Evidence for God from Science

Mazzy wrote:Getting back to the OP and although I have not read every post on this thread, the above is a good post even though I disagree with some of what you said. I don't think the earth has to be young. I think Mankind may need to be young. I have also read about the geneology in Genesis being incorrect meaning mankind may have been created longer than 6K years ago.

If you think of Genesis as "being incorrect," then why bother saying "mankind may need to be young"? If the creation account can be wrong on one matter, why not on another? Put differently, it mankind needs to be young, then why doesn't the earth also? An OEC interpretation could just claim that the earth doesn't need to be young precisely because the creation account is depicted as happening in seven ages of undetermined length. But, of course, OECs would reject the claim that the text is "incorrect" on any matter, only that a particular interpretation of the text is incorrect. Since you have set down the possibility that the text itself incorrect, I don't know why you would need any interpretation. Can you clarify?

The bible has been copied and I believe it may reflect the ideology of the transcriber.

I take it by "transcriber" you are referring to the copyists, and as such, your critique would follow under the realm of textual criticism. In that case, I'm wondering if you are aware that the text of the Pentateuch is particularly well preserved and that there is absolutely zero textual evidence for your claim. But more to the point, I also don't know what TC would have to do with anything regardless. Copy errors don't change the meaning of the text. If you are suggesting that the copyists were making wholesale changes to the substance of the account, then it would seem that you are back to denying biblical inspiration, in practice if not in theory. After all, if the texts as we have them, or as we have been able to reconstruct them to be more technical, are reflective of the ideology of the later redactors such that the meaning of the original has been lost (insofar as the redacted meaning is in error, presuming (on a theory of inspiration) that the original was not in error), then either the text as we have it cannot be regarded as inspired. So now you are back to a non-inspired, errant Scripture. And in that case, while you have certainly undermined the case for YEC, how have you not also undermined the case for OEC?

Adam could mean a group of people. It is all about having a capital A or not. Theistic evolutionists may believe this explanation.

First, "Adam" cannot refer to a group of people. The Hebrew word can refer to mankind, true, but in the story itself, it clearly does not. It refers, rather, to a single individual, and that we know by his actions. Just go back and read the Genesis 2-3 and replace "Adam" with "a group of people" every time you see it. You'll see very shortly that such a reading doesn't work.

And it doesn't really help you case to appeal to theistic evolutionists. They deny the inerrancy of Scripture. Again, you can do that, but if you do so, you have no basis to hold either OEC OR YEC. Frankly, you don't even have any basis for theistic evolution. So you accept evolution and the scientific consensus on the origins of the world and of humanity. You see the biblical account is wrong in its description. So you say, "Okay, so God was involved in directing the process!" I have no idea what that has to do with the text. It's certainly not an idea you got from Scripture. And to try to suggest that Moses had anything like TE in mind is just absurd. Oh, and speaking of Moses . . .

The reason I was looking at this site is I had a real "DER" moment about a year ago. I used to believe that Genesis was written by Moses, being a first hand account of the creation stories passed down to him as well a recollection about the flood. Then I started to study the scriptures and realized that Genesis speaks to Moses death. Many scholars suggest Genesis is a compilation of scrolls.

It's a shame you so easily give up Mosaic scholarship. Many scholars do, of course, suggest that Genesis is a compilation of stories edited by a series of redactors (not, as you put it, a compilation of scrolls). This falls under the study of form criticism and the theory is generally held under the term "the documentary hypothesis," AKA the JEPD theory. Suffice it to say that the theory has been repeatedly debunked and has been abandoned as a way of studying Scripture by every other field of literary studies. It also creates a range of self-contradictory riddles that simply cannot be solved. Worst, though, is the reason it was suggested and is defended. Put simply, if Moses was really the author, then miracles have to be true. And since miracles don't happen (per the theory), then we have to find an author (or authors) other than him; so, enter the theory.

If you are going to study this, I would recommend you start with Gleason Archer's very accessible A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. He discusses the matter in extensive detail. But, again, the bottom line is that to hold it is identical with rejecting the inspiration, much less inerrancy, of Scripture, since the theory ultimately requires Genesis was forged during the reign of King Josiah to consolidate his political power.

