The Religion Debate Thread - Armor Games Community

704	259538

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,439 posts

Jester

Posted August 1, '17 8:51pm UTC

when you actually read the scriptures.

Back to these:
"The Bible: A vague and heavily modified collection of texts written by several unknown authors before the birth of fact-checking which are even today the subject of considerable disagreement. I'd expect a supreme being of unlimited power to do a lot better."

"There is no body of text that is definitively His Word."

"Which one? There are hundreds of recognized variations, and thousands if not millions of contradicting interpretations."

offline

FishPreferred

3,171 posts

Duke

Posted August 2, '17 12:54am UTC

But would anyone know several loan words from the Egyptian language?

Yeah, anyone who lived in the vicinity of the Red Sea or had trade relations with Egyptians.

The author is also very familiar with geography, fauna, and flora.

Yeah, like most people living in or traveling through the vicinity of the Red Sea.

Moreover, no where in Exodus does it mention customs passed its time.

What time?

It's not hard to claim that the author of these books was an eyewitness to the Exodus.

Nor is it any harder to claim that they were written by Admiral Fnorg of Andromeda twenty six million years ago. What's your point?

The people who say that Moses didn't write those books, believe in the document hypothesis which essentially says that the Pentateuch was written by 4 different authors and then several editors put them together.

No, only proponents of the documentary hypothesis believe in the documentary hypothesis.

However, it falls flat on many fronts. Firstly, there is no evidence for the various authors.

1 It falls flat because it's a weak hypothesis. Try the supplementary hypothesis.
2 There is no evidence for a single author, let alone a specific one.

Then, you can take into account that when people put Genesis into a computer to check authorship, there was an 82% chance that it was written by one person based on its idiosyncratic patterns.

1 What people did this, exactly?
2 Which translation was it?

Those denominations who deny Moses is the author of the Pentateuch are in direct conflict with Jesus who said that those who "hear not [i.e. reject] Moses" would not be persuaded "though one rose from the dead"

Uh, no, they clearly aren't. That's a blatant quotemine.

I might also add that the Pentateuch, other Old Testament books, and New Testament books claim that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch. For more

1 No part of the Pentateuch mentions any author.
2 Examining your incredibly dubious source gives us the following:

13And Joshua defeated Amalek and his people with the sword. 14Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a reminder in a book and recite it in the hearing of Joshua: I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.”

This is about a minor and very specific incident unrelated to the writing of the Pentateuch itself.

3Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.” 4And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. He rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and set up twelve pillars, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel.

This is about God's orders to the Israelites on how to treat the Canaanites and other tribes they were to displace.

27The Lord said to Moses: Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.
28He was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

This is obviously not about writing the Pentateuch.

These are the stages by which the Israelites went out of the land of Egypt in military formation under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. 2Moses wrote down their starting points, stage by stage, by command of the Lord; and these are their stages according to their starting places.

This is about writing down logistics during the exodus.

9Then Moses wrote down this law, and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel.

This is just about the ten commandments again. I could go on, but at this point, Grigg is just blatantly contextomizing anything he can find.

Denying it would be problematic because Jesus obviously claims that He is God.

Even if we needlessly assume he's right about that, Jesus claiming to be God does not make trinitarianism correct.

[quote]But would anyone know several loan words from the Egyptian language?[/quote]Yeah, anyone who lived in the vicinity of the Red Sea or had trade relations with Egyptians.
 
[quote]The author is also very familiar with geography, fauna, and flora.[/quote]Yeah, like most people living in or traveling through the vicinity of the Red Sea.
 
[quote]Moreover, no where in Exodus does it mention customs passed its time.[/quote]What time?
 
[quote]It's not hard to claim that the author of these books was an eyewitness to the Exodus.[/quote]Nor is it any harder to claim that they were written by Admiral Fnorg of Andromeda twenty six million years ago. What's your point?
 
[quote]The people who say that Moses didn't write those books, believe in the document hypothesis which essentially says that the Pentateuch was written by 4 different authors and then several editors put them together.[/quote]No, only proponents of the documentary hypothesis believe in the documentary hypothesis.
 
[quote]However, it falls flat on many fronts. Firstly, there is no evidence for the various authors.[/quote]1 It falls flat because it's a weak hypothesis. Try the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_hypothesis]supplementary hypothesis[/url].
2 There is no evidence for a single author, let alone a specific one.
 
[quote]Then, you can take into account that when people put Genesis into a computer to check authorship, there was an 82% chance that it was written by one person based on its idiosyncratic patterns.[/quote]1 What people did this, exactly?
2 Which [b]translation[/b] was it?
 
