Inerrancy defined

The Bible makes it expressly clear that Moses was NOT the author of Genesis. </font>[/QUOTE] Chapter and verse please.

Non sequitur. You have made being a terrible sinner the prerequisite for receiving inspiration founded on nothing other than your intention to win an argument... through deceptive reasoning if necessary.

Your methods reveal you.

God is perfect, therefore he can NOT be delusional and therefore the deluge described in Genesis 6 – 9 is at best a myth, and most probably one of Grimm’s Fairy Tales.</font>[/QUOTE] God, either through the inspired writers or the actual words of God in flesh, cannot lie therefore Noah's flood must be a literal historical event.

Grimm did not write allegories—he wrote fairy tales.</font>[/QUOTE] Why are you so intent on evading? You don't want to face/reveal the implications of what you are arguing, do you?

The absolute fact that Paul was the “foremost” of sinners is absolute proof that God used fallible men to write the Bible. Hint: Only a fallible man could possibly become the “foremost of sinners.”</font>[/QUOTE] Hint: Scripture has men for its penmen and God for its Author. I realize that men wrote the words but the scripture was not their writings.

The originals were verbally inspired and I for one did not see the "parody".

BTW, why would the Holy Spirit involve Himself in revealing the intentions of your silly games?

That's an interesting claim for someone who (not in the context of a parody) said that Genesis 1-11 cannot be a literal narrative and that Noah's flood could not have happened the way the Bible records in the OT and affirms in the NT.

Nice words... unfortunately they are undermined by other things you have said here.

What? Inspired words? I sure wish you would make up your mind. This is not what you have been arguing with Marcia and me... who BTW are not Ichthus.

If you are serious about believing inspired words... then great we have an agreement. Though that leads to other questions about your opinions about Genesis and the truthfulness of God.

Finally something we can agree on without question.

 

I believe that Moses may or may not have been aware of other historical documents or oral histories... but wrote what God revealed to him directly as literal "truth".

 

Num. 12:3: "(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)"

I suppose Moses could have written this about himself, but wouldn't that make the passage a self-contradiction?

Gn. 14:14: "And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan."

But the city was not called Dan until a few hundred years later (cf. Jdg. 18:29). Someone "updated" the text to let readers hundreds of years later know where in the world the actual places were. Of course Moses could have prophesied that the name would be Dan and wrote Dan, but what about all those who read the book until it actually was called Dan. They must have been some really confused puppies.

Gn. 36:31: "And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel."

This presupposes that, to the writer of this "tid-bit", kings had already been reigning over Israel. And as for the list that follows, the names of the Edomite kings go at least 150 years after the time of Moses. Of course he could have prophesied these names, but it is not the natural reading of the text.

My view is that inspired prophets protected and preserved and, under the inspiration of Almighty God, revised the Scriptures. Icthus has expressed his admiration for Edward T. Young. I suggest you read his introduction to the OT where the "conservative" position is described:

"The position for which conservatives contend has been well expressed by Wilson: 'That the Pentateuch as it stands is historical and from the time of Moses; and that Moses was its real author, though it may have been revised and edited by later redactors, the additions being just as much inspired and as true as the rest' (A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament (1929), p.11)." Edward Young (An Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1949) 45.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

The fact is that Proverbs and Acts-Luke is a compilation. How about Psalms too?

It is highly likely that Ecclesiastes was also a later compilation because it has Persian lone words in it.

 

Dr Edward J Young is here quoting Dr Robert Dick Wilson's Book, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament. Both these men are, in my opinion two of the best OT scholars that we have known, and I have a great regard for both their works.

However, on the above quoted passage, I disagree with both on their conclusions. Note what Dr Wilson says: "though it MAY HAVE BEEN REVISED AND EDITED by later redactors" (emphasis mine)

There is not a single shread of hard evidence that this is correct, and is purely an assumption. This is exactly the error that New Testament Textual Critics make, then they suppose that the Synoptic Gospels got much of their information from a source called "Q", which NEVER EXISTED. Still, the likes of Dr A T Robertson, among others still believed that it was out there somewhere! I rather believe that the Holy Spirit revealed what Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote down, like the rest of the authors of the Books of the Bible.

Give me hard eveidence about any revision or editing of the OT, and then I will be open to consider it. Please forget to try to convince me through speculation, even from the writings of the greatest scholars. Remember, at the end of the day, ALL believers have the Holy Spirit, and not only those with some letters behind their names.

 

The fact is that Proverbs and Acts-Luke is a compilation. How about Psalms too?