A much better option would be to stick with the evidence as we actually have it, affirm the Mosaic ownership of Genesis through Deuteronomy, and allow for later additions to the text. Note that additions to a text do not compromise claims to inspiration; only editing of the text such that its original meaning was changed. I should clarify that this does not mean that Moses (or any author for that matter) is required by inspiration to have written a text "from scratch." There is nothing saying that a biblical writer could not be inspired to use other written texts or oral traditions in the composition of his book. It is only to say that, in using that material, he is guided by the spirit in its employment so that the final product is God's Word. So that means that stories of Moses' death do not detract from either Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or from its inspiration.

Jac3510 wrote:

Mazzy wrote:Getting back to the OP and although I have not read every post on this thread, the above is a good post even though I disagree with some of what you said. I don't think the earth has to be young. I think Mankind may need to be young. I have also read about the geneology in Genesis being incorrect meaning mankind may have been created longer than 6K years ago.

If you think of Genesis as "being incorrect," then why bother saying "mankind may need to be young"? If the creation account can be wrong on one matter, why not on another? Put differently, it mankind needs to be young, then why doesn't the earth also? An OEC interpretation could just claim that the earth doesn't need to be young precisely because the creation account is depicted as happening in seven ages of undetermined length. But, of course, OECs would reject the claim that the text is "incorrect" on any matter, only that a particular interpretation of the text is incorrect. Since you have set down the possibility that the text itself incorrect, I don't know why you would need any interpretation. Can you clarify?.

Given there was no 24hr day on day 1 of the creation it does not matter how old the universe or the earth is. In this case Genesis can still be taken literally and be totally inspired. However when it comes to mankind Genesis contains a geneology whereby the age of mankind can be estimated. Mankind needs to be around 6,000yo, regardless of the age of the earth. If mankind is much older, then Genesis cannot be inspired and is not a literal account of the creation or the flood.

I may be wrong but I think theistic evolutionists need to assert that Genesis is not literal in any way.

Jac3510 wrote:I take it by "transcriber" you are referring to the copyists, and as such, your critique would follow under the realm of textual criticism. In that case, I'm wondering if you are aware that the text of the Pentateuch is particularly well preserved and that there is absolutely zero textual evidence for your claim. But more to the point, I also don't know what TC would have to do with anything regardless. Copy errors don't change the meaning of the text. If you are suggesting that the copyists were making wholesale changes to the substance of the account, then it would seem that you are back to denying biblical inspiration, in practice if not in theory. After all, if the texts as we have them, or as we have been able to reconstruct them to be more technical, are reflective of the ideology of the later redactors such that the meaning of the original has been lost (insofar as the redacted meaning is in error, presuming (on a theory of inspiration) that the original was not in error), then either the text as we have it cannot be regarded as inspired. So now you are back to a non-inspired, errant Scripture. And in that case, while you have certainly undermined the case for YEC, how have you not also undermined the case for OEC?.

I actually believe none of the historical establishment knows how to date the bible in such a way that it is factual. May I ask you whom you think wrote Genesis given it speaks to Moses death?

On the other hand one may believe regardless of who wrote what, that God watches over His Word to the Nations.

I am not a YEC. However as I have said, I am very interested in their ideology, not just because of how one reads or argues the scriptures but because science appears to attest to a much younger earth than is guestimated by the scientific establishment.

For sure we are here and I do not believe we are plugged into a computer as a simulation. Therefore either the earth is young, old or somewhere in between. Given the reality I cannot possible undermine every theist view.

Jac3510 wrote:First, "Adam" cannot refer to a group of people. The Hebrew word can refer to mankind, true, but in the story itself, it clearly does not. It refers, rather, to a single individual, and that we know by his actions. Just go back and read the Genesis 2-3 and replace "Adam" with "a group of people" every time you see it. You'll see very shortly that such a reading doesn't work.

And it doesn't really help you case to appeal to theistic evolutionists. They deny the inerrancy of Scripture. Again, you can do that, but if you do so, you have no basis to hold either OEC OR YEC. Frankly, you don't even have any basis for theistic evolution. So you accept evolution and the scientific consensus on the origins of the world and of humanity. You see the biblical account is wrong in its description. So you say, "Okay, so God was involved in directing the process!" I have no idea what that has to do with the text. It's certainly not an idea you got from Scripture. And to try to suggest that Moses had anything like TE in mind is just absurd. Oh, and speaking of Moses . . ..

Oh my goodness settle down Jac3510. You are free to believe what you want but you do not get to tell me what, how or why I believe nor the basis behind it.

