Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Try to do what I said then; Read the entire NT in a short timespan, with the Gospels in fresh memory you'll notice small small changes and alterations to Jesus' teachings as according to Paul the (selfproclaimed) Apostle. In the end theology of Paul, these minor tweaks change the big picture of Jesus' teachings.
There isn't anything contradictory in Paul's teachings. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
If you're absolutely sure about this since you keep clamoring for me to read the NT again then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to point out to these "minor tweaks."
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Moses is supposed to have written down the Torah either in 1312 BCE or 1233 BCE. If one is supposed to keep that knowledge orally for atleast 1000 years - together with all the goings on during the time - don't you see it quite plausible that the details risk being distorted?
Sure, if something is passed down orally for 1000 years, it absolutely will get distorted. It would be distorted beyond what it really meant wouldn't you agree?
However since the history recorded in those books matches archeological findings, and other written records kept by the Jewish people it's highly unlikely that it was passed down orally, and in fact...wasn't.
SO what we hold in our hands, the first five books, were copied from the originals by scribes during that time, and as you know all known copies match 99.5%
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] First, take note of what Phredreeke said, that is absolutely true. Take for instance the book of Isaiah, Song of songs and Ecclesiastes; rabbinic tradition give authorship of these to Hezekiah and his colleagues, whilst the bible in itself "seems to give some type of credit for these works to Isaiah, Solomon, and Koheleth, respectively."(J.B-Secular Bible)
You'll notice that J.B said this. I suggest you do some research on your own and stop relying on his "findings." I can't verify his version of "rabbinic tradition," so I wouldn't rely on it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] An idea about hebrew scripture is that Moses wrote the Torah which he recieved directly from God on mt.Sinai, however, that is not an idea in hebrew scripture. Do you get the picture?
You are right, this is an idea about the Torah, and yes it's not in the scripture itself.
And I agree that outside sources can't be relied upon as much as the scripture itself.
However I won't be quick to dismiss God and Moses as the Author since he was Israelite's leader at the time. I also won't dismiss him as the Author just because someone else might have helped "physically" write it. The thoughts and ideas certainly came from Moses, who was in direct communication with God, so he is the Author.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] It matters since it shows that you lay forth as well underbuilt facts things you know nothing about!
I just mixed up "Talmud" and "Pentateuch." I knew it was one of those that was the oral version. Sorry you feel as though I know nothing about this just because I mixed up one word, but I'll have to insist that you would be wrong. ROAR!
EDIT: oh and to add to that, I just want to make it clear that I don't agree with the Talmud, but I'm sure you know that since Jesus taught against it.
It was not the law of Moses, it was changed so much that it wasn't anything like the original, and was just invented to control the people.
If you're absolutely sure about this since you keep clamoring for me to read the NT again then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to point out to these "minor tweaks."
I'm sorry, I won't waste my time analysing the entire NT for you. If I ever write a paper or an essay on it I'll make sure to post it in this thread though.
Sure, if something is passed down orally for 1000 years, it absolutely will get distorted. It would be distorted beyond what it really meant wouldn't you agree?
However since the history recorded in those books matches archeological findings, and other written records kept by the Jewish people it's highly unlikely that it was passed down orally, and in fact...wasn't.
Once again you misunderstood. I was not talking about the contents of the Torah(Torah Shebikhtav). I was talking about the ideas about it; that Moses received(wrote/authored/received a hard copy/whatever you believe) the Torah from God on mt.Sinai in 1312/1233 BCE, that Moses also received the oral Torah at the same time and that the contents of the oral Torah was passed down through time.
That is the 'knowledge' that has been passed down orally.
SO what we hold in our hands, the first five books, were copied from the originals by scribes during that time, and as you know all known copies match 99.5%
I've always wondered where you derive those statistics from.
The first I have to say about that is that the one's compared are the canonized Hebrew Bible(i.e from as early as ca.100 CE) and the collection of scrolls and fragments found in Qumran(generally dated from 150 BCE and 70 CE).
If you believe that hebrew scripture was 'untouched' after it's canonization(which you have admitted that you do) that makes the comparative age ~30 to ~250 years.
I admit that's a long time, but it's not nearly as bold a claim as 1300(!) uncanonized years.
