Who wrote the Torah?

Helen wrote:
> BW, neither real life nor real research comes in quick half-hour segments with time for commercial breaks.

I didn't ask for that. I was very clear in what I asked for. (Nonetheless, it would take half an hour to read your post.) What length do you consider to be too long for a post?

> You want it short, sweet, and non-referenced? OK -- there is a plethora of evidence both internal and external to the Bible that Genesis is a series of eyewitness accounts.

Actually, there is none.

> The first eyewitness was God, as mentioned in the above posts.

There is no account in the Bible of God detailing creation to mankind.

> The accounts were not oral, but written starting with Adam himself who signed off in Genesis 5:1 stating that his was a written account.

"This is the book of the generations of Adam." Gen 5:1

Sorry, no signature there.

> The research into this started with Wiseman in the thirties when he realized that the earliest tablets we have from the Middle East are written in the exact format used in Genesis, a format which was changed very soon after -- this marks Genesis as an extremely early series of documents.

What format of what in Genesis?

> The work has been read, analyzed, and agreed to by some of the top Old Testament scholars and professors of the day.

Define "top".

> In the meantime, the JEDP ideas have been shown so chronically wrong so many times that it is an embarrassment that they are still around.

But the idea of four basic sets of material still holds.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BWSmith:
Temple, nowhere in the passages you have cited does Jesus verify that Moses wrote the Torah. He refers to them by their common name, "the Books of Moses" and indicates that Moses wrote "something", and that is all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proverbs 18:2 (ESV)
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding,
but only in expressing his opinion.

 

Temple wrote:
&gt; Right - so Jesus just played along with the "lie" the Jews believed, that the Torah was Mosaic.

Christ was not sent to answer authorship questions.

 

Temple wrote:
&gt; Proverbs 18:2 (ESV) A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself." Proverbs 26:4

 

BW, you are past amazing into unbelievable. First I post the answers to all the questions and challenges you will later be asking (your last post to me), but you complain it is much too long. So I summarize the points. You deny them on the basis of your word. However the details are above as well as the credentials fo the men writing the material.

You clearly don't care about the truth. You only care about supporting your own anti-biblical ideas.

For the sake of others reading, I will answer you when I have time. I think some of the others will, too. I will say you are giving us a great stage on which to present the truth of the Bible, so I thank you for that.

 

Helen wrote:
&gt; BW, you are past amazing into unbelievable. First I post the answers to all the questions and challenges you will later be asking (your last post to me), but you complain it is much too long.

It IS too long. I refuse to wade through that mess just to figure out if you've already answered something or not.

I also find it hard to believe that you've got all day to compile and post your encyclopedia, but you don't have 60 seconds to respond to my question.

&gt; So I summarize the points. You deny them on the basis of your word.

So respond to them. I've clarified our points of contention. It's much simpler for you just to respond to them.

&gt; However the details are above as well as the credentials fo the men writing the material.

Don't hide behind credentials. What do YOU think. Just respond and all will be well.

&gt; You clearly don't care about the truth. You only care about supporting your own anti-biblical ideas.

I'm responding to your post and you refuse to respond to mine. As a lover of "truth", why can't you just answer my questions?

&gt; For the sake of others reading, I will answer you when I have time.

And you DO have time, because my answer was concise.

&gt; I think some of the others will, too. I will say you are giving us a great stage on which to present the truth of the Bible, so I thank you for that.

Amen!

 

Check the first part of the first long post. That's me talking. My own research.

When I want to know something, I don't just look for quick summaries. I am willing to read. I have been invited to write two papers and one book this coming year. All require research. I can't imagine complaining about approximately 20 pages of reading, which is what I imagine the posts I put up entail, when I know I have several thousand ahead of me on my own work and when I edit I do twenty routinely on any given paper.

You are lazy, BW. That's all there is to it.

 

Helen wrote:
&gt; Check the first part of the first long post. That's me talking. My own research.

Then restating it off the top of your head shouldn't be a problem, should it?