[quote]Those denominations who deny Moses is the author of the Pentateuch are in direct conflict with Jesus who said that those who "hear not [i.e. reject] Moses" would not be persuaded "though one rose from the dead"[/quote]Uh, no, they clearly aren't. That's a blatant quotemine.
 
[quote]I might also add that the Pentateuch, other Old Testament books, and New Testament books claim that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch. For more[/quote]1 No part of the Pentateuch mentions any author.
2 Examining your [i]incredibly[/i] dubious source gives us the following:
[quote]13And Joshua defeated Amalek and his people with the sword. 14Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a reminder in a book and recite it in the hearing of Joshua: I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.”[/quote]This is about a minor and very specific incident unrelated to the writing of the Pentateuch itself.
 
[quote]3Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.” 4And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. He rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and set up twelve pillars, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel.[/quote]This is about God's orders to the Israelites on how to treat the Canaanites and other tribes they were to displace.
 
[quote]27The Lord said to Moses: Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.
28He was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. [/quote]This is obviously not about writing the Pentateuch.
 
[quote]These are the stages by which the Israelites went out of the land of Egypt in military formation under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. 2Moses wrote down their starting points, stage by stage, by command of the Lord; and these are their stages according to their starting places.[/quote]This is about writing down logistics [i]during[/i] the exodus.
 
[quote]9Then Moses wrote down this law, and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel.[/quote]This is just about the ten commandments again. I could go on, but at this point, Grigg is just blatantly contextomizing anything he can find.
 
[quote]Denying it would be problematic because Jesus obviously claims that He is God.[/quote]Even if we needlessly assume he's right about that, Jesus claiming to be God does not make trinitarianism correct.

offline

lozerfac3

978 posts

Farmer

Posted August 2, '17 9:14am UTC

Yeah. I'll admit that it would be foolish to say that I know how and why the canon I follow was put together. However, I do hold on to the 66 book canon. I found an interesting discussion which includes insight from several denominations and not just my own. Now the versions of the 66 book canon I believe has barely any contradictions.

What time?

The second millennium as creation.com says.

1 What people did this, exactly?
2 Which translation was it?

Technion University, Hebrew text

This is just about the ten commandments again.

Well, the Book of Law is the Pentateuch/Torah so...

I could go on, but at this point, Grigg is just blatantly contextomizing anything he can find.

Why don't you though? They all say the same thing and even more. The verses you skipped say that Moses wrote the Book of Law and/or the commandments. We for sure know that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and not just the 10 commandments because Matthew 19:7-8 says, 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. The bit about the certificate of divorce is obviously not in the 10 commandments. This verse is obviously claiming that Moses not only wrote the 10 commandments but also the Book of Law. Man, Luke 24 couldn't have said it any clearer: 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. . . 44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

Even if we needlessly assume he's right about that, Jesus claiming to be God does not make trinitarianism correct.

Why doesn't it?

Yeah. I'll admit that it would be foolish to say that I know how and why the canon I follow was put together. However, I do hold on to the 66 book canon. I found [url=https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-bible-is-inerrant-and-inspired-but-which-bible.7986034/page-4]an interesting discussion[/url] which includes insight from several denominations and not just my own. Now the versions of the 66 book canon I believe has barely any contradictions.

[quote]What time?[/quote]The second millennium as creation.com says.

[quote]1 What people did this, exactly?
2 Which translation was it?[/quote]Technion University, Hebrew text

[quote]This is just about the ten commandments again.[/quote]Well, the Book of Law is the Pentateuch/Torah so...

[quote]I could go on, but at this point, Grigg is just blatantly contextomizing anything he can find.[/quote]Why don't you though? They all say the same thing and even more. The verses you skipped say that Moses wrote the Book of Law and/or the commandments. We for sure know that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and not just the 10 commandments because Matthew 19:7-8 says, [i]7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.[/i] The bit about the certificate of divorce is obviously not in the 10 commandments. This verse is obviously claiming that Moses not only wrote the 10 commandments but also the Book of Law. Man, Luke 24 couldn't have said it any clearer: [i]27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. . . 44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”[/i]

[quote]Even if we needlessly assume he's right about that, Jesus claiming to be God does not make trinitarianism correct.[/quote]Why doesn't it?

offline

Moegreche

3,826 posts

Duke

Posted August 2, '17 10:06am UTC

Why doesn't it?

