'biblical' problems with a local flood...

[SBG]

You don't agree with Jesus when he says it was Moses who wrote those books?

And you don't agree with Paul who says they are the works of Moses?

 

[Remus]

But I'm glad and pleasantly surprised that you see fit to leave me as is with my interpretations. After all, this is such a small quibble to quibble over. Don't worry though, I'm sure others will have fun attacking me where you hold back.

I don't know why you are surprised. Ever since you’ve been here, I’ve only been polite and respectful to you even after you were less than that to me.

 

[gluadys]

You don't agree with Jesus when he says it was Moses who wrote those books?

And you don't agree with Paul who says they are the works of Moses?

They were speaking from within an established tradition. Why would I expect them to say anything else? They had no reason to challenge it.

Now that tradition has been challenged on the basis of evidence that gives a different answer to who wrote these documents. Since the traditional attribution was made without the benefit of any evidence, and purely on the basis of rabbinical logic, I would say the evidence trumps any attribution not based on evidence.

 

[shernren]

I don't know why you are surprised. Ever since you’ve been here, I’ve only been polite and respectful to you even after you were less than that to me.

Sorry where I've been harsh. After dealing with so many creationists it's easy to imagine they're all the same ... my apologies.

 

[Vance]

As for the NT references about Moses writing the Torah, it would not even mean that they actually believed Moses literally wrote it. It is a formula, a traditional method of referring to the Torah and its authorship, not a statement of history. We might say something like "the Constitution that the founding fathers wrote" even if we know that James Madison wrote most of it by himself (just as an example, that is not my period). Or like us referring to "back when Columbus discovered America" when we really know it was Amerigo, etc.

Jesus and the others are not making historical statements, but using conventional language that was common when referring to the Torah.

 

[Remus]

Sorry where I've been harsh. After dealing with so many creationists it's easy to imagine they're all the same ... my apologies.

Apology accepted. But you should realize that if you come in here with a chip on your shoulder looking for a fight, you won't have to look long.

 

[Remus]

As for the NT references about Moses writing the Torah, it would not even mean that they actually believed Moses literally wrote it. It is a formula, a traditional method of referring to the Torah and its authorship, not a statement of history. We might say something like "the Constitution that the founding fathers wrote" even if we know that James Madison wrote most of it by himself (just as an example, that is not my period). Or like us referring to "back when Columbus discovered America" when we really know it was Amerigo, etc.

Jesus and the others are not making historical statements, but using conventional language that was common when referring to the Torah.

gluadys, are you arguing something like this? It doesn't sound like it, but I'm not clear on all of what you are arguing.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Jesus and the others are not making historical statements, but using conventional language that was common when referring to the Torah.

Good point. There appears to have been a degree of fluidity in how Old Testament writings were referred to. For instance, Matthew 27:9-10 seems to conflate prophecies from Zechariah 11:12-13 and Jeremiah and attribute the combination solely to Jeremiah.

This also happens in Mark 1:2-3 where prophecies made by both Malachi and Isaiah are attributed solely to Isaiah.

So, in these two cases, both a minor and major prophet were referred to just by mentioning the major prophet. This seems to show that the NT authors were more interested in stating that their claims had OT backing than in making precise claims about the authorship of certain OT books.

 

[Vance]

Good point. There appears to have been a degree of fluidity in how Old Testament writings were referred to. For instance, Matthew 27:9-10 seems to conflate prophecies from Zechariah 11:12-13 and Jeremiah and attribute the combination solely to Jeremiah.

This also happens in Mark 1:2-3 where prophecies made by both Malachi and Isaiah are attributed solely to Isaiah.

So, in these two cases, both a minor and major prophet were referred to just by mentioning the major prophet. This seems to show that the NT authors were more interested in stating that their claims had OT backing than in making precise claims about the authorship of certain OT books.

