The origin of Life

[OmniSkeptical]

Is it even possible for the bible to be geocentric since there is no word for planet, such as "universe", in it? Earth is the translation in KJV when the soil flat, land is the translation when the soil isn't flat. We could have named the planet Rock instead of earth and still have the same misunderstandings about what was really written.

[seer]

That puts us back into God having to connect regularly occurring members of the universe. Life is chemistry. There should be no gap between chemistry in non-living chemicals and chemistry in living organisms.

Not to interact, but to connect regularly occurring members of the universe. Species are regularly occurring. So God should not have to "connect" them by making each species individually over time. Just like God doesn't have to individually make mountains. When Apollo drew the chariot with the sun across the sky each day, Apollo was a creature of the universe.

Sorry lucaspa, this seems like a distinction without a difference. When God interacts with His creation, whether it is to part the Red Sea or create biological life - neither act would make him a "creature" of the universe. And the bible is clear, in a number of texts, where God directly controlled weather events. Why wouldn't that too make him a "creature" of the universe? Just like Apollo?

But this isn't just "a point in our physical history". What you are suggesting would be our physical history, but just a small part of the history of life. First there were no humans, then POOF, there were adult humans. If God wants to demonstrate His existence, then He could do that with each generation. None of this sex and then birth and then parenting: POOF. Brand new people as adults.

But, in fact, what God has left us in His Creation is a trail of transitional individuals linking us -- H. sapiens -- back to H. erectus, then more individuals between H. erectus and H. habilis, and then still more individuals between H. habilis and A. afarensis. So God has already shown us that we evolved and He didn't "poof" us into existence.

But your comment does say something about motivation: it's about "proof" of the existence of God. But really, do you need that type of proof? Remember, Jesus lives. So does God. What we have are our own individual personal relationship with God. Does God really need any "little hints" beyond that? Why would you require anything else?

I'm not saying that is why God interacted or would interact - they are just suggestions. God may have other reasons we know nothing of. But to assume categorically that He wouldn't act or didn't act at particular stages is just as much a leap.

[Cerebrum123]

Anyway, Genesis 1 is written toward the end or just after the Babylonian Exile.

So you deny that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible? Wow, you are in DIRECT disagreement with Jesus on that one, and here is what Jesus said about believing what Moses wrote.

John 5:45-47
New International Version (NIV)
45 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

Luke 24:44
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Jesus believed that Moses wrote the Torah, and even talked to Moses at the Mount of Transfiguration. You do know that those theories that say that Genesis was written later, even deny the historicity of Moses, right? Perhaps you should take a step back from the "secular" world, and do some real study of both the Bible, and Christian history, and apologetics as well.

ETA: I have no respect for a Christian who would trust the JEDP hypothesis, over Jesus btw, and you have shown that you trust modern "scholars" over what God has revealed, both through His Son, and through His written word.

[Ansgar Seraph]

ETA: I have no respect for a Christian who would trust the JEDP hypothesis, over Jesus btw, and you have shown that you trust modern "scholars" over what God has revealed, both through His Son, and through His written word.

What an odd criteria for respect.

Moses certainly didn't write the Torah; at least not the Hebrew Torah. Even during the reign of David, Hebrew language was still in a very primitive form. So one could justifiably ask how one would go about defending a Mosaic authorship — where you have set up a false dichotomy is equating "the Law of Moses" with "the Torah." Moses could have provided the fundamental laws (i.e., the Ten Commandments) long before the Torah was written and there would still be room for Christ to be prefigured by other prophets and psalmists.

So your gauge in respect for other Christians seems to rest, once again, on an unnecessary and unjustified interpretation of the text.

—Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

Hehe ... yeah, they've "helped" you "distinguish" all right ...
Let me guess - they have invariably steered you towards the Evo-Faith.

Those evil evolutionists are plotting on taking over the world and the first step in their plan is to make you believe that evolution actually happened. Gosh, thank you Jorge for stumbling upon it and letting us all know. In all seriousness though, I remember reading YEC articles years ago and finding out in my classes that the YEC articles were misleading or outright omitted things that didn't make their case look good. Is that very honest to do?

