Shouldn't Creationism be taught at public schools?

[Platte]

Who told you that?

Most of the people you listen to would probably tell you Moses wasn’t a real person and that the Jews were never slaves in Egypt.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Most of the people you listen to would probably tell you Moses wasn’t a real person and that the Jews were never slaves in Egypt.

My faith does not depend upon the author of the Pentateuch nor the historicity of Moses.

Deuteronomy 34:5 And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. 6 He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone. 8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over.

Moses wrote about his own death? "to this day"? What day is he talking about?

At least this part of Deuteronomy had to have been written after the death of Moses by someone other than Moses.

 

[Platte]

My faith does not depend upon the author of the Pentateuch nor the historicity of Moses.

Deuteronomy 34:5 And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. 6 He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone. 8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over.

Moses wrote about his own death? "to this day"? What day is he talking about?

At least this part of Deuteronomy had to have been written after the death of Moses by someone other than Moses.

Joshua took over for Moses when he died.

 

[David Lamb]

That does not necessitate Moses as author of Pentateuch.. He could have been referring to the law Moses gave in those narratives.

But the New Testament quote I cited includes the words, "in all the Scriptures". Besides, Moses didn't give the law - God did.

 

[Doug Brents]

Exodus 24:3-4“When Moses went and told the people all the Lord's words and laws, they responded with one voice, 'Everything the Lord has said we will do. ' Moses then wrote down everything the Lord had said.”

That does not have to mean everything in the Pentateuch. Why would he refer to himself in the 3rd person? Would you?

That verse, in itself, does not necessarily mean that Moses wrote the whole of the Pentateuch. However, it is a good indication that he wrote a good portion of it.

And yes, there are plenty of times in Scripture where the writer refers to himself in the third person. In 2 Cor 12:2-5, Paul expresses how he had a vision, but he refers to himself as "a man I know", and "he". In Matt 9:9, Matthew refers to himself in the third person. Jesus often referred to Himself in the third person (Mark 2:10, Matt 8:20, and many others). Just because someone uses the third person to refer to himself does not mean that he did not write the document or make the statement.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

That verse, in itself, does not necessarily mean that Moses wrote the whole of the Pentateuch. However, it is a good indication that he wrote a good portion of it.

That is mostly an assumption.

And yes, there are plenty of times in Scripture where the writer refers to himself in the third person. In 2 Cor 12:2-5, Paul expresses how he had a vision, but he refers to himself as "a man I know", and "he". In Matt 9:9, Matthew refers to himself in the third person. Jesus often referred to Himself in the third person (Mark 2:10, Matt 8:20, and many others). Just because someone uses the third person to refer to himself does not mean that he did not write the document or make the statement.

I grant you that.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But the New Testament quote I cited includes the words, "in all the Scriptures". Besides, Moses didn't give the law - God did.

So what is the importance of claiming Moses as the author?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Joshua took over for Moses when he died.

So you believe Moses and Joshua wrote the Pentateuch.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Most of the people you listen to would probably tell you Moses wasn’t a real person and that the Jews were never slaves in Egypt.

"Most" do not go that far. What they do is take an objective look at the literary issues without bringing their favorite personal beliefs.
Most of us do not care to try that.

 

[Doug Brents]

That is mostly an assumption.

Not really. It has been the Jewish tradition that Moses wrote the first four books and most (if not all) of the fifth before He died. Joshua then began writing either the last little bit of the fifth book (after the death of Moses) and then the book bearing his name.

But the authorship of those books has never been in doubt. The first five books of the Bible are Scripture, and God is the author of ALL Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17). Since He is the author, it doesn't matter who put pen to paper for Him, it is still His Word.

I grant you that.

Thank you.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Not really. It has been the Jewish tradition that Moses wrote the first four books and most (if not all) of the fifth before He died. Joshua then began writing either the last little bit of the fifth book (after the death of Moses) and then the book bearing his name.

Tradition is not compelling evidence.

But the authorship of those books has never been in doubt. The first five books of the Bible are Scripture, and God is the author of ALL Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17). Since He is the author, it doesn't matter who put pen to paper for Him, it is still His Word.

So then why is there such resistance to accepting contemporary scholarly opinions about the human matter of who put pen to paper?

 

[Doug Brents]

Tradition is not compelling evidence.

It is when that tradition dates back, unchanged, from the time that the documents were written.

So then why is there such resistance to accepting contemporary scholarly opinions about the human matter of who put pen to paper?

Because it is nothing more than an attack on the veracity of Biblical truth. Satan is continuously probing here and there to get a foothold in a place where he can dismantle trust in the Word of God.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It is when that tradition dates back, unchanged, from the time that the documents were written.

That is not necessarily true, especially for very old documents. In fact , the older the document the less likely is anything about authorship known for sure.

Because it is nothing more than an attack on the veracity of Biblical truth. Satan is continuously probing here and there to get a foothold in a place where he can dismantle trust in the Word of God.

You are mistaking authorship for biblical veracity. And what you are defending seems to be a Biblical Literalism or Fundamentalism.
A true search for the truth of the Bible would go much deeper.

 

[Doug Brents]

That is not necessarily true, especially for very old documents. In fact , the older the document the less likely is anything about authorship known for sure.

Hence the more credible the tradition that dates back to the writing of the document.

You are mistaking authorship for biblical veracity. And what you are defending seems to be a Biblical Literalism or Fundamentalism.
A true search for the truth of the Bible would go much deeper.

When you attack a fortress, you don't attack the hardest, strongest, most well defended portion of the wall. You attack the weakest, most easily assailable point. Satan doesn't often attack the legitimacy of the life of Jesus, because His life is more well documented than many public figures in the past century, both in Scripture and by secular historians. But the writers of the different books is no so well documented, and if He can establish doubt in that, then he can generate doubt in the totality of Scripture, and thereby cause doubt in God's ability to save us. Thus destroying the fortress "from the inside" as it were.