Not to speak for Fish here, but I'm sure he would point out that trinitarianism is logically impossible. After all, that's what a logical contradiction is. It's also worth pointing out that someone claiming something doesn't make it true. For example, I am now claiming to be the king of England. But that doesn't make it true.

The problem is that trinitarianism flies in the face of what's called the transitivity of identity. If a=b and b=c then a=c. That's transitivity and it's an axiom of logic. And yet we have three 'aspects' of god that are all identical to god and yet not identical to each other. This is waved away as a divine mystery of faith as it's something we cannot possibly comprehend. But we can't comprehend it because it's a logical impossibility.

This gets into other, more interesting, worries depending on how the theist responds to this argument. But I've never come across a response to this that's reasonable and consistent (other than outright rejecting it). By my lights, this makes a belief in god irrational. Like, by definition irrational--not just silly.

[quote]Why doesn't it?[/quote]

Not to speak for Fish here, but I'm sure he would point out that trinitarianism is logically impossible. After all, that's what a logical contradiction is. It's also worth pointing out that someone claiming something doesn't make it true. For example, I am now claiming to be the king of England. But that doesn't make it true.

The problem is that trinitarianism flies in the face of what's called the transitivity of identity. If a=b and b=c then a=c. That's transitivity and it's an axiom of logic. And yet we have three 'aspects' of god that are all identical to god and yet not identical to each other. This is waved away as a divine mystery of faith as it's something we cannot possibly comprehend. But we can't comprehend it because it's a logical impossibility.

This gets into other, more interesting, worries depending on how the theist responds to this argument. But I've never come across a response to this that's reasonable and consistent (other than outright rejecting it). By my lights, this makes a belief in god irrational. Like, by definition irrational--not just silly.

offline

lozerfac3

978 posts

Farmer

Posted August 2, '17 6:57pm UTC

Yeah people usually say it's one of those things that are "unknowable" about God due to our finite minds, but I think you make sense when you it's simply impossible because of logic. Keep in mind though that we are the same people who claim that God can turn water into wine or feed thousands with a loaf of bread and some food. My dad said God can make a circle into a square whatever that means haha. My point is, if God can do the "impossible", He can also be the "impossible".

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,439 posts

Jester

Posted August 3, '17 12:13am UTC

My dad said God can make a circle into a square whatever that means haha. My point is, if God can do the "impossible", He can also be the "impossible".

Read through this before Fish tears you a new one.

offline

FishPreferred

3,171 posts

Duke

Posted August 3, '17 12:47am UTC Edited August 3, '17 12:55am UTC by FishPreferred

The second millennium as creation.com says.

Do you have any idea what the Egyptian customs were at that time?

Technion University, Hebrew text

Right, so we can confidently assert that this particular translation was made by a single editor, rather than several.

Well, the Book of Law is the Pentateuch/Torah so...

Sure, but the "Law of Moses" isn't. It refers to the ten commandments, which I think we can all agree, are not the same as the Pentateuch.

Why don't you though? They all say the same thing and even more.

Exactly because they all say the same thing. It just boils down to "Moses wrote the ten commandments". They aren't even vague or out of context; they just don't support Grigg's (and, by extension, your) claim in any way.

The verses you skipped say that Moses wrote the Book of Law [...]

No, they don't. You know that they don't.

[...] and/or the commandments.

That isn't in dispute.

“Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. The bit about the certificate of divorce is obviously not in the 10 commandments. This verse is obviously claiming that Moses not only wrote the 10 commandments but also the Book of Law.

No. No, it isn't. It's saying that Moses gave that specific instruction.

Man, Luke 24 couldn't have said it any clearer:

Yeah, no surprise that he made no mention of the Book of Law or of Moses writing anything.

Why doesn't it?

Because Jesus being God is not sufficient. Trinitarianism also requires the Holy Ghost and the heavenly Father to be God at the same time.

My point is, if God can do the "impossible", He can also be the "impossible".

Anything doable can't be impossible, but logic dictates what is doable.

@Moegreche I actually don't consider this to be problematic, as it's basically the same as when a white horse is not a horse. A trinitarian can say that these three things are not each other, but are all completely God, and that God is the sum of the three. It just doesn't make sense to say that each is all of God, because "all of God" includes the other two.

EDIT: In my previous post, I said Grigg was contextomising. That should have been "misattributing". Contextomy is something more specific.

[quote]The second millennium as creation.com says.[/quote]Do you have any idea what the Egyptian customs were at that time?
 