They "helped" you by indoctrinating you into one view and you,
alas, are not bright enough to figure that out.

Awe, that's right because Jorge knows more than those evil scientist that are currently plotting on taking over the world. Again, I compared YEC sources with non-YEC sources and found they were misleading about things like the fossil record, radioactive dating, geology, etc. Perhaps again, you are making YEC the center piece of your faith and going bonkers when things don't line up with your YEC beliefs?

Or is it perhaps that they are steering you in the direction that you wish
to be steered into?

Insane conspiracy theory noted and dismissed as such. Like I said, I looked at what both views had to say and found YEC's to be quite ignorant and/or dishonest with the case they presented.

I remember listening to Michael Behe say how
he was so very angry at having gone through his entire PhD and
post-graduate program without ever ONCE hearing anything
against evolution.

Then perhaps you can present something right here and right now that proves, once in for all, that evolution is false or at least should give us some doubts. Come on, put up or shut up.

It was only later - through an honest
examination of the evidence - that he realized that he'd
been fed a sack of horse manure. You and many others like
you are still grazing-away at that sack ... oops!

Sorry Jorge, I did that and found that it was YEC that was full of horse manure. I've also read Behe's work and in many cases, he also overstates things and others do not often see what the other side has to say (yes Jorge, there are plenty of responses by evolutionist to what Behe has to say). However; if you think you got something, present it here or will it end up being like your other threads in which you throw out insult after insult instead of putting up your evidence?

You shouldn't be too amused because, while you
may not be there yet, you're well on your way!

Another conspiracy theory eh? That's right, even though I have only become stronger in my faith, I am really in the path to being an atheist! How does it feel being one of the few 'faithful' that is left? Does it get lonely being all holy and mighty?

Do you seriously think that a genuinely-believing Christian
just wakes up one day and says, "Okay, I've had enough of
Christ, starting today I'll be an Atheist." Nope, the way it
happens is by first believing a "few" things that oppose
what God has revealed. Then a few more ... then a few
more ... a little more ... until one day ...

Then surely, you can show everybody why YEC should be the center piece of our faith and why we should believe in the almighty YEC and the YEC belief system over let’s say... the words of Christ? Funny, I always thought the faith centered on Christ, not upon YEC.

That's how it happened to even some of the greatest evangelicals
in history - Charles Templeton being one of my favorite
examples. All it took was for Templeton to attend graduate
school where Evolution was the order of the day. He ended
his life as a full-blown Atheist with the book "Farewell to God".

And there were many others that didn't and reading his book and interviews it was an emotional issue (the POE being one of them) that lead to his deconversion, not evolutionary theory. Not all of us blame evolutionary theory for all of the world's problems.

Think it can't happen to you? Don't kid yourself, sister!

Since I didn't have an emotional crisis of faith, like your example, I wouldn't. Then again, I do not blame evolutionary theory on people's deconversions either.

I will not deny that, unfortunately, mistakes have been and are being made.
But the people that you allude to make the GIANT mistake of throwing the
baby out with the bathwater - so they abandon Biblical Creationism and
become Theistic Evolutionists or worse.

That's right because creationism is the centerpiece of the faith and the entire faith hinges on it. Yep, worshiping YEC instead of Christ, eh?

WRONG on both counts and I've corrected you on this so you can't claim
ignorance - you can only claim stupidity or purposeful wickedness in
your misrepresentations of my position. The problem with people like
you -- and there are tons of people like you -- is that you believe that
it is possible to compartmentalize one aspect of Christianity from others.

And from what I've gathered, anybody that dares to disagree with Jorge in any way is 'compromising Christians' in some way. Yet, not a single example you've been able to show how being a TE = compromising Christians. You can't show it, all you can do is assert it, without evidence. Now again, put up your shut up, show how TE leads to a compromised faith because of anything, I find those that make YEC the center of their faith are the one compromising the faith.

