Who wrote genesis?

[Duckybill]

There is the other glaring bit of evidence - how could Moses write about his death?

God could have told him. No problem.

 

[cubinity]

We should ignore what you said, (because you deem it irrelevant) and switch our conversation to something else you remember saying in the past because it would amuse you? lol

Wow.

Hey, yeah. Whatever. The thread's not about fundamentalism, and we disagree on what fundamentalism is. I'm just trying to dialogue. If you want to talk about it, keep bringing it up. If you don't, leave it alone. The choice is yours.

Since you brought up my earlier comment, let's check it out...

Looking back on the thread, the following dialogue ensued:

88Devin07 -- The factual history isn't what is important and it doesn't matter who actually wrote the books, what matters is that they are still holy, inspired works, provided for our edification and guidance.

Redneck12 -- Actually it does matter, because if the historical facts are called into question, the spiritual aspect also becomes questionable.

Korah -- But a hard Fundamentalist line of defense also makes the faith questionable. Or more so, if the history can be shown not to be true.

Cubinity -- I'm going to agree that a hard fundamentalist approach calls into question the validity of Christianity, or any religion for that matter... Sometimes things are simply mutually exclusive.

:In this context, I was clearly arguing that historical accuracy is not codependent with spiritual truth, in agreement with Korah, using Korah's terminology. This need for our sacred texts to be historically accurate is a weak point in our arguments that they are also spiritually true because all someone has to do is prove why any one statement in the text is historically inaccurate, and what? Will we abandon all of the spiritual truths we have come to identify with? That would be unfortunate. Please don't do that. Please don't let the hard-line fundamentalist position call your faith into question. It's worth too much to you for that. That's all I was saying.

 

[cubinity]

If they were in error then our NT is TOTALLY worthless.

One ignorable mistake, and all its spiritual wisdom is trash, huh? One comment using acceptable vernacular that may or may not be historically accurate, and everything meaningful they tried to communicate no longer carries any weight?

I find that standard completely unreasonable, especially when it's about a text that tells its readers to, "Test everything. Hold on to the good" (1 Thess. 5:21).

 

[cubinity]

And perhaps "some people need the Bible to be" in error too?

Yes. Of course there are such people, and I don't give their arguments about the Bible much objective weight either.

Proof from anyone that puts any need for a particular conclusion in front of their willingness to ask the tough questions is not being objective.

I have no problem with loyalty, but a loyal person is not in any position to present objective evidence about the subject of their loyalty.

All I'm saying is that a pre-existing need for a particular answer clouds one's ability to ask honest questions and accept honest answers.

 

[SkyWriting]

1. Yes. Of course there are such people, and I don't give their arguments about the Bible much objective weight either.

2. Proof from anyone that puts any need for a particular conclusion in front of their willingness to ask the tough questions is not being objective.

3. I have no problem with loyalty, but a loyal person is not in any position to present objective evidence about the subject of their loyalty.

4. All I'm saying is that a pre-existing need for a particular answer clouds one's ability to ask honest questions and accept honest answers.

1. An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2]

2 ditto
3 ditto
4. ditto

 

[SkyWriting]

Hey, yeah. Whatever. The thread's not about fundamentalism...

Nope. Its all about what makes you happy.
Yeah. Whatever.

 

[cubinity]

1. An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2]

2 ditto
3 ditto
4. ditto

Except that I wasn't challenging a premise. I was challenging an ability to answer an objective question objectively. The OP didn't ask what we believed, but what was true. So far, the only answer I've heard that is objective is, "Don't know."

Not challenging any of your premises in this statement: I find you to be very defensive, and yet you have offered very little to the actual discussion, which is regarding the authorship of Genesis. This ad hominem thing is just another example of that. I have felt that most of your posts, actually, have been ad hominen attacks against other posters here, especially me.

 

[cubinity]

Nope. Its all about what makes you happy.
Yeah. Whatever.

When I offered to discuss something you wanted to discuss, I thought I was being polite. Some of your posts have been fun to respond to, while others have come off as just plain hurtful. So, I guess you just want to attack others without giving them room to discuss their ideas with you, and then when they show willingness, as I have done on several occasions like the one quoted above, you just blast us for that. I consider it frustrating, quite frankly.

 

[wayseer]

1. An ad hominem

There is no attack upon you - you have no reason to claim Ad Hominem.

An an hominen is essentially attacking the character of the person making the claim, such 'attack' being the basis of the argument.

Cubinity has done neither. She has replied to your posts with valid arguments. On the other had all you have come up is one liners.

 

[cubinity]

There is no attack upon you - you have no reason to claim Ad Hominem.

An an hominen is essentially attacking the character of the person making the claim, such 'attack' being the basis of the argument.

Cubinity has done neither. She has replied to your posts with valid arguments. On the other had all you have come up is one liners.

Thanks.

I actually didn't know what an ad hominem was before she described it to me, so I was thankful for that. I'm certainty not sure I used it correctly in my response to her.

I've seen it come up in other threads as well and been accused of doing it elsewhere, so I think it's worth looking more into.