And about the matching%;
According to the Oxford Companion to Archeology(atleast in my world a trustful source);
"The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around 100 CE." (my underline)
The most common percentage I've come across is 35% of the Qumran biblical manuscripts belonging to the Masoretic tradition and 5% each to the Septaguint and the Samaritan. The remaining 55% ranging from not agreeing with any known type and significally diverging with any known reading. I don't see how one plucks 99.5% out of that. The only place that I've ever come across it are those amature, neon colored, flashy devoted christian sites which use CAPITALS-ONLY FOR IMPORTANT STATEMENTS FOLLOWED BY TOO MANY EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please share your sources on the subject, t'would be enlightening.
You'll notice that J.B said this. I suggest you do some research on your own and stop relying on his "findings." I can't verify his version of "rabbinic tradition," so I wouldn't rely on it.
His 'findings' are not just random comments. The part i've been refering to is dedicated the better part of a chapter containing bible passages, references to 'rabbinic tradition'(in this case the Baba Bathra tractate) and logically deduced conclusions which the reader can follow.
You know, he is a serious researcher. 60 of the book's 200 pages are reference notes with further reading, explanations and possible objections. Don't assume that I like yourself simply write 'from memory' or convey - as facts - things 'I've heard'. I do my research, the problem is that you mostly don't.
However I won't be quick to dismiss God and Moses as the Author since he was Israelite's leader at the time. I also won't dismiss him as the Author just because someone else might have helped "physically" write it. The thoughts and ideas certainly came from Moses, who was in direct communication with God, so he is the Author.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. If you are not 100% certain that every last jot of the Hebrew bible is directly from God, would you rely on the text to, let's say, sentence a person to death? Cause that's what the 'infallible' part makes a reality, using specific wordings to legitimate the destruction of human beings' lives.
For example, how many gay people in the history of the world do you think have been persecuted due to 'Godly commands' that are more ambiguos than this entire thread!?
ROAR!
By claiming infallibility to something that we cannot in any way be sure of is to sanction an overwhelming abuse of life. And for every last person who ensures someone else of the 'Godly creditability of literal Scripture' this abuse of life will reside for atleast another generation.
Do you think you are doing 'the right thing' by aiding that?
It was not the law of Moses, it was changed so much that it wasn't anything like the original, and was just invented to control the people.
Problem though, the same tradition that claims Moses authored the Torah is the same tradition that claims Moses received the Oral Torah.
Read the bible all day long if you wan't to, but read between the lines, don't think that the text is infallible, filter out humanity and gain some of the true wisdom that's in there.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I'm sorry, I won't waste my time analysing the entire NT for you. If I ever write a paper or an essay on it I'll make sure to post it in this thread though.
Where did you get that idea about "minor differences" then?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] [...]that Moses also received the oral Torah at the same time and that the contents of the oral Torah was passed down through time.
That is the 'knowledge' that has been passed down orally.
Oh ok, that's correct.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] And about the matching%;
According to the Oxford Companion to Archeology(atleast in my world a trustful source);
[...]
The most common percentage I've come across is 35% of the Qumran biblical manuscripts belonging to the Masoretic tradition and 5% each to the Septaguint and the Samaritan. The remaining 55% ranging from not agreeing with any known type and significally diverging with any known reading.
Please share your sources on the subject, t'would be enlightening.
Right, 40% *belonged* to the biblical manuscripts, which means that only 40% of the originals was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. And these matches their respective books up to 95.5% from what I've read about them.
The rest of the manuscripts were just religious documents for particular groups, and weren't part of our Bible.
"The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations" - http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=357
At the bottom of the page are the sources.
Enjoy!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] His 'findings' are not just random comments.[...]
Of the little you've posted about his theory they've been false, and the answers to his queries about the mention of the word "torah" in Genesis have been obvious.
It's an easy statement to take a word from the Torah that had a different meaning in ancient Hebrew and point to it as "evidence," or even use quotes from people in the Bible itself and try and claim separate authorship. You don't have to do much "research" to make up those claims. All I'm saying is that there are better conclusions from the same evidence.
I don't doubt that he's a good researcher, I just don't think he's being intellectually honest with himself.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Ok, now we're getting somewhere. If you are not 100% certain that every last jot of the Hebrew bible is directly from God[...]
