Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

You don't understand how this works. We don't believe things because that is what we are taught to believe. We believe things because we are offered convincing evidence of it.

Show me where in the Bible it says Moses wrote the Torah. Show me any scholarly study on who wrote the old testament that has been peer reviewed that supports a single-author theory.

For your consumption, the mainstream theory is that much of the Torah was passed down through oral tradition, committed to stone or scroll by various peoples, and compiled into the versions you see today.

I think you speak of textual critisism and basically secular scholarship. I wouldn't relegate it to the complety useless but, at best, much of it is pretty thin with lots of theory, little fact and it's only one side of the story. I know...all those theorized seperate source documents that nobody has, written by authors that nobody and well...there's solid evidence for you.

But that's ok, now look at the textual, historic and traditional reasons we have to think that we were right all along. Like I said before, I think you should expand your reading.

This is based on archaelogical study, study of writing styles, study of ancient texts themselves, and is the opinion of the catholic church even.

Really? Heres a Catholic article on the subject CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pentateuch

Also from an article on The Biblical Commision... CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Biblical Commission This would appear to be the official position of the Catholic church

(3) On the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. This has not been disproved by critical arguments. Mosaic authorship, however, need not imply that Moses wrote with his own hand or dictated all of it; the books may have been composed by secretaries to whom he suggested the thoughts and whose work he approved as principal and inspired author. It is consistent also with the use by Moses of documents, oral or written, and does not exclude the presence of such additions or imperfections in the present text as would leave it substantially and integrally the work of Moses (27 June, 1906).

Note that it would seem to agree with the first article I linked and I can relate. I used to have a secretary...pardon, an administrative assistant... who used to "write" my monthly reports for me with information that I provided and she put my name on the report. LOL, no doubt some genious scholar could use textual crtisism to prove that I wasn't the author.

I would rather go with what the various ways to study ancient text agree on than what you were told by your dad because his dad told him.

Actually, the things my dad told me have proved to be some of the most reliable information that I've ever received.

If you have any evidence other than hearsay that Moses wrote the Torah, that somehow contradicts the mountains of evidence otherwise, I would be glad to look at it as it would contradict everything that has been learned about the Torah.

I doubt that you would be glad to look at it because it's there and you aren't looking. The term "secular Biblical scholar" is about as much a contradiction in terms as "creationist scientist".

 

[MikeFerrara]

Mike, you guys are quibbling about the word belief. Belief is not knowledge and not fact, no matter how long the belief has been held and no matter how many groups or people hold it. It is still just belief. To transmogrify belief into fact there are very specific academic tests and procedures that are universally agreed to.

Great. My position is the "evidence" presented by so many secular, so called, Biblical "scholars" isn't evidence at all. Show me where it's been subjectively tested?

If you remember our past discussion of the historical Jesus you will recall a very similar conversation. I don't happen to know the agreed upon test for authorship of an ancient document.

I do remember and of course the conversation was similar.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Then leave it at that. If you believe that Moses wrote the Torah. Then you either have to believe that God told him to lie about the Exodus (jewish tradition holds that the Torah was transcribed from God at Mt Sinai) or that Moses lied about it.

There is no archaeological evidence of the Exodus. Period. Most Christians don't even realize the Red Sea is a mistranslation. The sea of reeds (proper translation) Moses claimed to cross wasn't even very deep. There have been no archaeological finds corroborating that 600,000 people wandered around in those regions for 40 years. There is no egyption army buried at the bottom of the sea of reeds (or even at the Red Sea and yes some fools who read mistranslations have looked there).

I am aware of the lack of archeological evidence of the Exodus. I am also aware or the archeological evidence that does substantiate many other Biblical accounts.

So if Moses wrote the Torah then he was a bit of a braggart to say least or a big liar at the worst. If God conveyed the Torah to Moses and Moses wrote it word for word, then God lied to Moses.

Wouldn't it be a much simpler explanation that the Torah is compiled from multiple sources from various groups and that it represents tribal stories and remembrances that shouldn't be read literally?

Or maybe the field of archeology is full of atheists who won't admit they've found evidence of a mass migration of people out of Egypt that the Egyptians themselves forgot to record in their histories because they were embarassed or something.

Are you switching topics? We were talking about Biblical scholarship as it relates to authorship?

 

[adurso]

Yes, very self reliant, just as I thought, and also quite practical as well.

Science, as invented by the ancient Greeks, and then improved during the modern Age of Enlightenment, is focused on tangible observations, from which it analogizes to analytical rules.

I imagine if you and I sat around the campfire on The Big Island roasting kabobs and marshmallows, we would mostly talk about things related to scuba diving, the creatures in the sea, the stars and galexies in the sky, the weather patterns, our wives, and the latest in scuba technology, like the Megalodon.

It would not make a lot of sense to discuss with you where everything in the universe came from, since these are not scientific observations, only ideas, some being scientific ideas, others not.

If there was a big bang, then I would suspect there was an Ubermench who directed it. You obviously would not.

I know I am going to regret this, but.....What does the Nietzschean concept of Overman, or Superman (Ubermensch) have to do with directing the beginning of the universe? The concept comes from Nietzsche's work Also Sprach Zarathustra, the general thrust is that humans can transcend humanity to become Ubermensch....

 

[sandmanz32]

I was just wondering how many people out there believe in "Creation" and how many people believe in "Evolution." I would just like some feed back. Please keep comments polite and be respectable to other people's comments.