Terror, stick to your day job coz you absolutely stink at philosophy,
theology, logic, and Christian apologetics.

Funny, I've had people who are apologist and who have theology degrees say that my philosophy, theology, logic, and Christian apologetics is rather good, but what do they know... they only are degreed in this stuff and/or are experts in this stuff. Anyway, my positions are the same ones that are used by people like Aquinas, Augustine, or WLC, but again what do they know about these topics?

Read my lips : 'Evolution' - both as a 'scientific' theory and as a metaphysic -
is without any doubt the most dangerous intellectual enemy of Christ and
Christianity that has ever existed in the history of the world.

Yep, I love the chicken little approach, sure SOME people do take their belief in evolutionary theory to a level that makes it into some sort of demigod, but what people do and what it actually does is two different things. Sorry chicken little, the sky isn't falling, despite your squawking that it is. Now again, put up or shut up and show, with evidence, that one has to be an atheist to believe evolutionary theory is true.

I do not expect to to understand that and much less to accept it but there it is.

I do, you are a chicken little that has put YEC before Christ and made it the center of your faith. I could care less if the earth is 6,000 years old or 4 billion years old. God doesn't need a young earth in order to be a great God. Your God seems to need a young earth, which tells me how much you have limited God and how little you really understand about anything you speak of.

[Cerebrum123]

What an odd criteria for respect.

Moses certainly didn't write the Torah; at least not the Hebrew Torah. Even during the reign of David, Hebrew language was still in a very primitive form. So one could justifiably ask how one would go about defending a Mosaic authorship — where you have set up a false dichotomy is equating "the Law of Moses" with "the Torah." Moses could have provided the fundamental laws (i.e., the Ten Commandments) long before the Torah was written and there would still be room for Christ to be prefigured by other prophets and psalmists.

So your gauge in respect for other Christians seems to rest, once again, on an unnecessary and unjustified interpretation of the text.

—Sam

And you are trying to make this about the Torah being written in Hebrew by Moses, which I did NOT claim, only that he wrote the Torah, and there is ample evidence of this. Internal attestation, the fact that "the Law of Moses" is KNOWN to be the Torah(regardless of what language it was originally written in), and the fact that Jesus attributed the Torah to Moses. In fact, I have a good link that discusses some evidence for Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. http://christianthinktank.com/qmoses1.html
Then you have lots of OTHER prophets confirming Mosaic authorship.
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/truthlegal.html

Mosaic authorship is actually something important when dealing with Biblical authority, but it doesn't surprise me that you are fighting on this one.

[Ansgar Seraph]

And you are trying to make this about the Torah being written in Hebrew by Moses, which I did NOT claim, only that he wrote the Torah, and there is ample evidence of this. Internal attestation, the fact that "the Law of Moses" is KNOWN to be the Torah(regardless of what language it was originally written in), and the fact that Jesus attributed the Torah to Moses. In fact, I have a good link that discusses some evidence for Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. http://christianthinktank.com/qmoses1.html
Then you have lots of OTHER prophets confirming Mosaic authorship.
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/truthlegal.html

I'm not at all adverse to Mosaic authorship of all or parts of what would eventually become the Torah. However, it remains the plain fact that the Torah, as a Hebrew compilation of books, could not have been written by Moses. It would be many hundreds of years before what is even known as ancient Hebrew became formalized. And if people who are fluent in ancient Hebrew have difficulty translating the proto-Hebrew language of the 11th Century BCE, Moses' writings would be even more primitive and quite possibly more prone to mistranslation or interpolation.

Thus, it's entirely appropriate to look around and try to factor in facts and theories around these books, trying to sort out their influences. I am partial to a Mosaic authorship, myself, though it seems that many of the books contain interpolations from later authors. But it's a strange thing to base your respect for others on little more than your own interpretation of a text.

Mosaic authorship is actually something important when dealing with Biblical authority, but it doesn't surprise me that you are fighting on this one.

I'm not fighting anything other than your profession of disrespect for people not sharing a viewpoint which, while it has various evidences, is far from certain. I think it shows a tendency to bifurcate complicated subjects that contain more than one plausible theory.

