Evidence for God from Science

Mazzy wrote:

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.

According to Christ, divorce was given by Moses, it was an accommodation BUT I am sure that He ran it by God.
Christ does make it clear that the divorce "ok'd" by Moses was the "contractual one" a divorce in which one party divorces another for some "approved" or "legit" reason that is Ok'd by the elders (or Pharisees in this case):

Matthew 19: 3-12

As opposed to:
Deuteronomy 24: 1-4

PaulSacramento wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

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.

According to Christ, divorce was given by Moses, it was an accommodation BUT I am sure that He ran it by God.
Christ does make it clear that the divorce "ok'd" by Moses was the "contractual one" a divorce in which one party divorces another for some "approved" or "legit" reason that is Ok'd by the elders (or Pharisees in this case):

Matthew 19: 3-12

As opposed to:
Deuteronomy 24: 1-4

Without looking it up I seem to remember Paul suggesting that divorce is adultery unless a parter is unfaithful or dies. If Jesus said Moses was more or less soft that appears to mean He did not approve of what Moses allowed.

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

And why does my denial that women should be silent mean that "the NT is subject to the reasonings of of man"? And what "reasonings" do you see in the links I suggested? And can you explain to me exactly what a "reasoning of man" is? It would seem to me that anything you can say for or against any idea would, by definition, be a "reasoning of man." So if we can't trust such reasoning, how can I trust anything you say, including the suggestion that we ought not suggest reasoning of man (whatever that is)?

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!

The point is that Jesus explicitly attributed the words of the Pentateuch to Moses. For example,

• But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. (John 5:45-46)

Notice first that Jesus said that Moses (the man) is their accuser. He does not say a collection of people is their accuser. He doesn't say a book is their accuser. He says the person is their accuser. Second, notice that Jesus said that the Pharisees' hope was set on the person (on "whom" . . .). Jesus did not say that their hopes were on a document written by an unknown person or collection of people. He says that they were trusting a particular person--Moses. Third, Jesus does not say that if they believed the Pentateuch they would have believed Him. He says that if they believed Moses. He does not say, "If you believed the texts you are attributing to Moses." He says "if you believed Moses." And then, forth and most important, Jesus says, "he wrote about me." Jesus does not say that someone wrote about Jesus under the name of Moses. Jesus says that MOSES wrote about him.

Take that one step further, I am not aware of any first century Jewish group who did not attribute Mosaic authorship to the Pentateuch. Are you? If not, then does Jesus give any indication that He was taking a different view on that universal agreement than everyone else? And if not, on what basis do you claim that Jesus did not, in fact, accept Mosaic authorship given the plain meaning of His words?

Now, you can certainly deny Mosaic authorship of Genesis. But you can't say that Jesus' didn't hold to Mosaic authorship without offering evidence that He rejected it, and unless you offer that evidence from the text itself, then you are just reading into the text. Or, you could just do what everyone else who denies the Mosaic authorship of Genesis does: you can just say that Jesus was wrong or else say that Jesus never said that in the first place (that is, that the gospel writers were wrong). Either way, you end up back at the same problem I've been highlighting in your view: you have a Bible that is wrong. And if the Bible is wrong, then on what basis would you need to affirm ANYTHING in the Genesis account?

And once again, there's nothing whatsoever that detracts from Mosaic authorship in affirming that people made additions to his basic text. What we have to affirm is that Moses wrote (or compiled) the main substance of the text.

Jac3510 wrote:

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

And why does my denial that women should be silent mean that "the NT is subject to the reasonings of of man"? And what "reasonings" do you see in the links I suggested? And can you explain to me exactly what a "reasoning of man" is? It would seem to me that anything you can say for or against any idea would, by definition, be a "reasoning of man." So if we can't trust such reasoning, how can I trust anything you say, including the suggestion that we ought not suggest reasoning of man (whatever that is)?

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!