Exactly. We must remember that the Jews have never treated their Scripture the same way we treat it. They do not, for example, hold the entire collection that we call the Old Testament with the same level of "regard" or "authority". They make clear distinctions between the various types of texts in the collection, and think of them in separated groups of texts. The group they call "the Writings", for example, are MUCH less authoritative than the books of the Law.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys, are you arguing something like this? It doesn't sound like it, but I'm not clear on all of what you are arguing.

Yes, basically.

We have to remember that ancient cultures did not put the importance on authorship that we do. Much literature (and much art of all sorts) ws produced anonymously. And sometimes, when a name was attached, it was not the name of the actual author, but of someone the author wished to honour. The use of another's name rather than one's own was a way of saying "I am writing this as a way of passing on the wisdom of my teacher. Think of this as coming from my teacher who deserves the honour rather than from myself who is only his humble student."

So the Torah is fundamentally a collection of writings by four anonymous authors, with no names attached to any of them. But each is writing about the foundation of the nation of Israel, the covenant made between God and Israel. And, of course, Moses was the key figure in those events. None is attempting to make anything up, but to set in writing the traditions which they believed did go back to Moses and the Exodus--if not before, as in Genesis.

So when, gradually, the writings are brought together and edited into a single narrative, that narrative comes to be called the Torah or Law or Teaching given through Moses, or more briefly, the Law of Moses, or simply Moses. The questions "Was is written in the Law of Moses?" and "What did Moses write?" are to all intents and purposes synonymous.

Both for the rabbis who began to designate the writings in this way and for people of later centuries, since the Torah was given at Sinai through Moses, it doesn't matter if it did not get a written form until many centuries later. To the ancient mind, in so far as the later written form is faithful to the tradition of Sinai, it was written by Moses.

More scrupulous attention to who the actual author of a text was emerged as European culture became less collective and more individualistic. This, of course, is not to say that we have no texts from ancient times which are not connected with the name of their actual author. Just that it was not uncommon for a text to be anonymous or to be attributed to someone other than the actual author.

 

[Remus]

Just a couple questions if I may. Do you believe that any part of the Torah was actually written by Moses, or his scribe... or whatever. And do you believe that any of it could have been written prior to Moses?

 

[gluadys]

Just a couple questions if I may. Do you believe that any part of the Torah was actually written by Moses, or his scribe... or whatever.

That's not the way the evidence points. So, no. It seems it was all written and edited sometime between the reign of Solomon and the return from the Babylonian exile.

And do you believe that any of it could have been written prior to Moses?

There could well have been writings prior to the Torah which served as references and sources for the Torah. But IMO the primary source would be oral tradition.

 

[Vance]

Actually, I suspect that there were earlier written sources from which the final editions were derived, based solely on what other cultures around them were doing. We continue to find earlier written versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, after it was earlier thought that it had been transmitted orally for all that time. The absence of a writing does not preclude their having been one. In fact, I have recollections of Scripture referring to earlier writings from which portions of the Kings and Chronicle accounts were derived during that time. So, we know that the Israelites were definitely writing stuff down before that time.

Of course, the idea of an oral transmission until the time of the two Kingdoms does not in any way "lessen" the accounts at all. God can maintain an oral tradition as He likes, or manage the later writing down of such oral traditions in the manner He likes as well. God is pretty powerful that way. :0)

 

[Remus]

That's not the way the evidence points. So, no. It seems it was all written and edited sometime between the reign of Solomon and the return from the Babylonian exile.

What is your take on the tablets that were put in the ark of the covenant? Not written by Moses, but written none-the-less.

 

[shernren]

Question to all: how would you treat the Torah differently, if at all, if you believed that it was not actually written or dictated by Moses? (To those who already believe so, what difference does it make?)

I don't see any difference, frankly. Whether or not it was written by Moses, a prophet, a priest, a shepherd, it is still very much part of the Bible and that is enough for me.

 

[gluadys]

What is your take on the tablets that were put in the ark of the covenant? Not written by Moses, but written none-the-less.