God hopefuly guided his Word, the bible to keep it suffiently correct that we can discern how we should behave to please Him. Revelation ends by warning anyone that changes the words of that book. IOW change is possible because mankind thinks he knows what God means.

Let's see if you give your thoughts re whom wrote Genesis in the next paragraph.

Jac3510 said

It's a shame you so easily give up Mosaic scholarship. Many scholars do, of course, suggest that Genesis is a compilation of stories edited by a series of redactors (not, as you put it, a compilation of scrolls). This falls under the study of form criticism and the theory is generally held under the term "the documentary hypothesis," AKA the JEPD theory. Suffice it to say that the theory has been repeatedly debunked and has been abandoned as a way of studying Scripture by every other field of literary studies. It also creates a range of self-contradictory riddles that simply cannot be solved. Worst, though, is the reason it was suggested and is defended. Put simply, if Moses was really the author, then miracles have to be true. And since miracles don't happen (per the theory), then we have to find an author (or authors) other than him; so, enter the theory.

If you are going to study this, I would recommend you start with Gleason Archer's very accessible A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. He discusses the matter in extensive detail. But, again, the bottom line is that to hold it is identical with rejecting the inspiration, much less inerrancy, of Scripture, since the theory ultimately requires Genesis was forged during the reign of King Josiah to consolidate his political power.

A much better option would be to stick with the evidence as we actually have it, affirm the Mosaic ownership of Genesis through Deuteronomy, and allow for later additions to the text. Note that additions to a text do not compromise claims to inspiration; only editing of the text such that its original meaning was changed. I should clarify that this does not mean that Moses (or any author for that matter) is required by inspiration to have written a text "from scratch." There is nothing saying that a biblical writer could not be inspired to use other written texts or oral traditions in the composition of his book. It is only to say that, in using that material, he is guided by the spirit in its employment so that the final product is God's Word. So that means that stories of Moses' death do not detract from either Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or from its inspiration.

I'll edit this reply on further thoughts seeing as there are no replies yet.

To me to refer to Mosaic text refers to Moses writing it. If you are saying that anyone could have added to Genesis and be inspired then I do not understand why one would call Genesis Mosaic. I have a real problem expalining how a snake could talk. I have argued ventriloquism, that maybe in those days animal life could talk etc etc etc. In the end, I find some of Genesis easier to defend that other bits. For example it appears science supports the moon being created after the earth and the universe having a beginning. However Eve seriously should have wondered why a snake was talking to her and should not have been ashamed of her nakedness in front of Adam. Given there was no vocabulary to talk about innate morality, what actually changed within early mankinds brains that finally allowed us to comprehend the meaning of evil or 'wrong'? There may have been no vocabulary to explain it at the time so an illustration was divinely inspired to get the point across as to why Jesus had to sacrifice himself to atone for mankinds sin.

We can look to the NT. There we have Jesus telling us we are free from the Law and giving us the 2 greatest commandments. Then we see Paul putting us back under law re headship and womens place in the church. To me, whether these are Pauls words or not, Paul was not getting that we are free from law and tried to bind some law on the church. Do you accept that women should remain silent because every word is infallably inspired?..... I don't think 2 opposing views can be inspired at the same time. We are free from Law, Ruth was a Deacon in the church and women must be silent.

I am a theist because despite all I have said and reinterated about others beliefs,there is evidence from the 1st century that a man called Jesus lived that did marvelous things ie miracles, there was an early Christian church and despite all odds and apostasy Hades has not overturned the congregation of God.

I do not claim to have all the answers and saying Genesis is Mosaic alludes to it all being written by Moses.

Mazzy, would you mind putting all your replies in a single post? It makes it much easier to follow.

Anyway, don't take this the wrong way, but it's pretty apparent from your questions that you haven't yet studied OT canonicity, evidence for/against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the documentary hypothesis, or the general theological questions surrounding those issues. And that's fine. Most people have not studied it. And if you'd like to talk about all that, then I'm fine doing so with you. I'll only say here that I've not asserted a thing about what you believe. What I am telling you is what your position entails. You're making the same mistake Audi made earlier. I've pointed out the necessary inferences that must be drawn from your stated position (that is what I mean when I say your position "entails" this or that), and therefore, this is what you must affirm. Now, I obviously grant that you are a human being with free will, and you are one who clearly has not studied this material. As such, I have no way of knowing whether or not you will take your positions to their necessary conclusions. I'm simply telling you, as someone who has studied this, what your positions (as stated so far) actually means. You are free to not opt for that, of course. But that just means that you either don't understand your own position or else you are just being irrational.

