, look, even i can do better. although, granted, i've read some of the scientology manuals by l. ron hubbard. and they're full of company memos on how to place in and out boxes and correctly use the proper letterhead. but then again, bible writing isn't for everyone.but how much better could god do it? hey, if god were to write, it could even be "the comprehensive manual to everything." life, love, spirit, philosophy.... quantum mechanics, evolution, the meaning of life... you get the idea. not just the spotlessly accurate history of one people, heck, the history of ALL peoples.so what if they wouldn't have understood string theory in ancient israel. "just write it down, they'll understand it in 3000 years," god could say, "and we are writing this for posterity after all." in english, no less. heck, i'm sure he could even include stuff that would blow our minds today, but we'd get in another 3000 years. where is that stuff? where's the math proofs? the astrophysics?This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-25-2005 07:07 AM

---

אָרַח

precisely. no no, we LOST those. remember? SOMEONE left them in the ark... the REALLY ironic part of that is that i live in florida. on former swampland, i'm sure.

---

אָרַח

you know i never bothered to learn how to do that? thanks for the tip.

no more colors.please, for the love of god. (i'd like to actually read your post, but it makes my eyes bleed)This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-25-2005 04:16 PM

---

אָרַח

i'm not even reasonably convinced that the bible predicts itself, let alone another book of similar ilk.

---

אָרַח

this would be wonderful if the intellectual community (mostly, oh, i dunno, rabbis and priests) didn't have valid points.to ignore the stufy of the bible and understanding what precisely it is, how it came to be, how it works, and especially where it's problems are just to accept it all blindly on faith that it's the word of god is kind of silly, if you ask me and i know you didn't.i believe the root of this thread is this:how do you know it's the word of god? do you just believe the words of your pastor, or rabbi who is just trying to get you to believe? do believe it because it quotes witnesses who it very well could have made up? do you read it yourself and guess, or gather it from logic, which god could well defy? do you ask god, as the mormons do?

quote:

---

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost" (Moroni 10:4)

---

(ironically, the book of mormon failed that very test for me. ah well. )or is it just a gut feeling? faith?and if so, what gives us that gut feeling? you know what it's not?

quote:

---

Gen 5:1 This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Gen 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Gen 5:7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:

---

it just doesn't make me all tingly inside.

quote:

---

Lev 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: [as] the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.
Lev 11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.

---

nor does it that. do we even CARE if those bits are the word of god?

quote:

---

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

---

now this is a different story. good stuff.a little intellectual study lets us know what's important and what's not. what is of god, and was is of men. and as i pointed in another thread earlier tonight -- intellectual study tells that deuteronomy is a complete forgery. yet there's some good truths from god in it:

quote:

---

Deu 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

---

and so i think in this respect, KNOWING that deuteronomy is a complete hack-job, and yet seeing that god still managed to deliver some good messages with it sort tells something even cooler about god...

