Re: another heresy?

Vernon,

Apparently Mackay equates believing his own (Mackay's) interpretation with
listening to Moses. Unfortunately it is all too common for believers to
condemn other believers devoted to the Scriptures as heretics for not
agreeing with their interpretation of some passage.

In the New Testament the OT is often referred to as Moses and the
Prophets. It is now fairly customary to speak of the Law, the Prophets,
and the Writings. I concur that Moses is in some sense responsible for the
Pentateuch. Jesus refers to Moses in some of His quotes from the Law, even
a quote from a narrative passage (Exodus 3:6 quoted in Luke 20:37). He
doesn't mention Moses in quoting from Genesis, but He may have included
Genesis in His discussion mentioned in Luke 24:27.

However there is still some obvious editing. This no more detracts from
viewing the Pentateuch as inspired than do the editors' insertions in
Psalms and Proverbs. No truly humble person would proclaim himself to be
the humblest person on earth (Numbers 12:3). The many references to
something being there to this day would have been written after the
Israeli occupation of Canaan. Surely someone else wrote the account of
Moses's death, and the statement of Deuteronomy 34:10 had to have been
written considerably later in order to have any impact. Genesis 36:31
would have been written after the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Vernon Jenkins wrote:

> Bob,
>
> Your recent reply to Chris, published in this - a Christian forum - is IMO
> a matter of great concern, and warrants clarification.
>
> (1) Apparently you doubt the Lord's veracity and sincerity in respect of the
> parable recorded in Luke 16:19-31. Did you really mean to say that? If so,
> wouldn't that imply that we are under no obligation to believe anything he
> ever said, or did?!
>
> (2) "Jesus' statement has nothing to do with historical facts about
> authorship." But you must agree that that is how the message comes across
> to the unbiased reader! Why are you so sure that Mackay is wrong?
>
> (3) "This is latching on to a tree and missing the forest." I find this
> statement completely incomprehensible. Can you please elucidate?
>
> (4) "One of the frustrating things about people like that is that they just
> don't get it." As a person 'like that' what, precisely, don't I get?
>
> Vernon Jenkins
> www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "ASA list"
> <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:30 PM
> Subject: Re: another heresy?
>
>
> > Chris, I would say to Mackay, "What else would any believer expect Jesus
> > to say to his fellow Jews?" Jesus' statement has nothing to do with
> > historical facts about authorship. This is latching on to a tree and
> > missing the forest. One of the frustrating things about people like that
> > is that they just don't get it.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>
> > To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
> > Cc: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "ASA list"
> > <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: another heresy?
> >
> >
> > I concur that we don't need Moses to have been the author. But it's
> > clear that for the creationists Mosaic authorship is, if not a
> > necessary argument, at least a useful hammer. I saw John Mackay of
> > Creation Research talk a few weeks ago, and he made a big deal out of
> > Moses writing Genesis so he could cite Luke 16: "If you won't believe
> > Moses, you won't believe even if someone comes back from the dead"
> > etc.
> >
> >
> > On 12/7/05, Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> Michael writes:
> >>
> >> "That view I have long held but cant see why it matters when the
> >> Pentateuch was written and it may well have been modified many times
> >> before
> >> the final form."
> >>
> >> I agree. Historical questions of authorship, composition, etc., are
> >> interesting, and may provide hermeneutical aids, but in the final
> >> analysis
> >> it is the text as we have it that matters. What are its stories and what
> >> do
> >> they mean theologically and spiritually?
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> >> To: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>; "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 5:50 PM
> >> Subject: Re: another heresy?
> >>
> >>
> >> > Theological students in the 50s had four coloured pencils and coloured
> >> > the
> >> > Pentateuch according to whether it was JEP orD! When I did theology in
> >> > the
> >> > 70s my non-conservative OT teacher said JEPD didn't work and combined J
> >> > and E.
> >> >
> >> > There is much question about this now , but still it is taught .
> >> >
> >> > The likes of Gordon Wenham dispense with it and reckon the Pentateuch
> >> > was
> >> > collated in about 1000BC thus dispensing with both JEPD and Mosaic
> >> > authorship. That view I have long held but cant see why it matters when
> >> > the Pentateuch was written and it may well have been modified many
> >> > times
> >> > before the final form.
> >> >
> >> > Mathematicians will be interested to know that Euclid's geometry only
> >> > partially derives form Euclid and was collated over centuries. Does
> >> > that
> >> > disprove geometry?
> >> >
> >> > Michael
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>
> >> > To: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 11:51 AM
> >> > Subject: JEDP: another heresy?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Hello all,
> >> >>
> >> >> I've been wondering lately what the status of the JEDP documentary
> >> >> hypothesis should be in light of its "evolutionary" character. It is
> >> >> cited approvingly in plenty of Bible commentaries and is lambasted by
> >> >> Answers in Genesis (see
> >> >> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/moses.asp) so my
> >> >> assumption is to treat it with some plausibility. But I don't really
> >> >> know much about it, so I thought I would ask experts on the list if it
> >> >> is a firm explanation of "textual origins" or something weaker.
> >> >>
> >> >> Chris
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Fri Dec 9 12:35:58 2005