So, to help you with this, I'm going to suggest a little bit of reading. Not too much. All of these articles are rather short and very well written. Read these:

What is the Documentary Hypothesis?
The Documentary Hypothesis: What Is It?
What is Source Criticism?
What is Form Criticism?
Answer the Documentary Hypothesis
Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch: Tried and True
Did Moses Really Write Genesis?
Did Moses Write the Pentateuch?

There's no particular order, and there are many, many, many other articles I could post. Please note that the ones I've linked to here are linked because they are easy to read. I could link you to many scholarly articles that deal in great detail with underlying issues of the Hebrew text (both its translation and transmission history). I say that to say that having read the ones I've linked to here, and having read many others I'm not linking you to here (including many book length scholarly treatments of the subject), I can say that what I've suggested here is a good start for you. It won't answer everything, but it will give you a good grasp on things.

Beyond that, I'll add, again, that theistic evolutionists believe the Bible is wrong as it is written. Moreover, they deny a literal (which is to say, "normal"--see my conversation with recent K on that matter) interpretation of the text and opt, instead, for an allegorical, mythological approach. If you are willing to do that, then you can have neither an OEC OR a YEC view. You can CALL yourself whatever you want, but that would be like me saying that I believe the earth is 6000 years old and then telling people that I believe OEC. I would just be wrong, and if you told me that I didn't actually believe OEC, it would be plainly stupid for me to complain that I was telling you what you believe.

So you have lots of stuff in your posts. I'm open to talking about any of it with you, but I would appreciate if you would take a little time and read at least a few of the articles I linked to (you'll start to notice some recurrent themes) the more of them you read. Frankly, I only have so much time, and if you really want me to engage you on this, I'd rather do so talking about where we agree or disagree with what scholars are saying today rather than me trying to educate you on what they are saying!

Jac3510 wrote:Mazzy, would you mind putting all your replies in a single post? It makes it much easier to follow.

Anyway, don't take this the wrong way, but it's pretty apparent from your questions that you haven't yet studied OT canonicity, evidence for/against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the documentary hypothesis, or the general theological questions surrounding those issues. And that's fine. Most people have not studied it. And if you'd like to talk about all that, then I'm fine doing so with you. I'll only say here that I've not asserted a thing about what you believe. What I am telling you is what your position entails. You're making the same mistake Audi made earlier. I've pointed out the necessary inferences that must be drawn from your stated position (that is what I mean when I say your position "entails" this or that), and therefore, this is what you must affirm. Now, I obviously grant that you are a human being with free will, and you are one who clearly has not studied this material. As such, I have no way of knowing whether or not you will take your positions to their necessary conclusions. I'm simply telling you, as someone who has studied this, what your positions (as stated so far) actually means. You are free to not opt for that, of course. But that just means that you either don't understand your own position or else you are just being irrational.

So, to help you with this, I'm going to suggest a little bit of reading. Not too much. All of these articles are rather short and very well written. Read these:

What is the Documentary Hypothesis?
The Documentary Hypothesis: What Is It?
What is Source Criticism?
What is Form Criticism?
Answer the Documentary Hypothesis
Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch: Tried and True
Did Moses Really Write Genesis?
Did Moses Write the Pentateuch?

There's no particular order, and there are many, many, many other articles I could post. Please note that the ones I've linked to here are linked because they are easy to read. I could link you to many scholarly articles that deal in great detail with underlying issues of the Hebrew text (both its translation and transmission history). I say that to say that having read the ones I've linked to here, and having read many others I'm not linking you to here (including many book length scholarly treatments of the subject), I can say that what I've suggested here is a good start for you. It won't answer everything, but it will give you a good grasp on things.

Beyond that, I'll add, again, that theistic evolutionists believe the Bible is wrong as it is written. Moreover, they deny a literal (which is to say, "normal"--see my conversation with recent K on that matter) interpretation of the text and opt, instead, for an allegorical, mythological approach. If you are willing to do that, then you can have neither an OEC OR a YEC view. You can CALL yourself whatever you want, but that would be like me saying that I believe the earth is 6000 years old and then telling people that I believe OEC. I would just be wrong, and if you told me that I didn't actually believe OEC, it would be plainly stupid for me to complain that I was telling you what you believe.