---

אָרַח

i understand a lot of it. and i also understand that a lot of it makes no sense. see, i already understand hebrew poetry better and context better than matthew did. which means that i understand something else: matthew is not hebrew. isn't that an important point?i mean, do you just believe ANYTHING you read? how do you know? because someone put it in a book with the rest of the stuff they say you should believe? this thread is about the objective qualities that make one text more believable than another. so what qualites are there?i mean, if i hand you a children's coloring book and claim it's the word of god, would you believe me? why or why not? where does god say "believe the stuff in deuteronomy, i wrote it?" i mean, the closest we get is that jesus quotes it (and one of those quotes was the one i used above, btw). but all he says is "it is written." not "god says." it is written. it is written, isn't it?heck, it is written that jesus was a homosexual. it is! doesn't make it true, does it? and it doesn't make it the word of god. no it is not. and this is my point. but SOME kinds of faith do prey on ignorance. and this worshipping treatment of the bible is one such kind of faith. it relies on the ignorance that the bible is a set of collections of texts by different authors spanning at least 1000 years of history. it relies on the ignorance of problems, contradictions, inconsistencies, history, literature, context, and archaeology.i mean, people here often claim the letters of paul are the word of god. if they were the word of god, they wouldn't be called "the letters of paul." unless paul is god, and paul is not god. they're just letters, not impartations of god's holy truth to us. he wrote them as advice to specific churches, not even for the whole family of churches, and not for modern churches. sure, maybe god inspired some of it. god reveals truths to many people. but it is not "the word of god" down to the letter. paul still wrote them.it's neccessary to look at what the bible actually is, instead of fawning over it, to understand what god's really trying to say. i examined earlier in another post what kind of faith jesus does ask of us, according to jesus. and you know what? he doesn't say specifically. but the indication is that he wants us to have faith in god, that he will take care of us. because god loves us the way husband should love his wife, faults and all. and he forgives us for those faults -- we should stop worrying about them and just try to be as good to each other as possible.nearest i can tell, that's what jesus was about. and studying the bible closely and CRITICALLY as not been destructive to that. i knew that when i started -- and i know it now. in fact, i even see it more clearly now. see, when i started out, i had this belief that god was strict and judgemental, and condemned us all because of the way he made us. through critically analyzing the text for that bit, i found the opposite to be true. god is a good guy, i found out, even from the beginning.so, to tell you the truth, using my brain a little has actually HELPED my faith. and it has shown that evil and corruption are neccessary in god's plan, and he controls them: so there is no need to worry about anything. god knows what he's doing, and he's taking care of us. and what's more interesting is that god can use evil and corruption for good -- there's good stuff in deuteronomy. he inspired some truths even in something faked by men.compare that to the blind faith in the book, and philosophy of god's out to get you unless you believe just right, and satan's out to get you too. i like this better. i'm more confident, and closer to understanding god than ever before. yeah, i agree. but a firm grasp on god's word depends on determining what is and what is not the word of god. what's true, what's a lie? what's meant to symbolic or idiomatic? what's meant to be a law, and for who? what's earthly wisdom and the works of wise teachers? which bits are prophesy? which bits are history? these are utterly and fundamentally very important questions.you can't claim to have a grasp on the word of god if you don't understand the first thing about how it was written, by whom, and for what purpose. i beg to differ. in the garden, there was a tree we weren't supposed to eat from. personally, i don't think god meant harm or to keep us in the dark. rather, like a good parent, he knew we weren't ready for it. but he put there knowing we would eat of it, would you agree.that tree was tree of knowledge of good and evil.and according to god himself, what did we become closer to the day we ate of it?most christians regret the day adam ate of the tree. for they think that it brought sin and death into the world. but that's not what it did at all. it brought knowledge of good and evil: rational thought and the concious mind into the world. why look back and dream of ignorance? if we want to be blind believers, with our eyes closed, we might as well be naked. it also brought clothes into the world. if god wants us to be ignorant and blind, he'd also want us to be naked, right? just the way he made us in the garden. i think i already posted the first one above. seem, madam? nay, it is. i know not seems. i've tried every other way. i only take what makes sense -- feels right -- to me. heck, i had the guts to tell my hebrew teacher, a rabbi and professor of hebrew literature (like the bible) that he was wrong on something once, because it just didn't make sense. and as you may have noted, i normally give a little extra creedance to jewish thought on matters of jewish texts.also, you're assuming this is the ONLY way i go about it. i'm a rational person, yes. but if i didn't have faith, and didn't trust god, i wouldn't call myself a christian. actually, i wouldn't even get this involved in debates -- i just wouldn't care.rather, i keep my RELIGION to myself usually. i explained a bit of it on this board recently, involving my actual feelings about the text, and my appreciation of it and for it. i don't recall exactly where it is.but i normally keep my religion private. it's between me and god, and to my knowledge no one here is god. this is partly because of the attitude jesus himself told us to have regarding how to pray, and partly because it normally results in a lot of arguments, disagreement, and questions. i really only bring a little of it out when i feel secure that it will settle debates rather than start them.but i don't see this as a problem. i see the people who preach ignorance instead of comprehension as the problems.

