Summations Only

Okay. I won't pursue the point any further. Of course if I were seriously pursuing this discussion, I'd ask you to back up that assertion. But I'm punting on this discussion. Hopefully I've left at a point where I haven't hit new nerves. Your taking a bit too much liberty here. I don't believe Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, for one thing, and I don't believe the opinions on the authorship of the Pentateuch are relevant to the question to which I posed my objections.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Changing the dating is a great crime of vandalism against God's word as it completely mangles the content of many of the books, both historical and prophetic books, but Daniel in particular. This is unforgiveable.

---

Of course, we never had good dates for the Pentateuch, so "redating" is hardly an issue.And you just object to the correct dating and understanding of Daniel - and that is not something that needs forgiveness. Let's start with the fact that Daniel 8 places the "end times" in the period of the Diadochi states....

I'd almost welcome a thorough thrashing of my longer messages to you. It's the many you ignore or supply a one-line dismissal to that cause me to think twice before putting too much time into replies to you. You've replied to 60% of the posts to you in this thread, a little more than half.--Percy

I certainly empathize with you Percy. I have thought about re- research and posting on these areas. Problems with Mark, Quran comparison, Pentateuch authorship, the lying of Papias and Eusebius....in order to post more evidence other than my opinion.
However, after seeing the 2/7 debacle and complete dismissal of many guys comments with no obvious thought displayed..I can't be less interested.
I have said that Faith is not debatable and was not exaggerating. She has been ladled with too much bunk and continues to rely on the websites of bunk as the ultimate source.
Almost nobody in a cult, realizes that fact while they are in one.

Genesis 7 is a great example of contradictions and inconsistencies since there the gathering of the animals gets described over and over again and every time it is different.The first iteration is Genesis 7:2-3

quote:

---

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

​

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

---

Then we get the second version in verses 8-9

quote:

---

8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

​

9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

---

Here it is just two and two regardless of whether it is clean or unclean.the final iteration is Genesis 7 is verses 14-16

quote:

---

14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

​

15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

​

16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.

---

Three varying repetitions of what happened in one section of one story.

The frequent repetition is odd, I agree, but the different parts don't contradict one another if you follow the rule for Bible interpretation of taking them all together. Whatever explains the repetitiveness doesn't require the writing to have been the production of anybody but Moses.

I would really like to get off this thread but I do feel an obligation to answer some posts from time to time, even if only in my preacherly style which you dislike. I'm sorry this leaves you in the position of sincerely arguing your case only to be ignored. If this was a subject I'd spent time studying I would probably answer accordingly more often and do my best at the thorough trashing you would prefer, but as it is, with the exception of a point or two here and there, about all I can do is protest what I consider to be an indefensible attack on God's word.My method isn't going to please anybody here in any case because I'm a believer and on this subject I argue as a believer. Whatever I say will be treated as a simple refusal to accept what you all think really is evidence against the inerrancy of the Bible (which, by the way, in my frame of reference is the same thing as saying it's God's word), making me a liar or deluded and so on. When you came back refusing to accept what I'd said about the commentaries on the two and the seven I knew the case was hopeless.The link I posted to the discussion of Mark got the usual put-downs, including the objection that the writer's defense of the Christian understanding of the Biblical record as the work of the Holy Spirit is just "pride." Against such opinions there is nothing I can say anyone here would accept. Scripture makes it clear that we can't understand the things of God by our own fallen intellect, we must be born again from above and be led by the Spirit of God. That's what salvation ultimately is, the regeneration of the spirit we lost through the Fall and our own personal sin. On the other hand, scripture calls the claims of the fallen nature pride, and defines meekness as believing God, but it's clearly easy for you all to reverse the concepts and turn them as accusations against us according to your own way of thinking.But a Spirit-led believer knows things you don't know, it's just a fact. You can't persuade me away from twenty-five years of experience with the supernatural revelation of scripture no matter how sure you all sound and how insulting you get. (I'm thinking of Golffly and jar here too of course.) It's a lot easier to persuade people who started out in the church than it is someone who started out in heavy-duty atheist-secular-rationalist-liberal contexts as I did.So, it would be nice if a (born-again / orthodox / true) Christian who has studied all these things might come along and favor EvC with the necessary knowledge so that it could be the kind of debate you want. As long as it's just me I'm going to continue to protest the very idea of the mistreatment of scripture at the profane hands of the so-called "scholars" you all put above God. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

LOLWe know that you believe that but there is no evidence that Moses even existed much less ever wrote anything.The facts are that every line of investigation show that the Bible is simply the words of men, filled with errors, contradictions, inconsistencies and falsehoods.Historic Criticism shows that events claimed in the Bible never happened.Redaction Criticism shows that additions were made by different traditions and inserted at different times and that material was added by unknown people.Textual Criticism shows contradictions (2 fowl or seven fowl).Do you have any evidence that the Bible is either inerrant or the word of God.

