Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Malachi

[Dr. Danger]

> Even if Moses didn’t actually write it, there is no verified reason to doubt that the material is his, even if it was not written down until much later

You can't verify that. If you can, please do. This is a similiar claim made with Muhammad and his scribes.

> The source theory of Biblical assembly has come under great attack of late, and is falling apart thanks to better research, new discoveries, and more thorough scholarship. Absolutely no textual evidence exists for the fragmentation of the Pentateuch. No archaeologist has ever uncovered a copy, a fragment, or any reference to J, E, D, or P. It is pure academic speculation. Those who insist on empirical evidence should be ashamed to subscribe to these theories.

Correct, but if you read the Pententeuch, you can actually see it. How else can you reconcile the contradictions, even minor if its not merged oracles being written down? If one chapter says, adam and eve is created simultaneously, then eve created second. Which is it?

If Jesus feeds five thousand, and his apostles are none the wiser about him doing it, then go on to feed four thousand and his disciples are STILL none the wiser. that doesn't imply to you, its the same story? Same MO, one in a jewish land, one in a gentile land(if I recall).

> Even the theory of Markan primacy is being highly questioned by further scholarship. "Q" is speculative theory (never been proved or any evidence found), and some scholars are now doing work that shows that Matthew and Luke possibly didn't copy from Mark, but possibly even preceded it. You cynicism about
Matthew correcting Mark, and Mark knowing his gospel is incomplete are pure (and a little cynical) conjecture.

I don't put too much thought into Q. If anything, they probably just lifted all from mark and oracles as far I'm concerned. Not an actually written Q source. Q may not exist for all I care. Funny you say its conjecture. You're right, but your conjecture about moses is that. Simply conjecture. We have no way to know if Moses wrote that. Dead men don't write their endings.

> My main point was about the canon of the OT as probably assembled by Ezra. Your diversion to 2 Peter is a dodge. The OT is evidence enough that the OT prophets considered they were speaking the word of the Lord.

I don't see how it's a dodge. If peter 2 is a psedupigraha, then he has no apostolic authority, therefore peter 2 doesn't back up your point at all. That's like using a scientist from answers in genesis to back up a scientific claim.

Again, how do you know this?

[jimwalton]

> You can't verify that. If you can, please do.

That's my point. Nothing can be verified. All internal evidence and external evidence (until about 1700) is that Moses wrote it. The Pentateuch says he wrote it, Joshua says he wrote it, multiple times in the OT claims he wrote it, Josephus says he wrote it, Jesus says he wrote it, the apostles say he wrote it, Paul says he wrote it, the Church Fathers say he wrote it. All Christian and Jewish writers up until 1700 say he wrote it. You say he didn't. That puts the burden of proof on you. It's your job to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't.

But as I said, there are clearly some things that were added later (like the account of his death). It doesn't detract from Moses being the authorized tradent who is the source (both direct and indirect) of the material.

> How else can you reconcile the contradictions?

What contradictions? Gn. 1 & 2? They are not separate accounts of creation, but a sequel. Gn. 2 is not talking about Day 6, but a later time period. Gen. 1 is talking about God bringing order out of chaos; chapter 2 is about archetypes of humanity, not material creation. It's not a contradiction. What other contradictions are you talking about??

> Jesus feeds five thousand...

It's not a stretch to think he did this miracle more than once. Mark 8.19-20 are clear that he did.

> Again, how do you know this?

Old Testament prophets, from Moses through Malachi, were given the task of communicating the revelation of God to His people. Genuine prophets were to be recognized because they spoke in the name of the true God and their messages always came true (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:18-22). These prophets were recognized in their own day as God’s messengers, as the books of the Old Testament readily attest. As a result, the books written by them or that record their teachings were acknowledged to be the Word of God. Little evidence exists of any disagreements about the content of the Jewish Scriptures. We have no way of knowing how they were finally compiled, though tradition ascribes the task to Ezra. In the end it doesn't matter much. The OT canon is not disputed.

Your doubt of Moses as author, or of the veracity of the prophets, is circular reasoning. You come to the table assuming they are not authentic, and on that basis conclude they are not. It is also without evidence. Every piece of evidence that we actually have points to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch.

Secondly, your argument is also an argument from silence: If no external confirmation is to be found, it must not be true. The problem with that is that where clear external evidence does exist, the accounts of Scripture have been confirmed repeatedly.

Thirdly, external evidence is not the only path to truth, and the assumption that it is contradicts both reason and memory (essential to reason). We know, both philosophically and experientially, that empirical evidence can never lead to certainty but only to plausibility. We can't rule things out just because there is no external evidence. For instance, I may be angry right now about not receiving a package in the mail, but am holding it all in. I ask you to use science and external corroboration to tell me what I'm feeling. It's ridiculous, of course; science can't do that. External evidence is not the only determinant of truth.