Did Moses Write the Pentateuch?

Conversation
41

Science and Faith are just not that different. Science cannot say with absolute authority that any current scientific understanding is “truth”. The names and dates are subject to change at any time as new knowledge arises. Evidence, math, logic, rules, laws guide the conversation, but change constantly. At the end of the day science is limited to man’s understanding, not realizing that God is the authority.

Likewise, the Word is living and speaks to different people in different ways at different times. No one can say with absolute authority that the bible is true (but God does and reveals it some, we just can’t prove it, and that too is for a purpose). The names and dates are subject to change as God wills. Some need imagery and poetry and some need literal interpretation, history, proof… At the end of the day, Faith is limited to man’s sin nature, humility and the ability to make God the authority, which even among believers is not always the case.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein

So, to the original question…you would say there is not enough evidence to support that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and some argue that he didn’t, therefore it is false. I would say the only evidence needed is scripture as God’s infallible Word, therefore it is true. We are at an impasse until either you believe in God or I abandon my belief. So we are back to the argument that we need faith to understand…which is actually written over and over again in the bible, a base law of God…and the first commandment.

Exodus 20:2-3 - “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 “You shall have no other gods before Me. (In this case, the “other God” is science or man alone)

You would say that God could not have literally brought me out of Egypt or out of the house of bondage, I would argue that He did metaphorically, I was a slave to sin and in bondage to American culture, now I am free and not subject to the materialistic values anymore. So, there the literal and non-literal views can both be argued depending on which side of the faith fence you are on.

My brilliant daughter, at the age of 11 was asked if the glass was half-full or half-empty (we were not believers at the time). Her answer has always resounded as having more truth than any other answer I had heard from the other children. She said with great certainty, “It depends on whether I’m pouring or drinking.” The truth is often found in perspective, not in evidence.

1 Like
42

A quote-mine,, I believe. By “religion”, Einstein didn’t mean what you suppose.

No, I would say there is quite enough evidence to support that he didn’t.

Then we have nothing to discuss, as it’s a basic epistemological disagreement. But you are now forced to believe in a universe only 6000 years old, a worldwide flood around 4000 years ago, a flat earth, etc. You can’t pick and choose.

That’s arrogant, you know.

I would never say that. Exodus just isn’t talking about you.

Your opinions of the truth are found in perspective. The truth doesn’t change. Your daughter’s reply (which was indeed brilliant) was about language, not truth.

2 Likes
43

Wow, that’s all I have to say.

44
Science and Faith are just not that different.
Yes they are.
Science cannot say with absolute authority that any current scientific understanding is “truth”. The names and dates are subject to change at any time as new knowledge arises. Evidence, math, logic, rules, laws guide the conversation, but change constantly.
Yes, Science is provisional and self-correcting. Are you really so arrogant as to claim that this is a flaw?

When Science has a dispute or impasse, it seeks more evidence to resolve it. When Faith has one, it generally burns the other side at the stake and/or accuses them of blasphemy or heresy.

Last I checked the Great Schism is nearly a millenium old, and still an open question.

At the end of the day science is limited to man’s understanding, not realizing that God is the authority.
Only if you ask a Christian. If you ask a Muslim, he'd say (a decidely non-Trinitarian) Allah was, a Hindu would say Brahman, etc. Why should we accept your answer over all the others?

This is the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations in a nutshell.

Likewise, the Word is living and speaks to different people in different ways at different times. No one can say with absolute authority that the bible is true (but God does and reveals it some, we just can’t prove it, and that too is for a purpose). The names and dates are subject to change as God wills.
Congratulations, in attempting to defend Biblical Infallibility, you've sacrificed the meaning of the word "true", and set up God as some sort of omni-Humpty Dumpty:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
So, to the original question…you would say there is not enough evidence to support that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and some argue that he didn’t, therefore it is false. I would say the only evidence needed is scripture as God’s infallible Word, therefore it is true.
And I would first say that this opinion only is of interest to the minority of the world's population that believes that "scripture [is] God’s infallible Word".

I would further state that not only is there no substantive evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, there is likewise no substantive evidence that he existed as described in the Bible, or that the Captivity in Egypt, the Exodus, or the Conquest of Canaan happened as described. That does leave rather a large epistemological void for your theological fiat to attempt to fill.

I am sure you can find all sorts of allegorical meaning in the Bible if you looked hard enough, but would suggest that you could likewise find allegorical meanings with the Iliad or The Hobbit. That does not mean that any of the three are “true” (for a meaningful definition of that word).

My brilliant daughter, at the age of 11 was asked if the glass was half-full or half-empty (we were not believers at the time).
The difference to the arguments underlying this thread being that if one of those statements is true, then the other must be true by definition. It is not a case of "half-full or half-empty" but "half-full and half-empty". Pouring versus drinking affects which of the statements is more relevant, not more true.
1 Like
46

I don’t like the latitude you give to Evolution. I believe you need to rethink that, and hopefully your professors (depending on where you are attending) will help in that matter.