So you have lots of stuff in your posts. I'm open to talking about any of it with you, but I would appreciate if you would take a little time and read at least a few of the articles I linked to (you'll start to notice some recurrent themes) the more of them you read. Frankly, I only have so much time, and if you really want me to engage you on this, I'd rather do so talking about where we agree or disagree with what scholars are saying today rather than me trying to educate you on what they are saying!

Yes I do mind as the post just becomes too long. If your reply to my reply is too long I loose interest. It should take you the same time to answer to each point as it does to put in the correct quote icons etc to segregate my reply.

Thanks for offering to educate me in understanding your point of view, be it correct or flawed. I will look at some of your links. I haven't so far as I suspect there is much reasoning of man. I have read so much of it. However I will look at some.

For now can you just answer if you 1. believe women should be silent and 2, a snake really spoke to Eve, and 3. Is this a mistake given hares do not chew the cud? LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Jac3510

I read the 1st link “What is a documentary Hypothesis” Here’s a snip..

"Jesus said in Mark 12:26, “Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?” Jesus states plainly that Moses wrote the account of the burning bush in Exodus 3. To date the Pentateuch some 1,000 years after the death of Moses is to deny Jesus’ words, for He specifies that Exodus is part of “the book of Moses.”"

Actually here above Jesus is not saying that Moses wrote anything. Jesus is using the language of the day to point out a scripture that Jews were familiar with in the book of Moses. It was not called Genesis back then. Jesus did not say Moses wrote it. Jesus only restated what some scroll/writing said. Also there were no bound books in Moses time. It must have been a mighty long scroll to contain the entire book of Genesis.

BTW, I do believe many of the miracles spoken to in the bible. The article is erraneous in suggesting just because a person contests some of the writings that they do not believe in any miracles like the parting of the sea or manna etc. I restate, Moses could not have written about his own death.

The bible says God is the God of the living, Elija and I think Enoch went straight to heaven yet no one can enter heaven before Jesus, the first fruit. So what sort of ‘living’ are Jacob, Abraham and Isaac actually doing? How do we know what is symbolic, literal or otherwise? The reasoning of man has an answer.

Yes I do mind as the post just becomes too long

You certainly don't have to play by my rules, but I also don't have to play by yours, and it is rather poor DB etiquette to make such a series of posts. As such, following this post, I'll reply as necessary to the first of your replies and not the others. You can do with that whatever you like. Your choice and such things.

1. believe women should be silent

No

2, a snake really spoke to Eve,

Yes

3. Is this a mistake given hares do not chew the cud? LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

No.

Actually here above Jesus is not saying that Moses wrote anything. Jesus is using the language of the day to point out a scripture that Jews were familiar with in the book of Moses.

Incorrect. Jesus did not employ an accomodationist hermeneutic. Or, I could simply ask you for your warrant in claiming that He did.

It was not called Genesis back then.

Incorrect. As a matter of fact, the word Genesis is taken from the LXX, which was translated about a half-century before Christ. And there it was called Genesis. You can see it here: http://www.academic-bible.com/en/online ... ible-text/

Jesus did not say Moses wrote it. Jesus only restated what some scroll/writing said. Also there were no bound books in Moses time. It must have been a mighty long scroll to contain the entire book of Genesis.

"Book" did not refer to a bound book as you and I think of it, but rather the composition by a particular author. And as a matter of fact, the entire book of Pentateuch could be and was contained on a single scroll (we have one, actually. It measures 36 meters long and 64 cm high).

The bible says God is the God of the living, Elija and I think Enoch went straight to heaven yet no one can enter heaven before Jesus, the first fruit. So what sort of ‘living’ are Jacob, Abraham and Isaac actually doing? How do we know what is symbolic, literal or otherwise? The reasoning of man has an answer.

They are living just as Jesus said they are. They are really alive. In heaven. Right now.

I don't have a lot of faith in you going forward, given your disinterest in having a proper conversation and your dismissal of "reasoning of man," even as you proceed to offer your own "reasoning"--reasoning that, to the worse, strongly suggests that you have never actually studied this material. So you, having never studied this, think that you are better informed than those who have studied in their whole lives?

No, I'm not terribly hopeful. But perhaps you'll surprise me yet. :-/

Jac3510 wrote:

Yes I do mind as the post just becomes too long

You certainly don't have to play by my rules, but I also don't have to play by yours, and it is rather poor DB etiquette to make such a series of posts. As such, following this post, I'll reply as necessary to the first of your replies and not the others. You can do with that whatever you like. Your choice and such things.