Wow, you jumped from talking about the Torah, to talking about the whole Bible.
Let's go back to the Torah, I believe that Moses is the Author of it, and that he received word from God as was recorded in the Books themselves.
As for the rest of the Bible, some of it's poetry, some of it's teachings, and some of it's History ect.
And all of it was written by men who had a relationship with God.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] By claiming infallibility to something that we cannot in any way be sure of is to sanction an overwhelming abuse of life. And for every last person who ensures someone else of the 'Godly creditability of literal Scripture' this abuse of life will reside for atleast another generation.
Trust me, I've been around long enough to know that those who get in church, and get right with God are much better off.
Rehab can't even get these people off drugs, and they come to church and get filled with the Holy Ghost, and they change.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Do you think you are doing 'the right thing' by aiding that?
Yep I sure do!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Problem though, the same tradition that claims Moses authored the Torah is the same tradition that claims Moses received the Oral Torah.
And yes, Moses did received the oral Torah, but as you've already said something oral changes overtime. So good luck explaining your way out of that one.
Where did you get that idea about "minor differences" then?
I first noticed it when I re-read the NT in a short time-span, just like I told you to try. Since then I've come across the same idea several times in course literature, from professors, friends, on the internet etc.
Right, 40% *belonged* to the biblical manuscripts, which means that only 40% of the originals was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Your grammar eludes me. 40% of the findings at Qumran comprized biblical manuscripts(i.e the books you'd find in the hebrew bible, all accounted for but perhaps Esther)
Of those manuscripts 45% matched known sources i.e Masoretic, Samaritan and Septaguint sources. The remaining 55% were all from known biblical scripts(that's why they're included in 'biblical manuscripts'), but their matching to either of the sources range from not agreeing with any known type(of source) and significally diverging with any known reading(i.e different meaning).
And these matches their respective books up to 95.5% from what I've read about them.
"The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations" - http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=357
You do realize that the 95% match in your quote is refering specifically and only to Isaiah right? That is not the same thing as claiming;
"SO what we hold in our hands, the first five books, were copied from the originals by scribes during that time, and as you know all known copies match 99.5%"
And secondly, Apologetics Press is hardly an unbiased source, and since there is quite the debate about the DSS you'd be better off finding a more objective one.
I don't doubt that he's a good researcher, I just don't think he's being intellectually honest with himself.
That was one of those lmfaoroflol moments.
Read the book.
Wow, you jumped from talking about the Torah, to talking about the whole Bible.
Let's go back to the Torah, I believe that Moses is the Author of it, and that he received word from God as was recorded in the Books themselves.
As for the rest of the Bible, some of it's poetry, some of it's teachings, and some of it's History ect.
And all of it was written by men who had a relationship with God.
Oh my God, we've been over this a million times by know, we are both clear about what parts of the bible comprizes what, and I thought we were both clear about what books contains laws/rules applicable in the same manner as the rest of my post stated, which you conveniently left out.(i.e The Torah, since that's where you'll find the laws)
Why won't you just answer my question? Are you not capable to?
Trust me, I've been around long enough to know that those who get in church, and get right with God are much better off.
Rehab can't even get these people off drugs, and they come to church and get filled with the Holy Ghost, and they change.
So you're comparing a number of local addicts 'who found Jesus' to all homosexuals that have been harassed, beaten, tortured, murdered and executed, all in accordance with infallible scripture?
The homosexual are only one example of groups persecuted by either the church itself or pious believers, like yourself.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Do you think you are doing 'the right thing' by aiding that?
Yep I sure do!
I am actually quite disgusted by how you pull my statement out of its very serious context, just so you can answer it smirking. Re-read my question and answer, or I'll just assume that you're a narrow minded, abusive bigot as most other fundamentalists.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Problem though, the same tradition that claims Moses authored the Torah is the same tradition that claims Moses received the Oral Torah.
And yes, Moses did received the oral Torah, but as you've already said something oral changes overtime. So good luck explaining your way out of that one.
I don't get you. It's actually you who should try and explain to us why part of a 1000 year old oral tradition is correct, but not the rest.
So, right back at'cha!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Trust me, I've been around long enough to know that those who get in church, and get right with God are much better off.
Rehab can't even get these people off drugs, and they come to church and get filled with the Holy Ghost, and they change.