--Sam

ETA: And perhaps it is necessary to point out that the JDEP theory, by itself, does not necessarily exclude Mosaic authorship of what would have been used to compile and form the Torah. At its core, the JDEP theory only deals with the apparent original writing or editorial revisions of the Hebrew text.

[Cerebrum123]

I'm not at all adverse to Mosaic authorship of all or parts of what would eventually become the Torah. However, it remains the plain fact that the Torah, as a Hebrew compilation of books, could not have been written by Moses. It would be many hundreds of years before what is even known as ancient Hebrew became formalized. And if people who are fluent in ancient Hebrew have difficulty translating the proto-Hebrew language of the 11th Century BCE, Moses' writings would be even more primitive and quite possibly more prone to mistranslation or interpolation.

Thus, it's entirely appropriate to look around and try to factor in facts and theories around these books, trying to sort out their influences. I am partial to a Mosaic authorship, myself, though it seems that many of the books contain interpolations from later authors. But it's a strange thing to base your respect for others on little more than your own interpretation of a text.




I'm not fighting anything other than your profession of disrespect for people not sharing a viewpoint which, while it has various evidences, is far from certain. I think it shows a tendency to bifurcate complicated subjects that contain more than one plausible theory.

--Sam

ETA: And perhaps it is necessary to point out that the JDEP theory, by itself, does not necessarily exclude Mosaic authorship of what would have been used to compile and form the Torah. At its core, the JDEP theory only deals with the apparent original writing or editorial revisions of the Hebrew text.

Interpolation, and borrowing as lucaspa suggested are two VERY different things, and the text does not support "borrowing". Also, like I said, this is an issue of authority, and the JEDP hypothesis is mostly done to show that the Pentateuch was NOT authored by Moses, and that the it is just a compilation of many works over many hundreds of years, despite internal attestation, and the fact that Jesus Himself attested to this fact, and then you have many other prophets, and Biblical authors who attest to this fact as well. The JEDP has been used in my experience simply to try and destroy Biblical authority, by those who do not want to trust it. Also, the hypothesis is self contradictory much of the time, and has changed quite dramatically over the years AFAIK, and often proponents of it, outright ignore the evidence against it. Also, since the JEDP hypothesis has basically excluded Mosaic authorship for MOST(the whole of Deuteronomy, as well as many parts of each of the other 4 books) of the Pentateuch, it certainly is against Mosaic authorship.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Interpolation, and borrowing as lucaspa suggested are two VERY different things, and the text does not support "borrowing".

lucaspa specifically mentioned interpolation in his post. Now, you might have a legitimate bone to pick in that he wrote that Genesis 1, specifically, was written entirely by a later author -- but you're talking about Mosaic authorship of the Torah, something that lucaspa has only suggested contains interpolations. But he's entirely capable of addressing this point himself and I won't presume to write for him.

Also, like I said, this is an issue of authority, and the JEDP hypothesis is mostly done to show that the Pentateuch was NOT authored by Moses, and that the it is just a compilation of many works over many hundreds of years, despite internal attestation, and the fact that Jesus Himself attested to this fact, and then you have many other prophets, and Biblical authors who attest to this fact as well.

No, that's not the motivation behind the JDEP theory. You have this habit of attributing rather sinister motives to others who don't share your interpretation of a given text! The JDEP theory was created primarily to explain the apparent disconnect or contradiction between elements of the texts. It's primarily used as an explanatory tool, not as a weapon.

The JEDP has been used in my experience simply to try and destroy Biblical authority, by those who do not want to trust it. Also, the hypothesis is self contradictory much of the time, and has changed quite dramatically over the years AFAIK, and often proponents of it, outright ignore the evidence against it. Also, since the JEDP hypothesis has basically excluded Mosaic authorship for MOST(the whole of Deuteronomy, as well as many parts of each of the other 4 books) of the Pentateuch, it certainly is against Mosaic authorship.