[quote]Technion University, Hebrew text[/quote]Right, so we can confidently assert that this particular translation was made by a single editor, rather than several.
 
[quote]Well, the Book of Law is the Pentateuch/Torah so...[/quote]Sure, but the "Law of Moses" isn't. It refers to the ten commandments, which I think we can all agree, are not the same as the Pentateuch.
 
[quote]Why don't you though? They all say the same thing and even more.[/quote]Exactly [i]because[/i] they all say the same thing. It just boils down to "Moses wrote the ten commandments". They aren't even vague or out of context; they just don't support Grigg's (and, by extension, your) claim in any way.
 
[quote]The verses you skipped say that Moses wrote the Book of Law [...][/quote]No, they don't. You [b]know[/b] that they don't.
 
[quote][...] and/or the commandments.[/quote]That isn't in dispute.
 
[quote]“Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. The bit about the certificate of divorce is obviously not in the 10 commandments. This verse is obviously claiming that Moses not only wrote the 10 commandments but also the Book of Law.[/quote]No. No, it isn't. It's saying that Moses gave that specific instruction.
 
[quote]Man, Luke 24 couldn't have said it any clearer:[/quote]Yeah, no surprise that he made [i]no mention[/i] of the Book of Law or of Moses writing anything.
 
[quote]Why doesn't it?[/quote]Because Jesus being God is not sufficient. Trinitarianism also requires the Holy Ghost and the heavenly Father to be God at the same time.
 
[quote]My point is, if God can do the "impossible", He can also be the "impossible".[/quote]Anything doable can't be impossible, but logic dictates what is doable.
 
[url=http://armorgames.com/user/Moegreche]@Moegreche[/url] I actually don't consider this to be problematic, as it's basically the same as [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_a_white_horse_is_not_a_horse]when a white horse is not a horse[/url]. A trinitarian can say that these three things are not each other, but are all completely God, and that God is the sum of the three. It just doesn't make sense to say that each is all of God, because "all of God" includes the other two.
 
EDIT: In my previous post, I said Grigg was contextomising. That should have been "misattributing". Contextomy is something more specific.

offline

lozerfac3

978 posts

Farmer

Posted August 3, '17 2:39am UTC

Read through this before Fish tears you a new one.

Hahaha I appreciate your concern. It wasn't as bad as anticipated.

Do you have any idea what the Egyptian customs were at that time?

I was referring to Jewish traditions. But I admit to having limited knowledge on that too.

Right, so we can confidently assert that this particular translation was made by a single editor, rather than several.

Isn't the Hebrew text the original though?

Yeah, no surprise that he made no mention of the Book of Law or of Moses writing anything.

In verse 44, it says "everything written about [Jesus] in the Law of Moses". The 10 commandments doesn't say anything about Jesus, so when Jesus says Law of Moses, He is including the rest of the Pentateuch. We also know that Moses wrote the Law of Moses.

Because Jesus being God is not sufficient. Trinitarianism also requires the Holy Ghost and the heavenly Father to be God at the same time.

Oh you right. Makes sense. There is a reason why trinitarianism is accepted within the Protestant church though. Especially with Jesus being the Son of God and the idea of God having a Spirit.

[quote]Read through this before Fish tears you a new one.[/quote]Hahaha I appreciate your concern. It wasn't as bad as anticipated.

[quote]Do you have any idea what the Egyptian customs were at that time?[/quote]I was referring to Jewish traditions. But I admit to having limited knowledge on that too.

[quote]Right, so we can confidently assert that this particular translation was made by a single editor, rather than several.[/quote]Isn't the Hebrew text the original though?

[quote]Yeah, no surprise that he made no mention of the Book of Law or of Moses writing anything.[/quote]In verse 44, it says "everything written about [Jesus] in the Law of Moses". The 10 commandments doesn't say anything about Jesus, so when Jesus says Law of Moses, He is including the rest of the Pentateuch. We also know that Moses wrote the Law of Moses.

[quote]Because Jesus being God is not sufficient. Trinitarianism also requires the Holy Ghost and the heavenly Father to be God at the same time.[/quote]Oh you right. Makes sense. There is a reason why trinitarianism is accepted within the Protestant church though. Especially with Jesus being the Son of God and the idea of God having a Spirit.

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,439 posts

Jester

Posted August 3, '17 3:32am UTC

Isn't the Hebrew text the original though?