They substitute one drug for another
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Re-reading some of the latter posts, I think I should clear up what Jacques Berlinerblau meant regarding the Torah and Mosaic Authorship. (mostly directed to UrbanMonk since it seems you misunderstand the point of the observation)
Moses, according to Jewish tradition, is said to have received the Torah(i.e the Pentateuch, Five books of Moses, etc.) directly from God(in some way leading to him possessing Genesis through Deuteronomy in script during his lifetime) at mt. Sinai in either 1312 or 1233(we'll not focus on the oral Torah for the sake of the argument)BCE.
That makes the Torah(i.e the five books) God's unfiltered words(we'll not focus on who actually wrote down the words, suffice to say is that many people believe that the Torah is God's exact words). Lending them an infinite amount of truth, if this is the case.
The crux of the matter is that there is nothing in the Torah that indicates this turn of events. There is no scriptural evidence that Moses received what we know as the Torah, from God. There is no claim from Moses of this, there is no witnessing in the Torah of it, and the Torah does not even in any way indicate that it is a 'whole' made up of these five separate documents.
The only thing we do know is that according to jewish oral tradition, this is how it happened, and that's why the Torah is the Law. Because supposedly it's God's direct message to his creation.
Seeing as this claim is quite a powerful one, it's of major interest to know where this idea comes from.
J.B wants people to realize that it is a very reasonable idea that it is a rabbinic 'invention', either conciously or unconciously.
That's the observation. That the Torah doesn't claim itself to be a single 'entity'(i.e five books that make up a deliberate whole), and nowhere is there any indication that Moses has authored these five documents.
The idea of it is simply oral tradition, with the earliest written indications of it(the idea) residing in the latter part of the first century BCE(that I have come across).
J.B's point on the word "Torah" has nothing to do with this initial observation, it is used in the further argumentation of the matter.
I hope I was clearer this time.
And to those of you who already understood the first time; srry
Of course I chose to believe this part of the oral tradition because it's a fundemental part of why these documents are important. Otherwise I these documents wouldn't have survived this long, and would have died out a long time ago.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk You pretty much summed it up.
Of course I chose to believe this part of the oral tradition because it's a fundemental part of why these documents are important.
Hit the nail there! All the better reason to scrutinize their integrity. Though I think it's quite lame how you rigorously detest any information that's been kept orally for atleast 1000 years 'cept for the part you like.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Hit the nail there! All the better reason to scrutinize their integrity. Though I think it's quite lame how you rigorously detest any information that's been kept orally for atleast 1000 years 'cept for the part you like.
Well it seems to me that if any part of the oral tradition would be the most reliable it's this part, especially since as I said it's the source of the tradition itself!
Moses is their leader at the time they are taken out of Egypt, so he is one most likely responsible for the documents.
Originally Posted by Fordom Christians are my enemy's.
I loath them.
That's just a retarded thing to say in a postmodern society. What are you supposed to be, norse or something?
@UrbanMonk: Really, it all boils down to you using circular arguments. But let's end this discussion-arch, we have both sort of agreed on things anyway, down to the point where we simply believe different things.
Originally Posted by Fordom Christians are my enemy's.
I loath them.
That's just a retarded thing to say in a postmodern society. What are you supposed to be, norse or something?
@UrbanMonk: Really, it all boils down to you using circular arguments. But let's end this discussion-arch, we have both sort of agreed on things anyway, down to the point where we simply believe different things.
How I wish I had the 2nd post in this thread so it could read "Inb4 shitstorm"
To answer your question briefly, no I don't believe in god. It all boils down to this book full of fiction, and christians don't even follow it. (Fundamentalists do, don't get me started on them)
I don't know what is worse really, being hypocritical christian by not following the bible, or be a full christian and follow all the, quite honestly, idiotic things it says.
"Are you a christian? Have you ever depicted a human or animal? Oh wait according to this, you're going to hell!"
Just remembered creationism.... Have to cover it aswell:
I've heard that dinosaur fossiles are either planted by God to test our faith, or by Satan to ruin our faith.
I_MEAN_REALLY_?
One to each own though, as long as your religion don't affect people outside your religion.
(Like islamic extremists who think non-muslims aren't worth anything and free to kill)
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by UrbanMonk