 

[razeontherock]

Is it ok to get back to the authorship of Genesis?

The problem is that the bible itself disproves the JEDP theory.

1. In Mark 12:26 Jesus plainly says that Moses wrote the account of the burning bush which is contained in Exodus 3.

2, Luke, in Acts 3:22, comments on a passage in Deut. 18:15 and credits Moses as being the author.

3. Paul, in Romans 10:5, talks about the righteousness Moses describes in Leviticus 18:5. Paul, therefore, testifies that Moses is the author of Leviticus.

4. The books of Moses, as understood by all ancient Jewish and Christian scholars, contains the 5 books of the Torah which were placed in the ark of the Covenant. There is no dispute among them that Moses was the author of all 5 books.

So, for the JEDP theory to be right, then not only would all ancient Jewish and Christian scholars be in error but also Jesus, Luke, and Paul. Is a slippery slope at best.

Jesus doesn't specifically label Moses as author of anything before the burning bush. Is this significant, or coincidence? Reading through it before kindergarten, it seemed very significant to me.

OTOH, looking at merely the detail of the Tabernacle suggests that oral history would NOT suffice to preserve it. And every detail represents Christ beautifully, so any brushing away of accuracy in detail falls by the wayside.

Genesis is different.

Is it really true there's no trace of Sabbath before the 10 commandments?

 

[Duckybill]

One ignorable mistake, and all its spiritual wisdom is trash, huh? One comment using acceptable vernacular that may or may not be historically accurate, and everything meaningful they tried to communicate no longer carries any weight?

I find that standard completely unreasonable, especially when it's about a text that tells its readers to, "Test everything. Hold on to the good" (1 Thess. 5:21).

You are twisting my words. If we can't believe that the Bible is totally reliable then we only have man's opinions. And that would be worthless.

 

[SkyWriting]

Except that I wasn't challenging a premise. I was challenging an ability to answer an objective question objectively...

You are FREE to challenge a premise.
I challenge your right to challenge the abilities of the person.
It's not your place to challenge the ability of a person to make an objective observation.
Let's suppose I am writing from an institution for the insane.

You may challenge the observation, if you wish, but to question the ability of the person is an attack on the person themself. This is your error in 1,2,3,4. This is not an attack on you. This is an attack on your 4 highly flawed methods & procedures.

Originally Posted by cubinity

1. Yes. Of course there are such people, and I don't give their arguments about the Bible much objective weight either.

2. Proof from anyone that puts any need for a particular conclusion in front of their willingness to ask the tough questions is not being objective.

3. I have no problem with loyalty, but a loyal person is not in any position to present objective evidence about the subject of their loyalty.

4. All I'm saying is that a pre-existing need for a particular answer clouds one's ability to ask honest questions and accept honest answers.
​

 

[SkyWriting]

There is no attack upon you - you have no reason to claim Ad Hominem.

I say that the reasoning given was Ad Hominem and the definition posted fit.

An an hominen is essentially attacking the character of the person making the claim, such 'attack' being the basis of the argument.

I included an ACTUAL definition which fit the 4 sentences I quoted.

Cubinity has done neither. She has replied to your posts with valid arguments. On the other had all you have come up is one liners.

This wasn't about me. It was about the post.

You have observed that the length of my responses is shorter in many cases than the person I am responding to.
That is a valid observation. I do try to keep it short and have no regrets about that.

 

[cubinity]

You are twisting my words. If we can't believe that the Bible is totally reliable then we only have man's opinions. And that would be worthless.

I didn't mean to twist your words.

Are you saying that if there is even one inaccurate statement in the entirety of the Bible, everything else in the Bible will no longer have any meaning for us?

Are you saying absolute perfection from cover to cover is required for the Bible to have even one iota of significance to its readers?

Are you saying that if even one comment contained in Scripture is admittedly just the author's opinion, then every word it says must be seen as man's opinion, and nothing more?

I defend that the Bible is honest, and that the author's believed every word they were writing, and that they described their experiences with God with as much accuracy as they were capable. In that, I acknowledge that the entire text is true to its word.

God breathed something, and man wrote what he experienced. Even then, the Bible does not claim to be flawless, but merely useful for equipping the believer.

So, why do you insist on a claim about the Bible that is not even Biblical? (assuming I am responding to what you are actually arguing, of course).

 

[SkyWriting]

I've seen it come up in other threads as well and been accused of doing it elsewhere, so I think it's worth looking more into.

It is when you evaluate the abilities of the writer instead of evaluating the message they have presented.

 

[SkyWriting]

Genesis is not a history book. It is not a science book. It is not a geography book.

If you try to take it literally you will never understand it.

But it is wonderful!

...In part because it is Historically, Scientifically , and Geographically true & correct.

 

[SkyWriting]

You are twisting my words. If we can't believe that the Bible is totally reliable then we only have man's opinions. And that would be worthless.

Not worthless, as in nothing. But "worth less" than God Breathed scripture.
I feel that is "God-approved writings by man."

But when in doubt about the Bible:

New International Version (©1984)
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.