Possibly the original language, not the original text. There are no original documents available. The oldest fragments are from around 600B.C. The oldest known Hebrew inscriptions in general are only from around 1000B.C. The oldest Torah scroll is from around 1200A.D.

offline

lozerfac3

978 posts

Farmer

Posted August 3, '17 6:13am UTC

I'm sure it was copied very well throughout time, so the computer program would still be processing the same phrases as the original text.

offline

FishPreferred

3,171 posts

Duke

Posted August 4, '17 12:15am UTC

I was referring to Jewish traditions. But I admit to having limited knowledge on that too.

Well, in either case, what reason have you to conclude that the customs described are the customs of the time, aside from some guy on the internet saying so?

Isn't the Hebrew text the original though?

Wasn't Moses raised Egyptian?

In verse 44, it says "everything written about [Jesus] in the Law of Moses". The 10 commandments doesn't say anything about Jesus, so when Jesus says Law of Moses, He is including the rest of the Pentateuch. We also know that Moses wrote the Law of Moses.

1 Luke, or whoever actually wrote that scripture, also wouldn't know who wrote the Pentateuch. At best he could only speculate.
2 There is absolutely nothing written about Jesus in the Pentateuch. For that, you'd have to rely on a bunch more vague and ill-fitting quotations.
3 It isn't "everything written about Jesus"; if anything, it's "everything written about God", which most certainly includes the commandments. Hence "in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms" refers to the ten commandments, the words of the prophets, ... and the psalms.
4 If "Law of __" refers not to any law, but to a story, the "Law of Moses" must therefore mean the story of Moses.

I'm sure it was copied very well throughout time, so the computer program would still be processing the same phrases as the original text.

I figured you would be. The problem is that a) slaves in Egypt couldn't write in any language, b) Egyptians wouldn't have taught Hebrew, and c) the Quran also contains the stories from the Pentateuch, and they are notably different.

[quote]I was referring to Jewish traditions. But I admit to having limited knowledge on that too.[/quote]Well, in either case, what reason have you to conclude that the customs described are the customs of the time, aside from some guy on the internet saying so?
 
[quote]Isn't the Hebrew text the original though?[/quote]Wasn't Moses raised Egyptian?
 
[quote]In verse 44, it says "everything written about [Jesus] in the Law of Moses". The 10 commandments doesn't say anything about Jesus, so when Jesus says Law of Moses, He is including the rest of the Pentateuch. We also know that Moses wrote the Law of Moses.[/quote]1 Luke, or whoever actually wrote that scripture, also wouldn't know who wrote the Pentateuch. At best he could only speculate.
2 There is [i]absolutely nothing[/i] written about Jesus in the Pentateuch. For that, you'd have to rely on a bunch more vague and ill-fitting quotations.
3 It isn't "everything written about Jesus"; if anything, it's "everything written about God", which most certainly includes the commandments. Hence "in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms" refers to the ten commandments, the words of the prophets, ... and the psalms.
4 If "Law of __" refers not to any law, but to a story, the "Law of Moses" must therefore mean the [i]story of Moses[/i].
 
[quote]I'm sure it was copied very well throughout time, so the computer program would still be processing the same phrases as the original text.[/quote]I figured you would be. The problem is that a) slaves in Egypt couldn't write in any language, b) Egyptians wouldn't have taught Hebrew, and c) the Quran also contains the stories from the Pentateuch, and they are notably different.

offline

lozerfac3

978 posts

Farmer

Posted August 4, '17 3:51am UTC

Wasn't Moses raised Egyptian?

Yeah so? He still wrote in the language of his people.

It isn't "everything written about Jesus"; if anything, it's "everything written about God", which most certainly includes the commandments. Hence "in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms" refers to the ten commandments, the words of the prophets, ... and the psalms.

Okay but why would Jesus exclude the Pentateuch from the Old Testament and only include the 10 commandments?

If "Law of __" refers not to any law, but to a story, the "Law of Moses" must therefore mean the story of Moses.

Which could mean to say it was written by Moses.

I figured you would be. The problem is that a) slaves in Egypt couldn't write in any language, b) Egyptians wouldn't have taught Hebrew, and c) the Quran also contains the stories from the Pentateuch, and they are notably different.

Haha I'm sure they can copy down symbols though. They probably counted all the characters too to make sure it was exactly the same as the original. I'm also sure they learned how to read and write to understand the 10 commandments. Plus, don't Muslims claim that the Bible is super unreliable though? Of course it would be different.

[quote]Wasn't Moses raised Egyptian?[/quote]Yeah so? He still wrote in the language of his people.

[quote]It isn't "everything written about Jesus"; if anything, it's "everything written about God", which most certainly includes the commandments. Hence "in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms" refers to the ten commandments, the words of the prophets, ... and the psalms.[/quote]Okay but why would Jesus exclude the Pentateuch from the Old Testament and only include the 10 commandments?

[quote]If "Law of __" refers not to any law, but to a story, the "Law of Moses" must therefore mean the story of Moses.[/quote]Which could mean to say it was written by Moses.

[quote]I figured you would be. The problem is that a) slaves in Egypt couldn't write in any language, b) Egyptians wouldn't have taught Hebrew, and c) the Quran also contains the stories from the Pentateuch, and they are notably different.[/quote]Haha I'm sure they can copy down symbols though. They probably counted all the characters too to make sure it was exactly the same as the original. I'm also sure they learned how to read and write to understand the 10 commandments. Plus, don't Muslims claim that the Bible is super unreliable though? Of course it would be different.

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,439 posts

Jester

Posted August 4, '17 4:53am UTC

Yeah so? He still wrote in the language of his people.

This means he wrote a story about how God confused people's languages so that they could not communicate, in a language that was not native to him.

offline

lozerfac3

978 posts

Farmer

Posted August 4, '17 6:02am UTC Edited August 4, '17 6:02am UTC by lozerfac3

He was basically raised by his Hebrew mom though. Pharaoh's daughter chose her to take care of Moses.

offline

FishPreferred

3,171 posts

Duke

Posted August 4, '17 6:52pm UTC Edited August 4, '17 6:58pm UTC by FishPreferred

Yeah so? He still wrote in the language of his people.

Why? How? What justification do you have for this claim?

Okay but why would Jesus exclude the Pentateuch from the Old Testament and only include the 10 commandments?

Because that was supposedly the most important part of it.

Which could mean to say it was written by Moses.

And the story of Joshua could mean "written by Joshua", and the story of Abraham and Isaac could mean "cowritten by Abraham and Isaac", and the story of Noah could mean "written by Noah", and the story of Lazarus could mean "written by Lazarus" .... Also, as this is part 4, I presume you've seen part 1. Please refer back to that for why this line of reasoning won't get you anywhere.

Haha I'm sure they can copy down symbols though. They probably counted all the characters too to make sure it was exactly the same as the original.

. . . What original? I'm saying that Hebrew would not have existed as a written language independent of Egyptian during his lifetime, nor would any slave in Egypt be capable of writing.

I'm also sure they learned how to read and write to understand the 10 commandments.

Learned from whom?

Plus, don't Muslims claim that the Bible is super unreliable though? Of course it would be different.

So we're agreed that it wasn't necessarily copied very well throughout time, right?

He was basically raised by his Hebrew mom though. Pharaoh's daughter chose her to take care of Moses.

No, his mother nursed him because the pharaoh's daughter, who raised him, couldn't lactate yet.

[quote]Yeah so? He still wrote in the language of his people.[/quote]Why? How? What justification do you have for this claim?
 
[quote]Okay but why would Jesus exclude the Pentateuch from the Old Testament and only include the 10 commandments?[/quote]Because that was supposedly the most important part of it.
 
[quote]Which could mean to say it was written by Moses.[/quote][img]http://i.imgur.com/rJGj2.png[/img]
 
And the story of Joshua [b]could[/b] mean "written by Joshua", and the story of Abraham and Isaac [b]could[/b] mean "cowritten by Abraham and Isaac", and the story of Noah [b]could[/b] mean "written by Noah", and the story of Lazarus [b]could[/b] mean "written by Lazarus" .... Also, as this is part 4, I presume you've seen part 1. Please refer back to that for why this line of reasoning won't get you anywhere.
 
[quote]Haha I'm sure they can copy down symbols though. They probably counted all the characters too to make sure it was exactly the same as the original.[/quote]. . . What original? I'm saying that Hebrew would not have existed as a written language independent of Egyptian during his lifetime, nor would any slave in Egypt be capable of writing.
 
[quote]I'm also sure they learned how to read and write to understand the 10 commandments.[/quote]Learned from whom?
 
[quote]Plus, don't Muslims claim that the Bible is super unreliable though? Of course it would be different.[/quote]So we're agreed that it wasn't necessarily copied very well throughout time, right?
 
[quote]He was basically raised by his Hebrew mom though. Pharaoh's daughter chose her to take care of Moses.[/quote]No, his mother [i]nursed[/i] him because the pharaoh's daughter, who raised him, couldn't lactate yet.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → The Religion Debate Thread