But your daughter’s response is quite fascinating. I am just now seeing it. I am going to have to save that one in a file and give it some more thought. Thanks for sharing. By the way, you may want to keep in mind that one day as she matures and acquires more of this world’s wisdom (which in most cases is not really wisdom at all), that you will need to pull her statement back out and use it to maybe help bring her into correction. Really good. Thanks again.

47

Yes, far too many young people are being tempted away from the true path by the lure of actual facts. Gotta nip it in the bud.

2 Likes
48

And with that statement you underscore his daughter’s wisdom. God pours scant evidence, yet because of bias we are certain that our half-full or half-empty evaluation is the correct one. Only the one pouring knows the truth. Your comrade here (@Tim) thinks he, like God, is able to discern both half-full and half-empty. But in thinking he has discerned both, he still comes up short because his conclusion proves out that he can really only see a bias.

In the discussion at hand about the author of the first 5 books of the Bible, the far more unbiased and wise view is to go with tradition, something much closer to the truth than our scant evidence can reveal. To say Moses is the author of all 5 is the better and more convincing conclusion.

49

Yes, it must be true because people a long time ago believed it. Makes perfect sense.

50

The pessimist said the glass was half empty, the optimist said it was half full, but the engineer observed that the glass was over designed.

1 Like
51
Your comrade here (@Tim) thinks he, like God, is able to discern both half-full and half-empty.
Basic understanding of fractions is Godlike discernment? You certainly are setting the bar for deity at a low level. With this Godlike power, I also "discern" that 3/4 full means 1/4 empty (both must be true, or neither is) -- my powers surely are miraculous.

The whole ‘half full versus half empty’ thing is a Deepity – something that only gives the superficial impression of profundity, without its substance.

In the discussion at hand about the author of the first 5 books of the Bible, the far more unbiased and wise view is to go with tradition, something much closer to the truth than our scant evidence can reveal. To say Moses is the author of all 5 is the better and more convincing conclusion.
Yes, it is truly unbiased and wise to accept any old half-baked claim, simply because it is traditional. It was traditional that bad smells caused disease. Should we abandon social distancing and invest in some good potpourri? This sort of thinking might explain how so many faith leaders in the US seem so determined to get their followers infected, over the pleas of that country's scientific leadership. Yes really, "Science and Faith are just not that different."

If there was a tradition that Achilles wrote the Iliad, must we likewise accept it, or if one stated that Bilbo Baggins wrote The Hobbit (it is after all subtitled There and Back Again, a Hobbit’s Holiday)?

2 Likes
52

I have, she’s 30 now. What always struck me was that children often see things in their innocence that adults that have been tainted by the world don’t. In her mind it all depended on what path you are on…maybe not purely perspective, but direction was important…I find this conversation often in the bible, God seeks balance, exalt the lowly, humble the proud, those who wish to be first will be last, etc…

Just like God, evolution IS…it obviously happens, as God is obviously evident in nature. Evolution is also observable in nature and in my mind does not go against the concept of creation, but rather supports it. Likewise, the Big Bang theory supports creation. To me, science and faith are two sides of the same coin. They don’t have to be contrary. It is belief and unbelief that are contrary and the norm in science is unbelief based on evidence.

1 Like
53

This is late, but technically speaking her answer was wrong. The glass is filled with air and water.

I remember been asked the same question when I was younger by a friend. We argued a bit on it (I sided with the half-filled team), but never quite agreed on the best descriptive language. When I learnt about atmospheric pressure due to air molecules in basic science class, I realized I was wrong and so was my friend. The glass was always full.

54

  • What material and how did Moses write? What did the alphabet look like? 613 laws—how come?

  • Many scrolls I’ve seen have modern Hebrew letters. Who interpreted? Back when Moses was traveling, there were no written vowels, or were there vowels?

  • How did Greek Ruler Ptolemy at KMT appoint 70 Jewish Priests to investigate the location of Mitsrayim? How did this information get lost? What happened?

55

@Michael_Okoko
Speaking of glass that holds water and the atmosphere due to air filling the other area of the glass,

What did Moses and the “Hebrew-Yadavas” eat and drink on their way to Yisrael from the Indus Valley (rather than KMT Egypt)? Did they eat and drink with glasses, bowls, spoons, and forks, or solely with their hands? I know they had knives, but did they have any other items for eating and drinking?

56

We can check whether hebrew pottery resembles that from Indus valley. If yes, then they had glasses etc.

57

@OneGod How would you go about determining if Hebrew pottery resembles Indus Valley pottery?

58

Can we ask an archaeologist?

1 Like
59

No clue.

1 Like
60

  • Sure, do you have any archaeologists in mind?

  • Which archaeologist is your favorite, and why?

  • Is archaeologists’ disagreements objective or subjective?

  • Was the history of Moses objective or subjective?

61

I think you need to seek out some reasonable objective - or at least not overly subjective - information. Otherwise this turns into a rather silly exercise and nothing is resolved.

Ask several archaeologists and see if there is a reasonable consensus. Build from that.

2 Likes