My evidence is thirty-five-hundred years of tradition: people, including great scholars of the scriptures, who believe the traditional understanding of who the authors were and when the books were written, as opposed to the very recent mental gymnastics of a few self-inflated "scholars" who have the gall to put their own opinion above that of the greats of Christian history.Also internal dating of the scriptures and references throughout them back to Moses as well as to other Old Testament leaders and prophets.That's the evidence for the existence of Moses for starters, but the testimony of the New Testament and Jesus Himself is also evidence.The contradictions and inconsistencies are the product of the method applied. In reality they don't exist. It's really a marvel how a whole "scholarly" or "scientific" system can be invented out of whole cloth to make whatever case you want to make, but it does require ignoring the vast accumulation of evidence against it.

Tradition is only evidence of tradition Faith. Please present that evidence Faith. Is there some reason that you have never been able or willing to produce any of that vast accumulation of evidence?

When tradition is as strongly supported as the Biblical tradition is, it is evidence in itself. Its support by great Bible interpreters, translators and scholars puts to shame the made-up fantasies of modern scholars.Yeah, its vastness makes it hard to produce it.Here's some of the evidence for the existence of Moses, which you can only discredit by the lies of the scholars about the referenced scriptures: Moses refs 1Moses refs 2Moses refs 3Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, none of that is and more valid evidence that Moses ever existed than Morte d'Arthur is evidence that King Arthur lived. Do you have any idea what evidence is? Like your so called evidence, Le Morte d'Arthur is a compilation of tales, just what you present.Facts though are quite difference.There is positive evidence that neither Biblical Flood ever happened.The God described in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the God described in Genesis 2&3.The phrase "son of God" was added at a latter date by a different hand at the beginning of Mark and the ending was also edited.Matthew and Luke duplicate almost (sometimes exactly) parts of Mark and also of a second source.Passage that use the honorific Yahweh depict a very anthropomorphic God while passages that use the honorific Elohim depict an abstract aloof, overarching God.These are examples of evidence.Granted there are people who still believe the Bible to be inerrant or the earth young or in special Creation or that there was a Biblical Flood or that the Exodus happened or the Conquest of Canaan but they are simply wrong and have never been able to provide any evidence to support their position just as you have never provided any evidence.

The references show that the Jews all looked back to Moses as their great leader throughout their history, Jesus and three of His disciples actually saw Moses, and the Jews continued to teach about him throughout the New Testament. None of this has anything in common with fiction. It is history and that is indeed evidence of Moses. The Jews to this day recognize Moses and Abraham and all the people referenced in their scriptures as historical. So you have the arrogance to say they, along with all orthodox Christians for two thousand years, are believing a mere fiction as reality, while nobody takes the Morte d'Arthur as anything BUT fiction. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We know you believe that but how is that any different than the Le Morte d'Arthur beyond the fact that we actually have a good idea of who wrote the latter?Evidence Faith, evidence.

You can't have "positive evidence" that the Flood never happened. You cannot prove a negative, jar, you ought to know that. There is tons of evidence that it DID happen even apart from the scriptures which are evidence enough. The strata, the fossils. IMMENSE evidence, worldwide too. The sort of formation and contents that cannot rationally be explained by normal processes except in the minds of those who need so badly to believe in evolution they can't recognize reality. At least have the grace to speak in a way that reflects the fact that you are representing an HYPOTHESIS, instead of in such dogmatic terms. The ending of Mark was taken out of the bogus Alexandrian manuscripts; it occurs in all the others. There's even an empty space in Sinaiticus where that passage normally occurs that testifies to its having been there originally. Smoking gun evidence that all you debunkers ignore, along with all the other evidence that Sinaiticus is a bogus mss. Dean Burgon proved the validity of that passage in his lengthy study of the manuscripts."Son of God" is a Name for Jesus given throughout the New Testament. Mark is traditionally understood to be the second gospel and it's only the self-appointed revisionists who say otherwise, based on nothing but their own subjectivity. Blech.Elohim is the generic Semitic word for "God," while Yahweh, or Jehovah is His actual Name as given only to His own people starting with Abraham. Both terms apply to the true God in scripture.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.