If your interpretation of "Mosaic authorship" is that Moses wrote all of the Torah and that there are no interpolations or revisions from his writing in the 13th century BCE to the 10th century BCE, then you are correct, the JEDP theory is "against" Mosaic authorship. Of course, so are most theories that propose Mosaic authorship! Again, you create a bifurcation -- either a theory is "for" Mosaic authorship or a theory is "against" Mosaic authorship -- when, in reality, most of the hypotheses of both theories would fall somewhere closer to the middle of the spectrum.

I obviously can't speak to your personal experience with proponents of the JEDP theory but, from my experience, JEDP has been proposed by people who hold to biblical authority and those that do not in fairly equal measure. It's just an explanatory hypothesis and can therefore be bent, if desired, to anyone's personal bias.

--Sam

[rogue06]

I remember listening to Michael Behe say how
he was so very angry at having gone through his entire PhD and
post-graduate program without ever ONCE hearing anything
against evolution. It was only later - through an honest
examination of the evidence - that he realized that he'd
been fed a sack of horse manure.

Funny how more and more often he now acknowledges things like common descent including that humans descended from other primates. And he recognizes that the Earth and surrounding universe are billions, not thousands, of years old

[DuraGizer]

JEDP hypothesis is mostly done to show that the Pentateuch was NOT authored by Moses, and that the it is just a compilation of many works over many hundreds of years, despite internal attestation, and the fact that Jesus Himself attested to this fact, and then you have many other prophets, and Biblical authors who attest to this fact as well.

As, the good ol' "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" schtick. Circular reasoning at its finest.

The JEDP has been used in my experience simply to try and destroy Biblical authority, by those who do not want to trust it.

Like Julius Wellhausen, the Lutheran theologian who actually formulated the theory?

[Carrikature]

Cerebrum, when was the last time you actually read Deuteronomy?

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/1-1.htm

New International Version (©1984)
These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel in the desert east of the Jordan--that is, in the Arabah--opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth and Dizahab.

New Living Translation (©2007)
These are the words that Moses spoke to all the people of Israel while they were in the wilderness east of the Jordan River. They were camped in the Jordan Valley near Suph, between Paran on one side and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Di-zahab on the other.

English Standard Version (©2001)
These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Dizahab.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel across the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel and Laban and Hazeroth and Dizahab.

© source where applicable

Unless Moses has a habit of writing about himself in the 3rd person, it's pretty obvious he didn't write this passage. This style of writing continues all the way through the book of Deuteronomy. Much of the book is a oration/summary of what happened before.

All the way to Chapter 34.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+34&version=ESV

Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho. And the Lord showed him all the land, Gilead as far as Dan, 2 all Naphtali, the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the western sea, 3 the Negeb, and the Plain, that is, the Valley of Jericho the city of palm trees, as far as Zoar. 4 And the Lord said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, ‘I will give it to your offspring.’ I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.”

© source where applicable

So, please, less accusations of us needing to study the Bible. The JDEP theory is where studying the Bible leads.

[Cerebrum123]

Cerebrum, when was the last time you actually read Deuteronomy?

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/1-1.htm

New International Version (©1984)
These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel in the desert east of the Jordan--that is, in the Arabah--opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth and Dizahab.

New Living Translation (©2007)
These are the words that Moses spoke to all the people of Israel while they were in the wilderness east of the Jordan River. They were camped in the Jordan Valley near Suph, between Paran on one side and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Di-zahab on the other.

English Standard Version (©2001)
These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Dizahab.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel across the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel and Laban and Hazeroth and Dizahab.

© source where applicable

Unless Moses has a habit of writing about himself in the 3rd person, it's pretty obvious he didn't write this passage. This style of writing continues all the way through the book of Deuteronomy. Much of the book is a oration/summary of what happened before.

All the way to Chapter 34.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+34&version=ESV

Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho. And the Lord showed him all the land, Gilead as far as Dan, 2 all Naphtali, the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the western sea, 3 the Negeb, and the Plain, that is, the Valley of Jericho the city of palm trees, as far as Zoar. 4 And the Lord said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, ‘I will give it to your offspring.’ I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.”