The point is that Jesus explicitly attributed the words of the Pentateuch to Moses. For example,

• But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. (John 5:45-46)

Notice first that Jesus said that Moses (the man) is their accuser. He does not say a collection of people is their accuser. He doesn't say a book is their accuser. He says the person is their accuser. Second, notice that Jesus said that the Pharisees' hope was set on the person (on "whom" . . .). Jesus did not say that their hopes were on a document written by an unknown person or collection of people. He says that they were trusting a particular person--Moses. Third, Jesus does not say that if they believed the Pentateuch they would have believed Him. He says that if they believed Moses. He does not say, "If you believed the texts you are attributing to Moses." He says "if you believed Moses." And then, forth and most important, Jesus says, "he wrote about me." Jesus does not say that someone wrote about Jesus under the name of Moses. Jesus says that MOSES wrote about him.

Take that one step further, I am not aware of any first century Jewish group who did not attribute Mosaic authorship to the Pentateuch. Are you? If not, then does Jesus give any indication that He was taking a different view on that universal agreement than everyone else? And if not, on what basis do you claim that Jesus did not, in fact, accept Mosaic authorship given the plain meaning of His words?

Now, you can certainly deny Mosaic authorship of Genesis. But you can't say that Jesus' didn't hold to Mosaic authorship without offering evidence that He rejected it, and unless you offer that evidence from the text itself, then you are just reading into the text. Or, you could just do what everyone else who denies the Mosaic authorship of Genesis does: you can just say that Jesus was wrong or else say that Jesus never said that in the first place (that is, that the gospel writers were wrong). Either way, you end up back at the same problem I've been highlighting in your view: you have a Bible that is wrong. And if the Bible is wrong, then on what basis would you need to affirm ANYTHING in the Genesis account?

And once again, there's nothing whatsoever that detracts from Mosaic authorship in affirming that people made additions to his basic text. What we have to affirm is that Moses wrote (or compiled) the main substance of the text.

Thanks Jac3510. It is all sorted as per my conversation with Kurieuo. We all acknowledge that Moses certainly did not write about his own death and other sections were possibly added for better understanding and that most of it was likely written by Moses. I never said Jesus or Genesis was 'wrong'.

If Mosaic authorship simply refers to the 'meaning' being right that would be fine. Indeed in the common useage of the term 'authorship' it means completing the writing in its entirety. Given we both understand that there were additions we are only debating over the terminology, 'Mosaic writing', hence I am not wrong at all. I am right and because I am right I won't find myself having silly arguments about this with atheists.

Cool

I believe the 6 days of creation were 24 hour days and for thousands of years many believed in a young earth but the age of the earth was not a burning issue like it is today and yet let's not forget God's word is revealed over time and has proven itself many times while proving man's interpretations wrong at the right time.

We should learn from this and allow God's word to reveal itself this is why The Gap theory has been in the bible since Moses penned Genesis but it was hidden until the right time when man started finding the evidence in the earth that proves the earth is old and not young.The Gap theory has been true the whole time and yet the church barely even knows about it or understands it.This is
what Rev.Thomas Chalmers realized when geologists were finding evidence for an old earth but he did not allow it to effect his faith and studied and found the Gap theory and revived it at that time and it is time for the church to revive it again and this was long before Charles Darwin wrote his book "On the origin of species".

Those YEC's who claim Rev Thomas Chalmers borrowed from evolution to make the bible fit have lied to the church and Wikipedia is wrong about Rev Thomas Chalmers too because of young earth creationists slandering Thomas Chalmers and making it seem he borrowed from evolution or science and made the bible fit.YEC have not told the truth because they have spent a lot of time,money and effort into trying to prove a young earth and don't want to have to admit they are wrong.

Rev Thomas Chalmers March,17 1780 - May 31,1847 Began preaching the Gap theory in the early 19th century. Charles Darwin Feb,12 1809 - April 19,1882 Published "On the origin of species" in 1859 so as you can see The Gap theory was being preached in Christian churches long before Charles Darwin,this is why it was evolution actually that borrowed from the old earth Gap theory and the church has lost a lot of ground because of the YEC interpretation and the desire to prove it true eventhough it is not true.Had the church not forgot about the Gap theory evolution would probably not be so popular and would have much more stiffer competition for the thoughts and hearts of men today.

Jac: Cool

Jac's version of "Jesus wept."

Philip wrote:

Jac: Cool

Jac's version of "Jesus wept."

That's funny, because I was thinking the same thing.

More than likely, his keyboard suddenly quit working.

Philip wrote:More than likely, his keyboard suddenly quit working.

It probably died from exhaustion.