Question about the "J", "E", "P", "R", "D", and the "changed Old Testament".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2013, 08:12 PM
RE: Question about the "J", "E", "P", "R", "D", and the "changed Old Testament".
(08-03-2013 08:06 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  I don't know why you were banned originally, but sockpuppet accounts are against the rules of the forum, so by creating the blasphemilious_VI and the_thinking_of_atheists accounts you were breaking that little service agreement thing you click when you sign up (also you were breaking the law by clicking the "I am over 13" button when you are in fact 12). That service agreement means you're bound by the rules of this forum and can be banned for breaking those rules.

So bye-bye. Again.
You only want to debate other atheists about religion, knock yourself out. I found this forum yesterday. I'm sorry my presence has distressed you. Don't respond to my posts if you don't want to discuss anything with me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 08:42 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2013 08:47 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Question about the "J", "E", "P", "R", "D", and the "changed Old Testament".
(08-03-2013 07:56 PM)mrbuddy4413 Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 07:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong. No scholar says that. Too bad. The "test of time shit" is just that. This Mr. Buddy's level of ignorance is astounding. Moses wrote nothing in the desert, and there are very good reasons why scholars know, (which obviously you are not), that did not happen, including the fact that the end of the Pentateuch talk about HIS own death and burial. Go get an education, buddy-troll.
Are you angry about something or just generally rude as a principle? This is accepted theology by every Biblical scholar I've ever read or known and I've been a Christian my whole life. Any scholars you cite are likely non-believers who are biased. Give me a scholar who believes that Jesus rose from the dead and is alive at the right hand of God who does not believe Moses wrote the beginning of the OT. Joshua or anyone else who was there could have easily wrote about his death.

If you would like to discuss in a civilized manner that is fine, if not, don't bother responding.

Troll is too ignorant even to respond to. It is NOT "accepted theology" . The 132 semonary professors, Baptist Methodist, Catholic and many other theologians, and conservative scholars whom participated the the writing of "the Iterpreter's Bible" all agreed with the Documentary Hypothesis. I realize for those who drank the cool-aid, this may come as a shock. This is a perfect example why Bart Ehrman says "if the public only knew what is being taught in seminaries and University centers of scholarship". I learned the Documentary Hypothesis from a PhD PRIEST, and every one of my Harvard professors agrees it is mostly valid. I repeat, this troll has NO KNOWLEDGE of scripture, has never taken even 1 class in it, and displays an astounding amount of ignorance. Basically has a 3rd Grade Sunday School level of knowledge. I await his banning. (Try reading the books I suggested by real Biblical scholars. The "truth" is not only in the posession of those who are stupid beliebers.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-03-2013, 08:51 PM
RE: Question about the "J", "E", "P", "R", "D", and the "changed Old Testament".
(08-03-2013 08:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 07:56 PM)mrbuddy4413 Wrote:  Are you angry about something or just generally rude as a principle? This is accepted theology by every Biblical scholar I've ever read or known and I've been a Christian my whole life. Any scholars you cite are likely non-believers who are biased. Give me a scholar who believes that Jesus rose from the dead and is alive at the right hand of God who does not believe Moses wrote the beginning of the OT. Joshua or anyone else who was there could have easily wrote about his death.

If you would like to discuss in a civilized manner that is fine, if not, don't bother responding.