Personally, I believe in Creation. I was raised round church but never really paid any attention. So, I use to believe in Evolution, but now I believe in Creation due to the fact I became saved. In my opinion, I think evolution is no good. Anytime a scientist can not figure out when something walked this earth, they say something like "Fourhunderd Million Years Ago." Now come on! How old do people think the world really is. I think the world is only six - seven thousand years old. Most evolutionist, not all, believe in the big bang theroy. Now, what caused the big bang? Is it so hard to believe that maybe a higher being, "God" as we all call him, created us. Not everything can be explained with facts, sometimes we have to have FAITH.

That' my opinion. I have a lot more to say, but for time sake I kept it short and vague. I just want to see what you all have to say.

WOW!! look what you started!

 

[Thalassamania]

Great. My position is the "evidence" presented by so many secular, so called, Biblical "scholars" isn't evidence at all. Show me where it's been subjectively tested?

There are accepted methods of historical analysis. If you don't like the methods take that up with the academic experts that developed them over the last thousand years. If you don't like the results of those methods ... I hate to say it ... but tough, that's the verdict based on the accepted system. If you want to make up your own system, feel free, but do feel foolish.

 

[nereas]

There are accepted methods of historical analysis. If you don't like the methods take that up with the academic experts that developed them over the last thousand years. If you don't like the results of those methods ... I hate to say it ... but tough, that's the verdict based on the accepted system. If you want to make up your own system, feel free, but do feel foolish.

Historical analysis was invented by Herodotos and Thucydides in the 5th Century B.C.E. That is a lot longer than the last thousand years. More like 2,400 years.

 

[deco_martini]

I doubt that you would be glad to look at it because it's there and you aren't looking. The term "secular Biblical scholar" is about as much a contradiction in terms as "creationist scientist".

Nonsense. There are many people who take classes about the Bible in college and aren't practicing Christians.

In any case, authorship of the Old Testament and the Torah wasn't something atheists thought up in a secret closet. Much of the work was done by catholic scholars just seeking the truth and not seeking to verify dogma.

One such book I've recommended to you several times is:
Amazon.com: Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction: Lawrence Boadt: Books

Other books by that author include "Why I am a Priest". Its used a textbook in many Old Testament college classes. Its a standard of sorts.

You will find that most of the scholarly work done figuring out biblical authorship was carried out by religious scholars. In particular, look at the work done at dating the new testament books and establishing their authorship.

Again, if you have one scrap of evidence that Moses wrote the Torah, share it. It will be news to the world. Saying "its out there and your not looking" sounds like a copout. A nice christian fellow like you wouldn't do that now would he?

I will say this. Biblical scholars have toiled for centuries comparing writing styles, comparing ancient manuscripts, looking at archaeological data, comparing other ancient cultures' stories, and even getting the boon of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 50s. Its sad that the people who don't respect that work and dedication are the believers and not the non-believers. The believers are too hung up on thinking Moses wrote the Torah or that the gospels were written by the apostles or that most of the Old Testament went through more re-edits than the last X-Men film to accept the research done by their own christian scholars doing serious work.

Jesus should have made a parable about a group of people with their heads buried in the sand.

 

[MikeFerrara]

There are accepted methods of historical analysis. If you don't like the methods take that up with the academic experts that developed them over the last thousand years. If you don't like the results of those methods ... I hate to say it ... but tough, that's the verdict based on the accepted system. If you want to make up your own system, feel free, but do feel foolish.

The textual critisism we're talking about doesn't go back a thousand years according to what I've read.

We also aren't talking about a scientific theory like evolution that is so widely accepted.

I don't think you're helping here. I asked how it was tested. As far as I can find out, it wasn't. It's a body of methods, ideas and conclusions that became popular. More of a beliefe system.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Nonsense. There are many people who take classes about the Bible in college and aren't practicing Christians.

In any case, authorship of the Old Testament and the Torah wasn't something atheists thought up in a secret closet. Much of the work was done by catholic scholars just seeking the truth and not seeking to verify dogma.

I provided two links to articles that I think present the view of Catholic "scholars". The position of the Catholic church doesn't appear to be what you claim it is.

You will find that most of the scholarly work done figuring out biblical authorship was carried out by religious scholars. In particular, look at the work done at dating the new testament books and establishing their authorship.

That's not exactly what I'm finding out. The theories (not to be confused with a scientific theory) that I think you're refering to seem to have come about with the rise of "secular scholarship".

While I do see them refered to as "mainstream" there doesn't seem to be any shortage of "scholars" who disagree with their conclusions. Even where scholars agree on certain methods, models or critisism techniques, they still come to a variety of conclusions.

Edit: For example...In 1943 Pope Pius XII's encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu gave the Vatican's imprimatur to textual criticism. However, as far as I can find out, the conclusion of the Catholic church is that Moses was the primary author.

Again, if you have one scrap of evidence that Moses wrote the Torah, share it. It will be news to the world. Saying "its out there and your not looking" sounds like a copout.

Since you brought up the Catholic church, lets start with their view. I linked an article where they seem to do a pretty thourough job of laying out their reasoning and "evidence". You haven't commented on it. Have you looked at it...and, if not, how does that constitute a copout on my part?

A nice christian fellow like you wouldn't do that now would he?

Wouldn't do what?

I will say this. Biblical scholars have toiled for centuries comparing writing styles, comparing ancient manuscripts, looking at archaeological data, comparing other ancient cultures' stories, and even getting the boon of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 50s. Its sad that the people who don't respect that work and dedication are the believers and not the non-believers. The believers are too hung up on thinking Moses wrote the Torah or that the gospels were written by the apostles or that most of the Old Testament went through more re-edits than the last X-Men film to accept the research done by their own christian scholars doing serious work.

Jesus should have made a parable about a group of people with their heads buried in the sand.

You can insult me all you want but your claims don't appear to be well supported...specifically in regard to the view of the Catholic church and the source of the scholarship you appear to be referencing.