So the identity of the writer, while not the foundation upon which our faith is built, is important in establishing the authorship being God's. It is entirely possible that, like some of Paul's writings seem to have been, Moses dictated his writings to another who actually put pen to paper. But that is inconsequential to the authorship. The writing still belongs to Moses (just as a ghostwriter's work still belongs to the "author" and not the ghostwriter), and the author is still God who inspired the words in Moses.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Hence the more credible the tradition that dates back to the writing of the document.

That does not make any sense.

He can establish doubt in that, then he can generate doubt in the totality of Scripture, and thereby cause doubt in God's ability to save us. Thus destroying the fortress "from the inside" as it were.

You fear a slippery slope. And what you resists is a different way to look at and interpret scripture. This a is part of the reason creationism should not be taught in schools. It is interpretation dependent.

So the identity of the writer, while not the foundation upon which our faith is built, is important in establishing the authorship being God's.

No it isn't.

It is entirely possible that, like some of Paul's writings seem to have been, Moses dictated his writings to another who actually put pen to paper. But that is inconsequential to the authorship. The writing still belongs to Moses (just as a ghostwriter's work still belongs to the "author" and not the ghostwriter), and the author is still God who inspired the words in Moses.

And it is possible that a post-exilic author, also inspired by God put into writing a lot of pre-exilic oral tradition as well as theologically important concepts of his own.

 

[Doug Brents]

That does not make any sense.

It make complete sense. The fact that the older the document the harder it is to verify the authorship, and an extremely old document has a tradition of authorship that goes back to the time when the document was authored, is better evidence than any other ancient document has. No, it is not proof positive, but it is very strong.

You fear a slippery slope. And what you resists is a different way to look at and interpret scripture. This a is part of the reason creationism should not be taught in schools. It is interpretation dependent.

Creationism is the only rational explanation for what we see around us. Evolution contradicts its own rules and "laws" in order to make it even remotely believable (which completely destroys its credibility). The only rational explanation for the world is that an intelligent being set everything in motion and sustains everything. Random chaos does not naturally resolve into order and organized systems, it NEVER happens; and yet we have order and rational systems all through the natural world. This is proof positive that there is an intelligent creator who made everything.

And it is possible that a post-exilic author, also inspired by God put into writing a lot of pre-exilic oral tradition as well as theologically important concepts of his own.

It is entirely possible that God inspired someone else to write all of the first five books (although the most likely writer, and the one attributed as the writer from as far back as when it was written, was Moses), but not that they put "theologically important concepts of their own" into the writings. If there were personal additions by the writer, then not ALL of Scripture would be "God breathed". And that would make 2 Tim 3:16 a lie, and God cannot and does not lie.

 

[Job 33:6]

It make complete sense. The fact that the older the document the harder it is to verify the authorship, and an extremely old document has a tradition of authorship that goes back to the time when the document was authored, is better evidence than any other ancient document has. No, it is not proof positive, but it is very strong.

I would say that this is precisely why Genesis 1:1 does in fact describe an ex materia creation. Because that is what the oldest of manuscripts and texts describe, such as those of the dead sea scrolls and of extra biblical texts that parallel Genesis, such as the Memphite Theology of ancient Egypt, which is where the Israelites traditionally are suggested to have escaped out of.

I don't think you're really practicing what you're preaching here.

This is why creationism never really took hold among the scientific community, but it's also why creationism is a minority view among biblical scholars.

Anyone who spends any time looking into the Egyptian and Babylonian context of Genesis, quite plainly can see that it is of origins that really have nothing to do with "evolution vs creation" as we think of the subject today.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It make complete sense. The fact that the older the document the harder it is to verify the authorship, and an extremely old document has a tradition of authorship that goes back to the time when the document was authored, is better evidence than any other ancient document has. No, it is not proof positive, but it is very strong.

I don't know why you would think that other than you simply want to.

Creationism is the only rational explanation for what we see around us. Evolution contradicts its own rules and "laws" in order to make it even remotely believable (which completely destroys its credibility). The only rational explanation for the world is that an intelligent being set everything in motion and sustains everything. Random chaos does not naturally resolve into order and organized systems, it NEVER happens; and yet we have order and rational systems all through the natural world. This is proof positive that there is an intelligent creator who made everything.

That is an inference we are free to make or decline. Do you also want to teach 6 day creation?

It is entirely possible that God inspired someone else to write all of the first five books (although the most likely writer, and the one attributed as the writer from as far back as when it was written, was Moses), but not that they put "theologically important concepts of their own" into the writings. If there were personal additions by the writer, then not ALL of Scripture would be "God breathed". And that would make 2 Tim 3:16 a lie, and God cannot and does not lie.

Why is one author's writing "God breathed" but another author not?

 

[trophy33]

We’re talking about genealogies here, there’s nothing scientific about them they’re a historical record not a scientific explanation. So your argument here doesn’t actually apply to the topic.

I did not say genealogies are scientific. I said that mythology is a pre-scientific view of the world. The view that was prevalent in the times the Old Testament (the Genesis genealogies included) was written.

I am not sure why its not clear.

 

[trophy33]

I know you don’t believe in Genesis, you think it’s just a bunch of stories conjured up by the imagination of man.

We are not called to believe in Genesis. That would be quite a different religion than Christianity.

I think Genesis is a part of the Mosaic Law, written in the style that was common for religious and national writings in the era. Inspiration does not mean it was dictated by God word for word (which is provable easily) or that it must be written in our modern way of thinking.