1. believe women should be silent

No

:-/

Then the NT is subject to the reasonings of man not unlike those contained in the many links you suggest will educate me.

I don't know about post etiquette, but posts that are as along as books appear to be bad manners, strenuous and tiring to plod through, and can easily loose any point.

BTW what was the point? Ah Yes, that multiple writers of Genesis would still constitute a Mosaic writing, that because Jesus refers to scriptures in Genesis or Exodus, transcribed as the Book of Moses, Jesus is saying Moses wrote them, because someone disagrees with some of the writing they have no faith in any of them, that Moses wrote about his death in Genesis and his birth in Exodus. Ok!

Jac3510 said

I don't have a lot of faith in you going forward, given your disinterest in having a proper conversation and your dismissal of "reasoning of man," even as you proceed to offer your own "reasoning"--reasoning that, to the worse, strongly suggests that you have never actually studied this material. So you, having never studied this, think that you are better informed than those who have studied in their whole lives?

No, I'm not terribly hopeful. But perhaps you'll surprise me yet. :-/

You know what? I don't think God cares if we believe Moses wrote Genesis or not. If He did the 3rd greatest commandment would have been "get the authorship of every scripture right or you're off to Gehenna". I can love you for your faith in Jesus despite your belief being different to mine. That is an attitude that unites Christendom.

Still I believe 'young earth' is only important to YECS and they may be right? The geneologies may be talking about sons and fathers in a different way. See link below.

http://ecclesia.org/truth/geneology.html

So let me educate you..No matter what anyone says Moses could not have written about his death in Genesis. Genesis is notwritten as if Moses was the writer and why would Moses write as if he was not the writer...just to fool us perhaps. Still someone was inspired to write them and I still believe in God and miracles. The other thing is I am not out to surprise you.

Hi Mazzy,

Hope you don't mind me interjecting.

If you've read any of my messages, earlier ones, you'll know I'm Day-Age.
So, just trying to build a quick bridge here since I don't know much about you except in your profile.

However, there is no reason to let go of Mosaic authorship simply because there are editorial notations and updated place names or the like.
You are kind of right, and Jac hasn't fully responded, but I'm sure he wouldn't be much phased by these redactions.

You know there are revised modern English versions of the Pilgrims Progress that are still attributed to John Bunyan?
And what we have in with the Pentateuch certainly has not undergone changes to that degree.
So, I think it quite safe to say the original source was Moses.

This is further backed by Christ Himself.
To borrow some Scriptural references at http://christianthinktank.com/qmoses1.html:

Then Jesus said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them." (Matt 8.4)

For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother,' and, `Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' (Mark 7.10)

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. (Mark 10.5)

Now about the dead rising -- have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? (Mark 12.26)

"He said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Luke 16.31)

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." (Luke 24.44)

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (John 5.46f)

19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?" (John 7.19)

Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. 22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. 23 Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? 24 Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." (John 7.21ff)

That to me, Christ's own affirmation of Mosaic authorship is quite powerful as a Christian.

But, do take a read of this article: http://christianthinktank.com/qmoses1.html. I highly recommend this site in general -- it's been around years and is still one of my favourites as a Christian.

In summary, I think you're right to not attribute everything to Moses, but at the same time I don't see that means you throw away Mosaic authorship.

People tend to be dogmatic ion their views and that tends to make people closed minded to the fact that many times it is not an either/or situation.
And the authorship of the books of the bible is on such matter.
We know that it was not possible for Moses to write ALL of the accounts in the Pentateuch, simply because some of it was written AFTER his death.
Does that mean that Moses wrote NONE of it? Of course not.
But does that mean Moses wrote most of it?
We simply do not know BUT we do know that they are views as the "books of Moses", which can mean that He either wrote at least the majority of them or supervised their writing (chief editor if you will).
Of course the later copying and editing was not done by Him but by the priestly class left to do such things and that is where SOME people think that changes COULD have been made, to which I tend to disagree for a variety of reasons ( the main being that the written word was valued LESS than the oral history and traditions that were passed on, it was sort of a "back up" for the oral history so it was always CHECKED against the Oral history and traditions that MANY knew very well).

Christ makes it clear that Moses gave the Law and that Law come from God BUT we also need to remember the context in which Christ mentions the Law and Moses and it was typically when He was using Him/it to show how the Pharisees ( the supposed guardians of The Law) were abusing it or being hypocritical of it.