Troll is too ignorant even to respond to. It is NOT "accepted theology" . The 132 semonary professors, Baptist Methodist, Catholic and many other theologians, and conservative scholars whom participated the the writing of "the Iterpreter's Bible" all agreed with the Documentary Hypothesis. I realize for those who drank the cool-aid, this may come as a shock. This is a perfect example why Bart Ehrman says "if the public only knew what is being taught in seminaries and University centers of scholarship". I learned the Documentary Hypothesis from a PhD PRIEST, and every one of my Harvard professors agrees it is mostly valid. I repeat, this troll has NO KNOWLEDGE of scripture, has never taken even 1 class in it, and displays an astounding amount of ignorance. Basically has a 3rd Grade Sunday School level of knowledge. I await his banning. (Try reading the books I suggested by real Biblical scholars. The "truth" is not only in the posession of those who are stupid beliebers.
Ignoring your continued ad hominems, do you feel you know more about the Bible than Billy Graham?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 08:54 PM
RE: Question about the "J", "E", "P", "R", "D", and the "changed Old Testament".
(08-03-2013 08:51 PM)mrbuddy4413 Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 08:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Troll is too ignorant even to respond to. It is NOT "accepted theology" . The 132 semonary professors, Baptist Methodist, Catholic and many other theologians, and conservative scholars whom participated the the writing of "the Iterpreter's Bible" all agreed with the Documentary Hypothesis. I realize for those who drank the cool-aid, this may come as a shock. This is a perfect example why Bart Ehrman says "if the public only knew what is being taught in seminaries and University centers of scholarship". I learned the Documentary Hypothesis from a PhD PRIEST, and every one of my Harvard professors agrees it is mostly valid. I repeat, this troll has NO KNOWLEDGE of scripture, has never taken even 1 class in it, and displays an astounding amount of ignorance. Basically has a 3rd Grade Sunday School level of knowledge. I await his banning. (Try reading the books I suggested by real Biblical scholars. The "truth" is not only in the posession of those who are stupid beliebers.
Ignoring your continued ad hominems, do you feel you know more about the Bible than Billy Graham?

As a matter of fact I do. He went to school what, a hundred years ago ? Apparently you did too, if you EVER went to school. Here's your list, you fundie troll. It's a start. Open the cover of the book, and find the other 100+

In 1952, a team was set in place by the world-famous, preeminent scholar, archaeologist and pioneer discoverer of Holy Land historical sites and documents, Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the professor of Semitic languages at the Johns Hopkins University. Their job was to write criticisms and scholarly work concerning all biblical texts. The team was composed of the most respected biblical scholars in the US and Europe, including Dr. John W. Bailey, Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Berkley Baptist Divinity School, Dr Albert E. Barnett, Professor Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Dr. Walter Russell Bowel, Professor, The Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia, Dr. John Bright, Professor, Union Seminary and many others.

The team of 124 clergymen and scholars came mostly from conservative, mainline universities and churches for the most part, the likes of whom will never be seen again in one place, whose names evoke the utmost and deepest respect, even if one completely disagrees with their religious views. They wrote the huge 13 volume set, now considered a valuable rare book, called "The Interpreters Bible". Today it is usually kept under lock and key in seminaries and libraries. This set includes an introduction to scholarship and looks at every single verse and word in the Bible, discusses their origins and possible meanings from various points of view. It has been updated in the 1990's, but the original scholarship is still the central fundamental summary of knowledge, which summarized scholarship from the Medieval period (1850's -1950's) and is therefore considered to be an interesting historical snapshot. It is also an assurance that these absolutely respected leading intellectuals from the 20th Century scholarship, of whom most were religious, have agreed to have each other's names associated with their own and that they felt comfortable with what each other were saying in an academic setting and commanded world-wide respect as conservative, careful, and sincere, life-long teachers, academics and scholars.

On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

"The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."

He then continues by discussing the details of what a "faith document" is and how it differs from what we would consider an historical text today. The next chapter, authored by Dr. Arthur Jeffrey, Professor of Semitic Languages at Columbia, deals with the formation of the Old Testament canon. He wrote what is seen as the fundamental insight in modern Biblical Study and summarized the central academic position of every mainline, respected, and credible center of Biblical scholarship in the world today :

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ment+Texts

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-03-2013, 09:02 PM
RE: Question about the "J", "E", "P", "R", "D", and the "changed Old Testament".
(08-03-2013 08:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 08:51 PM)mrbuddy4413 Wrote:  Ignoring your continued ad hominems, do you feel you know more about the Bible than Billy Graham?

As a matter of fact I do. He went to school what, a hundred years ago ? Apparently you did too, if you EVER went to school. Here's your list, you fundie troll. It's a start. Open the cover of the book, and find the other 100+

In 1952, a team was set in place by the world-famous, preeminent scholar, archaeologist and pioneer discoverer of Holy Land historical sites and documents, Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the professor of Semitic languages at the Johns Hopkins University. Their job was to write criticisms and scholarly work concerning all biblical texts. The team was composed of the most respected biblical scholars in the US and Europe, including Dr. John W. Bailey, Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Berkley Baptist Divinity School, Dr Albert E. Barnett, Professor Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Dr. Walter Russell Bowel, Professor, The Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia, Dr. John Bright, Professor, Union Seminary and many others.