It is highly likely that Ecclesiastes was also a later compilation because it has Persian lone words in it. </font>[/QUOTE]MERE SPECULATION, NO HARD FACTS!

 

Bluefalcon, you wrote:

2Num. 12:3: "(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)I suppose Moses could have written this about himself, but wouldn't that make the passage a self-contradiction?

Why could he have not written this? How is it a self-contradiction?

Please don't use bits of Scriptures to "prove" you theories, lets deal with FACTS, not assumptions.

 

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
I am a fundamentalist Christian, but I think most "conservatives" hold that Moses "composed" the Pentateuch from source documents available to him, and that other holy prophets most likely "updated" or "edited" the Pentateuch throughout its long literary history.

Yours, Bluefalcon

Would this not mean, that these "documents" that the OT used to "update" and "revise" from, are also "equally inspired"? I am aware that this is the conclusion of Dr Wilson, but he is 100% wrong on this.

 

Even the best scholars sometimes said things that were complete nonsense. Like Dr A T Robertson on "The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel"

"But the Fourth Gospel has difficulties of its own. These relate in part to the book itself. It is true that there is a great similarity in language and style between the narrative parts of the book and the discourses of Jesus. It is affirmed that the writer has colored the speeches of Jesus with his own style or even made up the dialogues so that they are without historical value or at least on a much lower plane than the Synoptic Gospels as objective history" (A Harmony of the Gospels, p.257)

This sort of language is complete nonsense and casts doubts on the record of John on the message of Jesus Christ, and makes the authority of Scripture nothing more than second-rate guess work.

 

Icthus,

Just because someone added a comment about Moses' humility and death does not mean it harms the infallibility. Now, I am not saying I support the documentary hypothesis. I believe Moses as the source of the entire Pentateuch, but I believe some places were added similarly to footnotes. I don't think Moses would have called himself humble neither do I believe he prophesied about his death (not that it is impossible). The fact is I still believe in the innerant, infallible Word of God.

In Christ,

Untangled

 

Your answer is nothing but conjecture. You have not shown way Moses could have said that about himself, only that you do not "think" that he could have. Lets keep to facts

 

Sounds like more "conjecture" and "mere speculation" to me. I thought we were only "dealing with the facts".

Unfortunately it is exceedingly difficult to get a 3500 year old copy of an original manuscript where the scribe bothered to have another person copy the edits to the original in a different handwriting so later generations would realize they were originally edits.

Lacking irrefuteable facts on BOTH sides of the issue (since no one wants to agree on what is and is not a fact) perhaps it is better to agree to disagree.

 

You are probably right Keith.

OTOH, I believe that Genesis was completed under the authority of Moses either by a scribe or Joshua. Either way, someone knew that when Moses got to the mountain, God let him look over before he died... then God buried him.

If that last statement is true then someone had some first hand knowledge about what happened to the body. Either they witnessed it, God told them after the fact, or Moses told them before the fact.

 

This view is VERY different from the view of Icthus that God Himself wrote every word of the Pentateuch by the physical hand of Moses, a view that is very much outside of the realm of conservative Biblical scholarship, and a view based entirely upon unwarranted assumptions with no factual basis whatsoever. Thus far in this debate, the names of many conservative Biblical scholars have been put forth, many of them by Icthus himself, and yet Icthus has posted that every one of them was absolutely wrong when it came to the points on which they disagreed with him. Icthus also made the point in this thread that although he has no degrees in Biblical studies, he does have the same Holy Spirit that these scholars have/had. I cannot not dispute that; neither can I dispute the fact that those Biblical scholars with a list of earned doctoral degrees after their names had something that Icthus, according to his own words, does not have, and that which Icthus is lacking is all too obvious in his posts.

I would like to encourage the readers of this thread to read the works of those scholars for whom Icthus has a “great regard” and decide for themselves who has the better argument, Icthus or the scholars. For example:

Icthus wrote:

Who is guilty of “MERE SPECULATION, NO HARD FACTS!” (the very words of Icthus), Icthus or the scholars? Read the works of the scholars from cover to cover and judge for yourself.

 

Joshua could have written this into the account. The reason no one knew where Moses' body was because, as the account states, God buried Moses. "Unto this day" does not necessarily mean a lot of time has passed.

 

Icthus,

In your own words "Stick to the facts". You too are assuming about your stance. I could be wrong but then again so could you. That's why I put the words "I believe". It is a hypothesis I guess. There is no hard hitting internal claim that Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch but there is evidence as him as the source.

 

KeithS is right. Maybe it's best to agree to disagree.