documentary hypothesis

[ebia]

Sure he can -.

Then I don't understand the question you were asking.

 

[Sayre]

Can he is a different question to did he?

Frankly conservative and fundamentalist views of the bible have scared me away from using it at all and now I don't know what's left. Seems all that's left is the law written on men's heart.

 

[golgotha61]

Can he is a different question to did he?

Frankly conservative and fundamentalist views of the bible have scared me away from using it at all and now I don't know what's left. Seems all that's left is the law written on men's heart.

The documentary hypothesis is having more problems as time goes on and more discoveries of manuscripts etc. are made. It's unfortunate that the promoters of the higher criticism don't pay much attention to scholars like K. A. Kitchen and those of his ilk.

But, I am curios as to what the views of the conservatives and fundamentalists are, in your opinion, and what makes them frightening? The law that is written on men's hearts is from the God of the Bible (Romans 2:15), so it seems that it is necessary to depend on the Bible and perhaps not be so concerned with doctrines at this point.

 

[bling]

Can he is a different question to did he?

Frankly conservative and fundamentalist views of the bible have scared me away from using it at all and now I don't know what's left. Seems all that's left is the law written on men's heart.

I feel that I am very conservative but do believe the first 5 books of the Old Testament were written by several “authors” (4 or 5) and edited by most likely Jeremiah. The OT was orally past down to around 400 BC and there was the Northern Kingdom version and Southern Kingdom version most likely. Jeremiah brilliantly incorporates both and gives both versions like in the two stories of creation chp. 1 and chp. 2. I have also talked to learned Jews about this and they pretty much agree on more than one author to the first 5 books.

This does not mean they are not the books of Moses, since he wrote, taught, brought to the people and explained most to the people of his time all that was written in the first 5 books, but Moses would not have said “I am the most humble person that ever lived” nor would he describe his own death.

Jeremiah would have had to been inspired to do what he did so wonderfully, but that does not mean you can’t question.

Christian are not holding the Bible up like Muslims hold the Quran up as something to be worshipped. The Bible is just one tool the Christian has to work with and it is there to help the Christian. The Bible can help non-Christians, but that is not its purpose.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not sure it is just that. The theology itself appears to have been evolved, and later edited. If it is true that the idea of a covenant is a late one, then Abraham (if he existed) didn't receive a covenant - or at least he didn't recognise it as such. Isn't the basis of our salvation the Abrahamic covenant?

Sayre,

No, the Abrahamic covenant is a precursor to the New Covenant in Christ; it is the latter covenant by which we are saved.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can he is a different question to did he?

Frankly conservative and fundamentalist views of the bible have scared me away from using it at all and now I don't know what's left. Seems all that's left is the law written on men's heart.

Sayre,

You can jettison the concept of 'inerrancy' if you wish. All you have to be able to affirm is that the Scriptures are 'inspired.' That is the minimum needed to have faith (even if as small as a mustard seed.)

 

[Erik Nelson]

To what degree is Christian doctrine threatened by JEPD? Is it a deal breaker or not? I can't fathom how to reconcile the two.

In the New Testament, the Gospel of Jesus was written by 4 different authors. Who is accounts sometimes appear superficially to be contradictory? But on closer inspection all contradictions resolve and paint on more glorious picture.

Hypothetically an exactly analogous situation could be the case for the Old Testament as well.

Jesus spoke but we have no. Copies of original. Writings from the first century. We only have copies of copies of copies that come down to us ultimately from multiple authors and sources.

Likewise, Moses May, possibly, have written. And his writings come down to us through multiple sources. Much like the New Testament.

Just as Luke was written chronologically in order. Whereas Matthew and Mark were written thematically. Perhaps Genesis, one is written chronologically in Genesis, 2 thematically say as one hypothetical possibility.

 

[Uber Genius]

To what degree is Christian doctrine threatened by JEPD? Is it a deal breaker or not? I can't fathom how to reconcile the two.

Option 1 - Moses wrote the majority of the Torah and it was edited over time.
Option 2 - Multiple sources wrote the Torah over as much as 500 years.
The idea would be that the sources compete rather than coalesce for the early Judaic account. So unlike the gospel narratives that give us four different accounts of Jesus' ministry, liberal scholars use source criticism to justify a historical account of Judaism as henotheistic rather than monotheistic.

It is however far removed from the question "Does God exist?"

We would not want to refer to scripture in order to engage that question as scripture wouldn't be a presuppositional source of knowledge to the atheist.

Natural theology would be the place to camp until one resolved the existence of God. Then one would want to determine if that God was best described in terms of the Judeo Christian God or Muslim, or other. If you landed on the Judeo Christian God then you would want to engage the question about the origin and reliability of the text of scripture.

 

[Hawkins]

The process of Human witnessing:
When a car incident is to be reported, eyewitnesses can write what they saw, but more typically it's the more professional reporters who gather the story from the eyewitnesses accounts. The process of valid human witnessing never demands that a story must be written by the eyewitnesses.

Moses was a chosen eyewitness of God. Because he received the Law that he wrote the main trunk of the Pentateuch. The part mentioning his death is of course not written by himself. It's never a requirement for human witnessing to be composed this way, anyway.

Similarly, certain parts of the gospel of Mark is supposed from Peter's eye-witnessing. The process of human witnessing itself never demands those parts must be written by Peter.

So the whole strawman argument started is that the Pentateuch must be completely written by Moses (i.e., the car accident must be written by the eyewitnesses instead of the reporters). If not, then the Pentateuch must not be accurate. To me, this says that how stupid humans can be!

 

[Caliban]

I don't think it matters a great deal who wrote the Pentateuch; what matters is the theology contained therein.

I bet you would mind if the devil wrote it.