I'd be quite willing to take the writing on the tablets as the miracle scripture describes. We know, from the differences in the Exodus and Deuteronomy accounts, that at least one of these (and probably neither) is an exact transcription of what was written on the tablets.

 

[gluadys]

Question to all: how would you treat the Torah differently, if at all, if you believed that it was not actually written or dictated by Moses? (To those who already believe so, what difference does it make?)

I don't see any difference, frankly. Whether or not it was written by Moses, a prophet, a priest, a shepherd, it is still very much part of the Bible and that is enough for me.

In terms of it being inspired scripture, it makes no difference to me at all.

I do find that it makes the Torah a lot more understandable to me. And it gives me more confidence in the accuracy of scripture. The many little glitches that occur if one takes the Torah as a single piece of writing, now become, like similar glitches in the harmonizing of the gospels, just the variant versions of different writers.

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

[font=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]http://www.ancientdays.net/universalflood.htm[/font][font=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif] A Universal Flood: 3000 BC The Hebrew word mabul is the word for "flood" used throughout Genesis 6-9. It is a unique word used only for this stupendous event. Eight other Hebrew words are used to describe local floods. But none of these compare with the extent of the Great Flood. The Greek word kataklusmo and kataklysmos, used both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament hardly needs interpretation. Cataclysm denotes violent destruction. It occurs in Matthew 24: 38-39; and Luke 17: 26-27. In 2 Peter 3: 5-6 we are reminded of that which mankind desires to forget: that is, that God made the heavens and earth with its water, and by that water the world was cataclysthized, destroying the surface of the earth and all living, breathing creatures. The Flood was sent because of universal total human depravity, with extreme violence toward others, which warranted severe punishment. Extent of the Flood: Geological Consequences [/font][font=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]Peter prophesied in 2 Peter 3: 3-6 that scoffers would deny the world was destroyed by a flood. He said these willfully ignore this stupendous event. In verses 10-11, a prophecy of the destruction of the entire universe is described, with Noah's Flood used as an analogy. How could a local flood be the analogy for this awful event?[/font]

[font=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]We cannot here reconcile the many complicated geological issues related to the Flood. But, for sure, a cataclysmic, worldwide flood would have had an enormous effect on the surface of the planet. Psalm 104: 8 says, "The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down." Oceans deepened due to the weight of water running off land surfaces into them. With the stupendous weight of new runoff water on the earth's mantle, mountains were uplifted. Today the continents and highest mountains are covered with sea fossils. Half the continental sediments are of oceanic origin. Geologists say this is because, at times, the continents have been under the sea, further confirming a worldwide Flood. Since mountains have waterborne fossils at their highest elevations (including Mt. Everest), it is evident that they were all under water at some time. However, this does not mean the waters had to be deep enough to cover modern Mt. Everest and other high mountains. Mountains were uplifted by the pressures on the earth's mantle. It seems most unfortunate that students of geology do not take the Great Flood into consideration as they attempt to interpret the geological data.[/font]


Universal Flood Considering the biblical narrative, which says that the Flood was universal, the words "all" and "every" are used 16 times in Genesis 6-9 to describe the totality of the Flood.

"Flood traditions" (the Gilgamesh Epic, the Atrahasis Epich, etc.), even though not as accurate as the Bible, all say the ark came to rest on a mountain. IMPOSSIBLE with a local flood. The world before the Flood was quite different from the world today. Since it did not rain before the Flood (Genesis 2:5), yet rivers flowed (v.10), there must have been great subterranean reservoirs of water. At the appointed time, the "fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11 ) spewed out their aquatic and volcanic contents while the "windows of heaven were opened" as some form of water was precipitated. Coupling these mechanisms with the fact that 70% of the earth is presently covered with water in sufficient quantity to cover the entire (flattened out) earth to a depth of about 7,500 feet, we can conclude that the biblical story is, indeed, quite reasonable. Present mountain ranges are mostly sedimentary rocks attributable to a flood, or volcanoes. They could have been formed during the Flood, or finished rising just after it.