&gt; When I want to know something, I don't just look for quick summaries. I am willing to read. I have been invited to write two papers and one book this coming year. All require research.

Congratulations.

&gt; I can't imagine complaining about approximately 20 pages of reading, which is what I imagine the posts I put up entail, when I know I have several thousand ahead of me on my own work and when I edit I do twenty routinely on any given paper.

Again, brevity is the source of wit.

&gt; You are lazy, BW. That's all there is to it.

Whether or not I am lazy is up for contention. Whether or not you are rude for calling me such is not.

 

Hello again, all.

Sorry for not responding promptly, but I have been spending most of the day in the II Forum .
There have been some interesting exchanges going on in the "Philosophy" and "Existence Of God" sections over there.
In fact, the discussions in those section areas are what prompted my interest in the true origin of the Torah. This particular issue is not just an academic "exercise" for me. It seems that if skeptics can show, (and I am not suggesting here that they can), that there is inadequate historical support for the bible's own account of its origin, then they have effectively destroyed biblically based Theism, i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

One of the kinds of arguments that the skeptics in the II Forum are using is the "anachronism" argument that argues that there are passages in the Torah that contain names for things that could not have existed until a later century than the Torah is purported to have been written. I don't have the specific example(s) that were cited on hand, but I will look them up and post them. The thrust of the skeptical objections seems to be that the Torah was written by writers who lived at or around the time that most of the events in the Old Testament had already occurred. I suppose that they hold this position to avoid acknowledging the truth of prophecies that were fulfilled in the OT.

But in any case, it is because such skeptical arguments threaten (ultimately) to undermine all Theistic arguments based on the authority of biblical scripture that I have become interested enough in this topic to explore it.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]

 

Who wrote the first five books of the Bible?

There have been alot of lang-winded arguments about it, but I always thought that it was God who wrote the entire thing.

 

jpbrooks,

According to your profile, you are not a Baptist. This is a "Baptist Only" section of the BB. Although your comments and questions are good ones, I must insist that you not post in the Baptist Only section forums. To be fair we cannot make acceptions.

Thanks for your cooperation and understanding and I promise that I will follow this discussion should you start it up in the "Other Denominations" area.

God bless,
John
Moderator

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wells:
jpbrooks,

According to your profile, you are not a Baptist. This is a "Baptist Only" section of the BB. Although your comments and questions are good ones, I must insist that you not post in the Baptist Only section forums. To be fair we cannot make acceptions.

Thanks for your cooperation and understanding and I promise that I will follow this discussion should you start it up in the "Other Denominations" area.

God bless,
John
Moderator<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

jpbrooks:

Thank you, John. I will comply with your policies here. My ongoing habit of questioning even my own beliefs, only to make sure they're resting on a firm foundation, probably puts me at odds with most denominational groups. But I do feel that I can learn things from and benefit from discussions with those who are denominationalists.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BWSmith:
Temple, nowhere in the passages you have cited does Jesus verify that Moses wrote the Torah. He refers to them by their common name, "the Books of Moses" and indicates that Moses wrote "something", and that is all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice dodge, but it is well known that the Hebrews recognized the OT as the books of Moses (the Pentetauch) the Prophets and the Writings. You would have Jesus affirming and quoting Mosaic authorship where it did not occur. That would make the Son of God a liar.

I'll take Jesus' word, thank you.

 

Temple wrote:
&gt; ... it is well known that the Hebrews recognized the OT as the books of Moses (the Pentetauch) the Prophets and the Writings.

Which has nothing to do with authorship.

&gt; You would have Jesus affirming and quoting Mosaic authorship where it did not occur.
Jesus never addresses the issue. Sure, Moses wrote some material that is in the Pentateuch, but not all of it; and Jesus never claims such.

&gt; That would make the Son of God a liar.

Jesus didn't write his own gospels either; those are not direct quotes.

&gt;I'll take Jesus' word, thank you.

Hence, you don't have Jesus' word.