© source where applicable

So, please, less accusations of us needing to study the Bible. The JDEP theory is where studying the Bible leads.

This issue has already been answered. Basically the switch between the first and third person criteria is known to be in extra-biblical documents that were of the same treaty format as Deuteronomy. Also, this theory pretty much explicitly states the Moses did not even write Deuteronomy, and the evidence is against that. Supporting points for Mosaic authorship are 1 The musical chiasmus featured withing (hey AS, you wanted to know about another historical account that used chiasmus or parallelism, and Deuteronomy uses chiasmus quite a bit), 2 the Treaty Form factor(essentially that it was written like a treaty of the time would have been written). Here is a link that describes these things in more detail.

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/deut.html

As, the good ol' "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" schtick. Circular reasoning at its finest.

Well, since the Bible has been proven trustworthy, and Jesus Himself trusted it to the fullest, I really don't care.

Like Julius Wellhausen, the Lutheran theologian who actually formulated the theory?

I will take a look at this guy, but being a Christian doesn't mean someone isn't going to try and take what they want from the Bible, and ignore the rest. See bishop John Shelby Spong for an excellent example of this. He even denies the Resurrection, and the Virgin Birth.

[Carrikature]

This issue has already been answered. Basically the switch between the first and third person criteria is known to be in extra-biblical documents that were of the same treaty format as Deuteronomy. Also, this theory pretty much explicitly states the Moses did not even write Deuteronomy, and the evidence is against that. Supporting points for Mosaic authorship are 1 The musical chiasmus featured withing (hey AS, you wanted to know about another historical account that used chiasmus or parallelism, and Deuteronomy uses chiasmus quite a bit), 2 the Treaty Form factor(essentially that it was written like a treaty of the time would have been written). Here is a link that describes these things in more detail.

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/deut.html.

Nothing in there deals with my comments.

Interestingly, I just finished a series of course lectures on the Hebrew Bible (OT). Most of JPH's complaints aren't even brought up in this course, yet a late authorship is still maintained for other reasons. The treaty issue that JPH bring up is actually espoused in this course, so there goes that theory. The passages which are clearly anachronistic, JPH doesn't even address (which, incidentally, are the ones I pointed out).

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/deut.html

Then Moses set aside three cities east of the Jordan, to which anyone who had killed a person could flee if he had unintentionally killed his neighbor without malice aforethought. He could flee into one of these cities and save his life. The cities were these: Bezer in the desert plateau, for the Reubenites; Ramoth in Gilead, for the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, for the Manassites.
These verses are sometimes put down as a late addition because they seem to be out of context. Christensen [Chr.Dt111, 69], however, shows that they fit into a chiastic structure:

© source where applicable

Here he doesn't even bother to address the more obvious complaint. Fine, so they fit into a chiastic structure. They also describe territory allocations that don't take place for quite some time. Still not written by Moses.

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/deut.html

(Note that assigning authorship to Moses is usually not distinguished from authority of authorship: We may suppose that the actual work of writing Deuteronomy was given to a scribe.)

...

But even if not, what of it? Once again we may distinguish between Moses as "author" and "authority" -- and there is no problem with supposing that the scribe who penned Deuteronomy did so after crossing the river. The difference is that the critics want a period of hundreds of years, whereas we can deal with a period of only days or weeks.

© source where applicable

We have no reason to suppose this work was written by a scribe shortly after (or during) Moses' life. JPH doesn't even support this claim, just says that we may. And no, we cannot deal with it in a period of weeks. Again, these territory allocations didn't take place until later.


Thanks for the JPH link, though. I was reminded of why I quit reading him in the first place.

[Carrikature]

I will take a look at this guy, but being a Christian doesn't mean someone isn't going to try and take what they want from the Bible, and ignore the rest. See bishop John Shelby Spong for an excellent example of this. He even denies the Resurrection, and the Virgin Birth.

*surreptitiously hides an empty vial of poison in his pocket*