Board index ‹ Bible

[Newbie]

The Bible is rife with contradictions and mistruths. When objective scholars examine the evidence it always seems to be falsified. Why else would so many people who study the historicity of the bible in college lose their faith?

[jimwalton]

Well, let's talk about it. What evidence is falsified to dupe the masses? Where does the historicity of the Bible fail? Can we discuss it? It's the benefit of dialogue to be able to plunge in rather than deal in generalities.

[Original Soul]

OK let's start with the torah (first 5 books of the bible). It is commonly believed to have been written by Moses. Obviously, seeing as it contains Moses' own death, that doesn't seem logical. Biblical scholars estimate at least 4 different groups compiled the Torah over hundreds of years. That is why there are so many conflicting accounts of the same stories.

[jimwalton]

Knowing how oral cultures worked, and how scribes later transcribed that which had been reliably passed on through the generations, we are more accurate to speak of Moses as the authority whose words are represented in the Torah than as the author of them. Though he may well have received training in writing in Egypt, it is more likely that his words would have actually been written by scribes. That Moses is ultimately the authority whose words are represented, and that documents were generated based on his authority can be readily accepted. Moses was speaking information that would be considered by the community to be important enough to preserve in written documents. Some were no doubt written in his time and under his supervision. Others may well have been produced by later generations after some time of oral transmission. But Moses is still perceived (truthfully) as the authority behind the documents, and he is therefore inseparable from the material.*

But what are the contradictions you want to talk about?


* (thoughts taken from "The Lost World of Scripture" by John Walton and D. Brent Sandy)

[Original Soul]

OK, pick any of the more difficult ones from the list. Having to read so far into a pretty simple statement seems so ridiculous to me. My point is that it is obvious that the OT was written and rewritten several times by various groups with their own political motivations without any inspiration from God. There is also no evidence of any of it being written during his time. There isn't even evidence of an exodus and, trust me, people have been looking. When you look at the original writings, it is very obvious that there are at least 4 different groups of writers. This is demonstrated not only by contradictions but also by the language they used and what political motivations they stressed, not to mention how much of the Old Testament is straight up ripped off of older mythologies from the same area.

[jimwalton]

Wow, you've blurted out a boatload of generalities here, most of which, I am convinced, are misguided But we can at least begin.

You don't want to read any deeper than "a pretty simple statement." Hm. The U.S. Constitution is a pretty simple document, and not too long, but we have specialists (the Supreme Court) who pore over it, interpret it, argue about it, dig into it, teach it, and make rulings. i can't imagine you would deem this "ridiculous."

Any lawyer does the same thing with "simple documents." Any science researcher, philosophy professor, or history teacher would do the same thing with the documents at their disposal. I think it's simplistic to regard the Bible as "simple statements," and naive to think that it should be. It's a very complex agglomeration of documents from 3 continents, over a period of at least 2000 years, by over 40 different authors, spanning a number of different cultures. I think your expectation that we should be able to read it quickly and easily is unrealistic.

> it is obvious that the OT was written and rewritten several times by various groups with their own political motivations without any inspiration from God.

That's not so obvious at all, and it makes me suspect that you don't understand the concept (theology) of inspiration.

> There is also no evidence of any of it being written during his (Moses') time.

Actually, there is, but not most of it. It was primarily a culture of orality and had nothing comparable to authors and books as we know them. Our culture swears on the primacy of literacy because we are text-dominant. That doesn't make a hearing-dominant culture inferior. or instance, Socrates said that words put in writing are incapable of being clear and are only useful to remind someone what they have heard. He also said that written words cannot teach truth effectively. Certainly we feel differently in our document-dominant culture, but that just shows our bias, as Socrates shows his. But we remiss to confuse "there is no evidence of any of it being written during his time" with the idea that it didn't come from him.

Also, though, I was doing some study recently in Exodus 21. Brevard Childs, a well-respected professor of OT at Yale University, said, "The “Book” shows many signs of redactional activity. Still, a case can be made for seeing an integral connection between the Book of the Covenant and the Mosaic office of the covenant mediator. The laws are permeated with covenant theology and God’s revelation. All of these indicate a historical setting for this section prior to the rise of the monarchy. It is evident that some of the material stems from a very early period that may reach back into the wilderness period." So there is evidence of it being written during the time of Moses himself.

> There isn't even evidence of an exodus

Actually, I've studied this quite deeply and for a considerable amount of time. James Hoffmeier, Egyptologist, has written a book on the evidences of the Exodus. We could go deeply into it if you want, but we'd have to go beyond simple statements. On another level, though, most of what archaeologists find are in the destruction levels of cities. I'm not sure what evidence you think can be found from a group of nomads (1) who didn't live in cities, and (2) were not destroyed, so there is no destruction level. But we can go into it if you wish. I have pages and pages of material on the evidences of the Exodus.

> it is very obvious that there is at least 4 different groups of writers.

I'm well aware of the Wellhausen hypothesis of Biblical formation. While different contributors to the biblical material is obvious, the documentary hypothesis has been strongly challenged and proved wanting by recent scholarship.

> This is demonstrated not only by contradictions

You still haven't brought an example to the table for discussion. Most are fluff; some are worthy of discussion. Which one would you like to start with?

> how much of the old testament is straight up ripped off of older mythologies from the same area.

Now you're really reaching, but I'm glad to discuss any of it. You just need to lead me to the ideas that are of greatest concern to you.