---

אָרַח

i would be willing to as well, however. i have not yet read the quran. it's on my reading list, though. so right now, i am neither qualified to debate on the subject, nor do i have any points one way or the other.

---

אָרַח

if i had wanted you to shut up, i would have said "shut up, faith."but i didn't.

---

אָרַח

well, i'm trying to keep it sort of on track. for instance, i'm talking about the historical validity of the bible, i specifically indicated, originally, that genesis and deuteronomy could not have been written by eyewitnesses.but i'll take this a positive direction, if it'll make everyone feel better. i'd like to suggest the following proposal: i think the books of the prophets (or at least their source QUOTE material) was recorded by eyewitnesses. this would, btw, include at least 3 of the gospels.although i'm not sure if there's proof of that anywhere. only mostly. it's confirmed by a lot of stuff, but occasionally denied by others. i'm always willing to listen to a good, logic case, however.

---

אָרַח

ok. did the author of genesis witness adam's death? did he also witness methusalah's death? but it nowhere claims that moses wrote genesis, nor does it claim that the person who did witnessed every event in the book. this makes this claim a matter strictly of faith -- i could easily say the same thing about anything in the quran or book of mormon. or diantetics. anything supposedly revealed by divine revelation. (i dunno about dianetics...) i didn't bring up physical evidence. frankly, i don't actually care. i do believe some of it's based on real events. i think kings is even a reasonably accurate attempt at a history the divided kingdom period. as for it always going down EXACTLY how the bible said, i dunno. a lot of it there is simply no proof for. we've got nothing on the exodus, for instance. and that's rather important -- the mosaic covenant [and therefor the entire torah] depends on it. but it's the next case i really disagree with: see, the bible is not trying to convince us that this stuff happened. it's trying to put across philosophies, traditions, explanations, and theology. if you read it, they're not saying "see this stuff? it happened and you should believe it." the stuff that *IS* history, like samuel and kings, everybody knew happened for the most part. towards the ends of the books, the people writing it were probably even there. it shows a main authorship date just before exile, and a few edits during and after. which means the people writing it probably KNEW the last king of judah.but compare kings to genesis. in genesis, they're dealing with ancient traditions. some of them spawned by real events, sure. there probably was a sodom and gomorrah, for instance. but mostly, they're recording the traditions from their ancient history. they didn't know abraham and isaac. the book of mormon has signed witness statements in the first pages. i've read 'em. but i still don't believe them. there's a lot of that too. but this is because the bible does not just record that, but alot of other jewish lit too. because for a long time, they were a theocracy. see above. i don't suspect you're a mormon. but the mormon historical account is so full of holes it makes the bible look divine.

---

אָרַח

"have" and no, it does not. it has story of their creation, but not an eyewitness one. actually, no. that's not in the story:

quote:

---

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof

---

adam makes up the names, not god. (but still, no.) genesis was written well after moses. but here's the kicker: it was written directly from earlier texts. (some of those were still written well after moses). and the legends contained are even older. genesis is a history of the cultural mythology. these are OLD stories they're telling. who said anything about achieving salvation? if you mean going to heaven, well, genesis tells a story about enoch, who went to heaven. so it's not out of the realm of possibility... but overall, the god of the old testament doesn't seem concerned with "salvation" in the christian sense. what torah? there is no torah at this point, this story is IN the torah. you cannot write a book about events that concern the book, unless you're al franken. and even by the most conservative standards, this would be when moses is writing the torah with god. if he's not down the mountain yet, they don't have it.the golden calf is another interesting subject. i'll save that for later. jesus, evidently, had read the torah. as had everyone he talked to. the torah exists today. now, it may not be in its FIRST incarnation... yes, but show me where jesus came up with it. he never advocates the idea that he's god himself, or even the son of god, although there's some curious references in john.hey, i have an idea. let's talk about john. how reliable is john as "eyewitness" account, do you think?

---

אָרַח