The team of 124 clergymen and scholars came mostly from conservative, mainline universities and churches for the most part, the likes of whom will never be seen again in one place, whose names evoke the utmost and deepest respect, even if one completely disagrees with their religious views. They wrote the huge 13 volume set, now considered a valuable rare book, called "The Interpreters Bible". Today it is usually kept under lock and key in seminaries and libraries. This set includes an introduction to scholarship and looks at every single verse and word in the Bible, discusses their origins and possible meanings from various points of view. It has been updated in the 1990's, but the original scholarship is still the central fundamental summary of knowledge, which summarized scholarship from the Medieval period (1850's -1950's) and is therefore considered to be an interesting historical snapshot. It is also an assurance that these absolutely respected leading intellectuals from the 20th Century scholarship, of whom most were religious, have agreed to have each other's names associated with their own and that they felt comfortable with what each other were saying in an academic setting and commanded world-wide respect as conservative, careful, and sincere, life-long teachers, academics and scholars.

On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

"The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."

He then continues by discussing the details of what a "faith document" is and how it differs from what we would consider an historical text today. The next chapter, authored by Dr. Arthur Jeffrey, Professor of Semitic Languages at Columbia, deals with the formation of the Old Testament canon. He wrote what is seen as the fundamental insight in modern Biblical Study and summarized the central academic position of every mainline, respected, and credible center of Biblical scholarship in the world today :

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ment+Texts
If you want me to read that you better address me with more respect. Try again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 09:06 PM
RE: Question about the "J", "E", "P", "R", "D", and the "changed Old Testament".
(08-03-2013 09:02 PM)mrbuddy4413 Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 08:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  As a matter of fact I do. He went to school what, a hundred years ago ? Apparently you did too, if you EVER went to school. Here's your list, you fundie troll. It's a start. Open the cover of the book, and find the other 100+

In 1952, a team was set in place by the world-famous, preeminent scholar, archaeologist and pioneer discoverer of Holy Land historical sites and documents, Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the professor of Semitic languages at the Johns Hopkins University. Their job was to write criticisms and scholarly work concerning all biblical texts. The team was composed of the most respected biblical scholars in the US and Europe, including Dr. John W. Bailey, Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Berkley Baptist Divinity School, Dr Albert E. Barnett, Professor Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Dr. Walter Russell Bowel, Professor, The Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia, Dr. John Bright, Professor, Union Seminary and many others.

The team of 124 clergymen and scholars came mostly from conservative, mainline universities and churches for the most part, the likes of whom will never be seen again in one place, whose names evoke the utmost and deepest respect, even if one completely disagrees with their religious views. They wrote the huge 13 volume set, now considered a valuable rare book, called "The Interpreters Bible". Today it is usually kept under lock and key in seminaries and libraries. This set includes an introduction to scholarship and looks at every single verse and word in the Bible, discusses their origins and possible meanings from various points of view. It has been updated in the 1990's, but the original scholarship is still the central fundamental summary of knowledge, which summarized scholarship from the Medieval period (1850's -1950's) and is therefore considered to be an interesting historical snapshot. It is also an assurance that these absolutely respected leading intellectuals from the 20th Century scholarship, of whom most were religious, have agreed to have each other's names associated with their own and that they felt comfortable with what each other were saying in an academic setting and commanded world-wide respect as conservative, careful, and sincere, life-long teachers, academics and scholars.

On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

"The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."

He then continues by discussing the details of what a "faith document" is and how it differs from what we would consider an historical text today. The next chapter, authored by Dr. Arthur Jeffrey, Professor of Semitic Languages at Columbia, deals with the formation of the Old Testament canon. He wrote what is seen as the fundamental insight in modern Biblical Study and summarized the central academic position of every mainline, respected, and credible center of Biblical scholarship in the world today :

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ment+Texts
If you want me to read that you better address me with more respect. Try again.

I could care less about such an ignorant troll, or anything they say. If anything you wrote anything addressed me, don't bother. You're on ignore. You know nothing about scripture. Just like most of the memebers of your cult that practice Paulianity, you have no clue about the origins of your cult, OT or NT.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 09:10 PM
RE: Question about the "J", "E", "P", "R", "D", and the "changed Old Testament".
(08-03-2013 09:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 09:02 PM)mrbuddy4413 Wrote:  If you want me to read that you better address me with more respect. Try again.

