I started reading Bart Ehrman's new book last night, Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, I was a little disappointed to find that it's only the preamble to a book he'll be bringing out later in the year. Nevertheless it's quite interesting that he points out how some of the books may not be the writing of the people for who them are named, and the blatantly obvious one is of course Revelation.

I was a little tired when I started reading last night, but I'll look at it more today and come back with some excerpts. Also I have a copy of Friedman's book, Stijn, I'll come back about that one, after I've finished Ehrman's book.

Friedman's book is so interesting, I'm going to take my time reading it, slowly, so my editing will have to wait for a while.

I also took a long look at Forged today, it's more detailed than I thought, I need to read it during the day when I'm not over-tired and sleepy.

Agrippina wrote:Friedman's book is so interesting, I'm going to take my time reading it, slowly, so my editing will have to wait for a while.

Told ya!

I'll need to take a look at Forged, too.

willhud9 wrote:I have so far not heard a convincing argument aside from a skeptic argument with no facts just skepticism, about why Moses could not be the author of the Pentateuch?

I presume you'll want to place Moses around 1200 BC, or perhaps earlier. That was several hundred years before the Hebrew language existed. There's absolutely no way that Moses was the author of any Hebrew text. What language do you think he wrote the original in? Egyptian? Akkadian? Some earlier Canaanite language such as Ugaritic? Yet in studying the poetry of the Tanakh it's agreed that the Pentateuch is very alike in style to other Hebrew texts. If it's a translation that makes it a very free one.

logical bob wrote:

willhud9 wrote:I have so far not heard a convincing argument aside from a skeptic argument with no facts just skepticism, about why Moses could not be the author of the Pentateuch?

I presume you'll want to place Moses around 1200 BC, or perhaps earlier. That was several hundred years before the Hebrew language existed. There's absolutely no way that Moses was the author of any Hebrew text. What language do you think he wrote the original in? Egyptian? Akkadian? Some earlier Canaanite language such as Ugaritic? Yet in studying the poetry of the Tanakh it's agreed that the Pentateuch is very alike in style to other Hebrew texts. If it's a translation that makes it a very free one.

Oh of course Moses did not speak or write in Hebrew. My Pastor and I at dinner the other day had a huge lengthy discussion on what the Ten Commandments could have been written in originally. The most possible was Egyptian. So obviously if Moses was the author, the books would have been edited in later generations into Hebrew and then up to speculation as to when. I do not disagree that certain material was added, especially in the book of Numbers, but I still hold to the belief that Moses was a real individual who wrote the Pentateuch, if not all of it then the basis of it with additions being made by the various authors of JEDP.

The earliest written texts, on animal skin were dated to around 600 BCE, it was written in Paleo-Hebrew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet

And more from the dreaded Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

How did Moses do the writing? He was walking around the desert for the 40 years that he recognised himself to be a Hebrew.
Did he have a well-sprung wagon and a supply of vellum and ink and why weren't these valuable documents stored?

Also how did he write about his death and funeral, did he resurrect himself to do this?

Agrippina wrote:The earliest written texts, on animal skin were dated to around 600 BCE, it was written in Paleo-Hebrew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet

And more from the dreaded Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

How did Moses do the writing? He was walking around the desert for the 40 years that he recognised himself to be a Hebrew.
Did he have a well-sprung wagon and a supply of vellum and ink and why weren't these valuable documents stored?

Also how did he write about his death and funeral, did he resurrect himself to do this?

They did not just wander, the camped, and stopped, and Moses was a scholar. Next, if it was in Egyptian which I do strongly believe it would have been hieroglyphics of some sort carved in stone.

Also, I should edit my post that I believe Moses to be the author of most of the Pentateuch. As I have stated, it would have been edited and added onto in later years(most likely after Babylonian Captivity by Ezra or Nehemiah or some noted scholar of that time) forming what is now the Torah.

If it was carved in stone in hieroglyphs, where was it hidden?

Seriously, seriously? You believe that a bunch of superstitious people running away to their family's ancestral lands in the holy land that was promised to them would have allowed someone who didn't speak their language or understand their customs, or write their writing to lead them?

Agrippina wrote:If it was carved in stone in hieroglyphs, where was it hidden?

Seriously, seriously? You believe that a bunch of superstitious people running away to their family's ancestral lands in the holy land that was promised to them would have allowed someone who didn't speak their language or understand their customs, or write their writing to lead them?

Being that the "Hebrew people" were Egyptian slaves, I doubt that they new how to read, speak, or write their original language, but rather understood Egyptian. Next, if you have read the discourse at the burning bush in Exodus which I know you have, Moses was nervous and told God that the people would never listen to him. The Bible does address this

No the writers of the Bible wrote all sorts of nonsense. I'm about to go to bed now, but do yourself a favour read Friedman's book about the Documentary Hypothesis. He does a very good job of explaining how the Pentateuch was written. Read it, then argue from an informed position.

Agrippina wrote:No the writers of the Bible wrote all sorts of nonsense. I'm about to go to bed now, but do yourself a favour read Friedman's book about the Documentary Hypothesis. He does a very good job of explaining how the Pentateuch was written. Read it, then argue from an informed position.

I have, and I agree with many of the tenets if not all that he suggests and writes about. I am just being a stubborn theologian

willhud9 wrote:Being that the "Hebrew people" were Egyptian slaves, I doubt that they new how to read, speak, or write their original language, but rather understood Egyptian.

As I said, the Hebrew language simply didn't exist at that time. Whatever any of them spoke, it wasn't Hebrew.

willhud9 wrote:Next, if it was in Egyptian which I do strongly believe it would have been hieroglyphics of some sort carved in stone.

To be fair, it wouldn't have to be on stone. Hieroglyphs were designed for carving but there was a rather beautiful script called hieratic which wrote the same language with pen and papyrus.

logical bob wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Being that the "Hebrew people" were Egyptian slaves, I doubt that they new how to read, speak, or write their original language, but rather understood Egyptian.

As I said, the Hebrew language simply didn't exist at that time. Whatever any of them spoke, it wasn't Hebrew.

willhud9 wrote:Next, if it was in Egyptian which I do strongly believe it would have been hieroglyphics of some sort carved in stone.

To be fair, it wouldn't have to be on stone. Hieroglyphs were designed for carving but there was a rather beautiful script called hieratic which wrote the same language with pen and papyrus.

I did not know about the ink and papyrus. That is rather beautiful

willhud9 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:If it was carved in stone in hieroglyphs, where was it hidden?

Seriously, seriously? You believe that a bunch of superstitious people running away to their family's ancestral lands in the holy land that was promised to them would have allowed someone who didn't speak their language or understand their customs, or write their writing to lead them?

Being that the "Hebrew people" were Egyptian slaves, I doubt that they new how to read, speak, or write their original language, but rather understood Egyptian. Next, if you have read the discourse at the burning bush in Exodus which I know you have, Moses was nervous and told God that the people would never listen to him. The Bible does address this

You know, minorities do tend to have minority languages, it's no big surprise really?

And the majority of humans, most of the time, have been bilingual to some extent.

Anyway, I have to point out that there is no evidence for the existence of Moses. No evidence that the Egyptians used foreign slave populations on a large scale (though you can see how the Babylonian exile might plant the idea), no evidence of any kind of exodus from Egypt, no evidence of any significant migration into Canaan (no discontinuity in pottery or building styles) and no destruction layer at the right time in Jericho or any of the places allegedly destroyed.

Nada.

Full agreement, it's just ... bad arguments in favor of something are still bad arguments, no matter what they are in favor of.

Zwaarddijk wrote:Full agreement, it's just ... bad arguments in favor of something are still bad arguments, no matter what they are in favor of.

Sorry, could you elaborate?

logical bob wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:Full agreement, it's just ... bad arguments in favor of something are still bad arguments, no matter what they are in favor of.

Sorry, could you elaborate?

Well, I figure my argument that the Hebrews, if they had been in Egypt, very well could have spoken Hebrew, sort of goes against the fact that the exodus never even occurred, and may superficially seem to support the idea that the exodus did take place.

So, my argument against his argument really shouldn't be taken at face value, it's rather a debunking of a notion about linguistics, and I figure in retrospect it's good I point that out - that is, that I am in full agreement with you on that.