Kurieuo wrote:Hi Mazzy,

Hope you don't mind me interjecting.

If you've read any of my messages, earlier ones, you'll know I'm Day-Age.
So, just trying to build a quick bridge here since I don't know much about you except in your profile.

However, there is no reason to let go of Mosaic authorship simply because there are editorial notations and updated place names or the like.
You are kind of right, and Jac hasn't fully responded, but I'm sure he wouldn't be much phased by these redactions.

You know there are revised modern English versions of the Pilgrims Progress that are still attributed to John Bunyan?
And what we have in with the Pentateuch certainly has not undergone changes to that degree.
So, I think it quite safe to say the original source was Moses.

This is further backed by Christ Himself.
To borrow some Scriptural references at http://christianthinktank.com/qmoses1.html:

Then Jesus said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them." (Matt 8.4)

For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother,' and, `Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' (Mark 7.10)

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. (Mark 10.5)

Now about the dead rising -- have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? (Mark 12.26)

"He said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Luke 16.31)

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." (Luke 24.44)

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (John 5.46f)

19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?" (John 7.19)

Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. 22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. 23 Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? 24 Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." (John 7.21ff)

That to me, Christ's own affirmation of Mosaic authorship is quite powerful as a Christian.

But, do take a read of this article: http://christianthinktank.com/qmoses1.html. I highly recommend this site in general -- it's been around years and is still one of my favourites as a Christian.

In summary, I think you're right to not attribute everything to Moses, but at the same time I don't see that means you throw away Mosaic authorship.

Hi there Kurieuo

I don't mind you popping in at all.

From the link....."The assertion that Moses is the principal author of the present text of Genesis need not mean that it came from his hand exactly as we have it now. To the contrary, one may confidently assume that the work has undergone post-Mosaic redaction. The main reason such a redaction would have taken place was not to substantially change the book in any way but rather to make it intelligible to a later generation of readers." I agree.

I have debated atheists that are pedantic around the use of the term 'Mosaic'. I suppose it comes down to the term 'Mosaic'. How much change does it take to then suggest any writing does not belong totally to an author? I like to use the term 'mostly Mosaic'. I feel much the same about some of the NT being written by any apostle. I wonder if some of the writings were added afterwards eg Women to be silent given Ruth was a Deacon.

The other point I would like to make is around Jesus quoting Moses. It is very possible that during the time of Jesus the text was more original.

I am not any particular sort of Creationist. I just call myself an OEC. I looked up “Day Age” creationism and I like it, including the telescoping of generations. In relation to the OP neither earth or man and have to be young. Young Earth is important to YECS. I don’t have a lot of faith in current dating methods but that does not mean I think the earth is 6k years old. I enjoy looking at most YEC supports and they may be right after all.

I have lots of questions about Day Age belief and if one has to accept homo erectus as the first man as well as other questions not appropriate for this thread.

Thanks for popping in. In summary, I agree with you. I just like to use the term 'mostly Mosaic'.

PaulSacramento wrote:People tend to be dogmatic ion their views and that tends to make people closed minded to the fact that many times it is not an either/or situation.
And the authorship of the books of the bible is on such matter.
We know that it was not possible for Moses to write ALL of the accounts in the Pentateuch, simply because some of it was written AFTER his death.
Does that mean that Moses wrote NONE of it? Of course not.
But does that mean Moses wrote most of it?
We simply do not know BUT we do know that they are views as the "books of Moses", which can mean that He either wrote at least the majority of them or supervised their writing (chief editor if you will).
Of course the later copying and editing was not done by Him but by the priestly class left to do such things and that is where SOME people think that changes COULD have been made, to which I tend to disagree for a variety of reasons ( the main being that the written word was valued LESS than the oral history and traditions that were passed on, it was sort of a "back up" for the oral history so it was always CHECKED against the Oral history and traditions that MANY knew very well).

Christ makes it clear that Moses gave the Law and that Law come from God BUT we also need to remember the context in which Christ mentions the Law and Moses and it was typically when He was using Him/it to show how the Pharisees ( the supposed guardians of The Law) were abusing it or being hypocritical of it.

I mostly agree, except I am not sure if divorce came from God. I believe Moses had the authority to bind and let loose, despite God not being particulary happy about it. There is no way Moses could have written about his own death, so this bit must have been added at least.