I could care less about such an ignorant troll, or anything they say. If anything you wrote anything addressed me, don't bother. You're on ignore. You know nothing about scripture. Just like most of the memebers of your cult that practice Paulianity, you have no clue about the origins of your cult, OT or NT.
It's quite apparent you are very angry Bucky. Look deep at your life and see why you are unhappy. There is more to life than nothingness. Your soul is of infinite worth. Take care friend. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 09:19 PM
RE: Question about the "J", "E", "P", "R", "D", and the "changed Old Testament".
(08-03-2013 05:51 PM)mrbuddy4413 Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 05:03 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  It wasn't Abraham who woke up one days and said "Bah, to hell with all those gods, the only god I need is Yahweh so let's forget about the rest."

Abraham is one of the fictional characters in the bible mythology. The real humans who wrote these works of fiction made him up. Those real humans were the fathers of their creations, not the fictional characters they created. What you said is tantamount to me saying that Bilbo Baggins is the father of fantasy fiction when what I really meant to say is that J. R. R. Tolkein is the father of fantasy fiction. The only real difference is that Tolkein lived much more recently and we know who he is while the writers of your fictional book lived so long ago that we don't know exactly who they are.
Yes it was, pretty much.

If the Bible was fabricated, it would not have lasted the test of time. That is pure rubbish and speculation. We know who the apostles were and we know they knew Jesus Christ and saw him after his resurrection. They witnessed his miracles firsthand. He believed and quoted the OT. He spoke of Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon.
RE

"If the Bible was fabricated, it would not have lasted the test of time."

Oh no! back to kindergarten logic!

Is there some way we can have a simple IQ test that people need to pass before they post here? There would be a lot less "clutter."

"We know who the apostles were and we know they knew Jesus Christ and saw
him after his resurrection. They witnessed his miracles firsthand."

Somebody else nail this please. I'm gonna have some lunch.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 09:25 PM
RE: Question about the "J", "E", "P", "R", "D", and the "changed Old Testament".
(08-03-2013 09:19 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 05:51 PM)mrbuddy4413 Wrote:  Yes it was, pretty much.

If the Bible was fabricated, it would not have lasted the test of time. That is pure rubbish and speculation. We know who the apostles were and we know they knew Jesus Christ and saw him after his resurrection. They witnessed his miracles firsthand. He believed and quoted the OT. He spoke of Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon.
RE

"If the Bible was fabricated, it would not have lasted the test of time."

Oh no! back to kindergarten logic!

Is there some way we can have a simple IQ test that people need to pass before they post here? There would be a lot less "clutter."

"We know who the apostles were and we know they knew Jesus Christ and saw
him after his resurrection. They witnessed his miracles firsthand."

Somebody else nail this please. I'm gonna have some lunch.
Come on, you are better than this, right? You guys seem to want to insult Christians more than debate them. Is it like this in real life for you with people in everything you disagree with? What is it about Christianity that makes you so ill?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 09:31 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2013 09:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Question about the "J", "E", "P", "R", "D", and the "changed Old Testament".
(08-03-2013 09:19 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 05:51 PM)mrbuddy4413 Wrote:  Yes it was, pretty much.

If the Bible was fabricated, it would not have lasted the test of time. That is pure rubbish and speculation. We know who the apostles were and we know they knew Jesus Christ and saw him after his resurrection. They witnessed his miracles firsthand. He believed and quoted the OT. He spoke of Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon.
RE

"If the Bible was fabricated, it would not have lasted the test of time."

Oh no! back to kindergarten logic!

Is there some way we can have a simple IQ test that people need to pass before they post here? There would be a lot less "clutter."

"We know who the apostles were and we know they knew Jesus Christ and saw
him after his resurrection. They witnessed his miracles firsthand."

Somebody else nail this please. I'm gonna have some lunch.

The gospels say that many times they "saw" something, but didn't know what it was. They walked with him on the road to Emmaus, and didn't know him. Thomas didn't know him. At the end of Matthew just before the Ascension, it says they didn't know what they were seeing. "They saw, but they doubted". In short, IF they saw anything, they didn't recognize it. Which be in perfect harmony with the idea of a Hebrew "shade". The Hebrews, and even Paul did not believe in immortality. Paul believed in immortality only for the "saved" (as any scholar knows).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: