«Home

How Did God Harden Pharaoh's Heart?

deleted

Avatar
Newbie
94 answers

Does anyone have a clear demostration or example and explanation backed with scripture verses on "How did God harden Pharaoh's heart"?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Just like has been explained, I think by osisi in another thread, it has something to do with the language. When you move near to someone, or love someone, you'll understand that person even more. Some actions that others may not like or criticise can be easily understood and tolerable to you, because you know him or love him.

Its mostly the same deal with God. If you know Him and love Him, you'll understand Him more and can even interprete His action to others. Thats why we usually tell unbelievers to come to love God first if they want to know and understand Him. What they tell us in return is "whats all this drivel?"

The Bible usually attributes all things to be done by God, in the sense of permitted by God. Nothing catches God by suprise. Of course when you look through the scriptures, the same scriptures explain to us that God is just, and pharaoh himself made the decision to harden himself and not let Israel go.(Exodus 8v32)

At the end, it boils down to the language. Like in my area, someone could say 'I'm coming', while the person is actually going. Because we understand, we don't make a fuss about it.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Just like has been explained, I think by osisi in another thread, it has something to do with the language. When you move near to someone, or love someone, you'll understand that person even more. Some actions that others may not like or criticise can be easily understood and tolerable to you, because you know him or love him.

Its mostly the same deal with God. If you know Him and love Him, you'll understand Him more and can even interprete His action to others. Thats why we usually tell unbelievers to come to love God first if they want to know and understand Him. What they tell us in return is "whats all this drivel?"

The Bible usually attributes all things to be done by God, in the sense of permitted by God. Nothing catches God by suprise. Of course when you look through the scriptures, the same scriptures explain to us that God is just, and pharaoh himself made the decision to harden himself and not let Israel go.(Exodus 8v32)

At the end, it boils down to the language. Like in my area, someone could say 'I'm coming', while the person is actually going. Because we understand, we don't make a fuss about it.

0
Avatar
Newbie

davidylan is this one of your moslems are enslaving people in mauritania moment ?

0
Avatar
Newbie

As regards your issue of "doublets" in the bible . . . it is typical of the dishonesty of proponents of the documentary hypothesis.

while it blathers on about "doublets" in the bible . . . it completely ignores clear cases of doublets appearing in other Near Eastern literature that appeared about the same time as Genesis was written. e.g.

a) Urartu: In many royal inscriptions there is an initial

paragraph attributing the defeat of certain lands to the god

Haldi--then the same victories are repeated in detail as achieved by

the king. (from Kitchen, AO & OT p. 117) in:Handbuch der chaldischen

Inschriften pp. 61-63;86-100;119-32--these are weak parallels--just

attributes to god.

b) Egypt: Gebel Barkal Stela: (Kitchen op.cit.p.117) (ZAS

pp.24-39--back of notes)

Lines 3-9-- General terms on royal supremacy.

Lines 9-27-- Specific triumphs in Syria-Palestine.

Lines 27ff-- Tribute.

c) Egypt: Karnak Poetical Stela: (Kitchen op.cit.p.117.

Erman pp.254-58--back of notes)

Amon-Ra addresses Tuthmose III

Lines 1-12-- General, "I have given you power over all".

Lines 13-22-- Fills in details, specific lands.

Lines 23-25-- General statement (restatement) of power.

The key being that rather than doublets being a problem of multiple authors or sources (the doublet "problem" of Noah's flood is actually about SOURCE and not AUTHOR - but of course i dont expect you to know that at all, just copy and paste), it is an issue of literary style.

0
Avatar
Newbie

You can only make this claim if you believe that the ENTIRE BIBLE is not credible.

You just threw your own point of view out of the window. How can u use the JEDP argument that you also admitted is full of holes to validate the JEDP argument?

What i did was NOT to use the bible to validate the bible but to indicate the vast number of bible writers and outside historians (i notice you blatantly ignore those) who also validate it.

The most important aspect of science is corroborative evidence . . . a key ingredient that is missing in your continous rehash of a hypothesis that even you believe is not valid.

0
Avatar
Newbie

But na wa oh brother david, how can you be using the bible to validate the bible na, since when? This is worse that the documentary hypothesis, wait you believe those, I will only answer your philo claim but how did he come up with it tell us, so we can examine it vigorously as we did the JPED hypothesis that is not so hard now is it?

Its funny how you are holding on to following scientific process when you know fully well that if we apply it to the bible, well lets leave what will happen.What you have as evidence is just what people feel, give us real evidence david please.

As for the doublet you asked for

[table][tr][td]J[/td][td]P[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]The LORD plans the flood

The LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, "I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created -- people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the sight of the LORD. [Gen 6:5-8 NRSV][/td]

[td]God plans the flood

Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth. Make yourself an ark ,  [Gen 6:11-16 NRSV][/td]

[/tr]

[tr][td]Noah's special status

Then the LORD said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation. [7:1] [/td][td]Noah's special status

"For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you." [6:17-18] [/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Animals by pairs and seven pairs

"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth. For in seven days I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground." And Noah did all that the LORD had commanded him. [7:2-5] [/td][td]Animals by pairs

"And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive. Also take with you every kind of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them." Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him. [6:19-22] [/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Beginning of flood

And after seven days the waters of the flood came on the earth. [6:10][/td][td]Beginning of flood

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. [Gen 6:11][/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Duration of flood

The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. [6:12][/td][td]Duration of flood

And the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred fifty days. [7:24][/td][/tr]

[tr][td]End of flood

At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made and sent out the raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. Then he sent out the dove ,  He waited another seven days, and again he sent out the dove,  Then he waited another seven days, and sent out the dove; and it did not return to him any more. [8:6-12][/td][td]End of flood

In the six hundred first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from the erath; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and saw that the face of the ground was drying. In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. Then God said to Noah, "Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons' wives with you, [8:13-16][/td][/tr]

[tr][td]The LORD's promise never to curse the earth

Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease." [8:20-22][/td][td]God's promise: the covenant of the rainbow

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, "As for me, I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you,  I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth." God said, "This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you, for all future generations; I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth,  [9:8-17][/td][/tr]

[/table]

0
Avatar
Newbie

Bro david I will be with you shortly some other thread needs my attention will be back shortly

0
Avatar
Newbie

You go wait tire he has already said he will not provide any. . .  reason is because non exist. . . .

 

davidylan you still haven't been able to tell me how jonah survived inside a fish for 3 days using your knowledge of biology is faith all you have to your defense here?

now that it feels convenient you are running to the original hebrew text to rescue you. .even when some original translations of the bible have been rigged by christains according to jewish scholars . . .for example Isaiah 7:14. . .when the jewish scholars point that out christain apologist claim that the jews do not understand their language very well or give some outlandish excuses. . . you never cease to have something to run or hold on to from the english translation rendered it inaccurately to the hebrew translation rendered it inaccurately. . .keep on running in the circle of delusion. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

Where is the evidence that moses wrote it?

Lol You seem to always be honest and every other person is not, I didnt call you out on your claim about abandoning the bible you would have screamed the roof off.

Stop making me repeat myself I admitted that it had holes didnt I, but it still has some very valid points, that's why its called hypothesis, doesnt mean it is totally invalid. You have to keep your head down and focus, one mistake in a persons work does not make it totally wrong.

For instance the flood story in Genesis 6-9 is a text that can be analyzed along the lines of the Documentary Hypothesis. According to the hypothesis, the flood story is the result of weaving together two previous versions of the story, one from the J source and one from the Priestly source (P). In parts of the story, J and P are difficult or impossible to separate. Other parts (especially when each source is used to retell the same part of the story) are easier to identify as belonging to one strand or the other.

This makes sense to me, the hypothesis might be off here and there, for now it can at least show that more than one author composed the torah.

Still waiting for evidence that moses wrote them.

0
Avatar
Newbie

This is yet more evidence of your dishonesty.

- Your hypothesis has loopholes BUT you claim it is still valid and even admit it is the foundation for other critics including you.

- however you don't seem to give the bible the same treatment even though here you pretend to do so. Though you subtly indicate that the bible shld not be abandoned despite it containing alleged loopholes, you have consistently questioned its veracity.

I don't see you vigorously question the veracity of the JDEP hypothesis at all.

Again i repeat . . . you seem to go round and round in circles repeating the same thing yet bleating about me not having anything in my defence which is actually untrue!

1. The alleged doublets and contradictions that Dr. Long points out are baseless . . . an example is the fact that he claims Ex 15:14 says Palestina when the original hebrew text says pelesheth.

2. Dr. Long and your ilk have a habit of developing spurious contradictions then spinning hypothesis built to force-fit your own idea of how wrong the bible is.

3. I have consistently brought out evidence to rebutt much of mazaje's plagiarised claims. You don't bring any claims at all besides repeating your mantra of holes, loopholes and more holes.

4. what "point" have you tried to get across? Sorry but i don't see any.

I chose to treat this last . . .

On what basis do you hold this opinion?

0
Avatar
Newbie

You are getting me wrong, I admit that it has loopholes does not mean it is entirely wrong, the bible has loopholes does not mean one should abandon it just admit that it does. What I am holding on to is that it shows sufficiently that it was not authored by one person.

Please give me the history behind your assertions, at least I have tried to get a point across, you really have nothing in your defence, if you do at least bring it out. Like I said earlier it best explains the doublets, contradictions et al in the Torah.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Exactly my own point. You know the JDEP hypothesis is full of loopholes YET you still hold on to it and infact admit that it forms the foundation for other modern critics?

I remember posting a response to mazaje on this yesterday . . . a lot of these "contemporary critics" are guilty of forcing biblical history to fit their own preconcieved bias. So they create contradictions where there is none and then produce a hypothesis to "answer"  the contradictions.

If loopholes are the reason we shld abandon the bible, why then do you still hold on to the JDEP hypothesis that even you admit is also full of holes?

What is good for the goose . . .?

- Faith is all i have . . . fortunately it is also backed up by common sense, history, archeology and your own inability to produce convincing evidence to delegitimise the bible.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The bible does have enough holes in it still you hold on to it, you know the flood story never happened and there are loads of holes like the stars falling from the sky. But that's not the issue here now.

I don't want us to get into the whole JEPD technicalities as it would spoil the fun for who ever is reading this.

Contemporary critical scholars disagree with Wellhausen and with one another on details and on whether D or P was added last. But they agree that the general approach of the Documentary Hypothesis best explains the doublets, contradictions, differences in terminology and theology, and the geographical and historical interests that we find in various parts of the Torah.

As for burden of proof, its not solely mine, is faith all you have? Don't be ashamed to say so.

0
Avatar
Newbie

1. This is where i have problems with your honesty. You agree that the theory that claims to disprove Moses authorship of the 5 books as having too many holes in it YET claim that it has "enough proof" that Moses is not the writer?

How do you reconcile this glaring inconsistency?

Would you have been magnanimous if i had said the following - i agree that the bible has a lot of loop holes in it but there is more than enough proof that it is a historically valid document.

2. That the theory has "formed the foundation of other criticisms today" does not make it any valid if it still has so many loopholes to discredit it. It simply means those using it as a foundation for their own criticism are so desperate they will grab at anything that casts a shadow on the veracity of the bible.

3. I am not the one to convince you since Moses' authorship of his books is not a question to me. It is up to you (as u earlier agreed as regards burden of proof) to convince me why i must accept a theory that is full of loopholes.

4. You cant use a loophole to discredit another alleged loophole.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@DaviDylan: « #77 on: Today at 05:30:21 PM »  

Surah Muhammad is well Known Chapter in the Qur'aan. Surah Ahzab contains the name Muhammad. Surah Saff carries Ahmad whch is the other name Muhammad is also known. What are you talking about when you are talking about the "dose of sense?" I see. You never opened the Qur'aan before. No wonder.

David read the Qur'aan. If you have opened it up, you would have seen Allah, Malaika, Reveaed Books; Torah, Sabur, Injil, Qur'aan, Isa bin Mariam, Masiah, Muhammad, etc written about in positive light. Then you would have seen Trinity, death on the cross, ressurrection, etc written about as things never happened.

Read the Qur'aan (2 doses; pills for your soul and heart) and call me in the morning (When you are finished).

0
Avatar
Newbie

Thank you very much, if mazaje insults me I will tell him to stop just like I am telling you now, maybe I am biased but if I have insulted you in time past I apologise.

Ok issue at hand, you are quite right burden of proof is on me, but it does shift in a conversation.

I kept silent yesterday mostly because I was trying to reconcile the problems in the documentary hypothesis, I agree that the theory has a lot of loop holes in it but it has formed the foundation of other criticisms today. So far the theory does not address who wrote it but there is more than enough proof it was not written by moses.

You have faith, if you have evidence than Moses did then convince me.

0
Avatar
Newbie

thanks. I'll be expecting your comments.

0
Avatar
Newbie

i am more than willing to hear your own point of view without insults of course.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I didn't want to join the fray when insults were flying, I am asking you now can we continue without the insults?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Its not about mazaje but its about hypocrisy.

If you call me out for labelling you a clown then i suppose you shld have even stricter words for Mazaje's use of language to me.

You can't pretend to be outraged by name calling and look the other way when someone you consider an ally does the same. and that is ignoring the fact that you have also been guilty of name calling against my person. Charity they say begins at home . . . clean out your own locker of bones before crowing about mine.

Now can we get back on the subject at hand? I await constructive and intellectually sound arguments from you and others. Mazaje has been a massive disappointment.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Is this about mazaje? I asked you politely to stop calling me names is that so hard to do?

Don't you think name calling is not mature?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I have taken the pains to go through much of your write-ups and provided rebuttals were necessary. Beyond repeating the same old denials like a broken record or plagiarising material from other websites . . . i have gotten nothing from either of you.

Anytime i ask salient questions that exposed the inconsistencies in your own plagiarised material all i got from Mazaje was a torrent of abuse and silence from you.

Sorry, burden of proof isnt on me . . . i'm not the one who has problems with the bible. I'll still read it tomorrow with peace and joy.

0
Avatar
Newbie

1. Do you have ANYTHING other than baseless denial to support your claim that Moses DID NOT write the 5 books ascribed to him?

2. Burden of proof is on you . . . i have absolute and unshaken faith in the fact that Moses did write those books possibly with help from scribes which was nothing new in those days. YOU are the one with the doubts . . . its up to you to convince me that you are right and i am wrong.

Peace.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@david

Dude quit with the name calling its so not mature, do you have any thing other than belief to support your claim, burden of proof is on you now.

0
Avatar
Newbie

How about some evidence to support your assertion that Moses DID NOT write it?

You clowns always find it easier to ask questions since you really dont know anything beyond blanket denial of everything biblical.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Mazaje do, you try.

@david

How about some evidence to support your assertion that Moses wrote it.

0
Avatar
Newbie

You have a valid question . . . however you have only looked at one side of the picture. There is a distinct difference between David's attitude to sin and Saul's. Each time David was caught in a sin he went before the Lord in sackloth and ashes in genuine repentance.

What did Saul do? He defended himself and even tried to shift the blame to the people, we read of NOWHERE that Saul ever felt sorry for his sins at all.

However it is pertinent to note that despite God's affection for David, he still paid heavy penalties for his failures.

0
Avatar
Newbie

i have a question not related to the topic but related to God,does God play favorites?

The case of Saul,David and Samuel.

Samuel wasnt happy when the Isrealites wanted a King and he chose Saul,personally I didnt think Saul was so terrible but what do I know is  he had this shaky relationship with Gods Prophet who had God's ears,so he wasnt really in charge and he always had to answer to Saul.

I think that God favored David more and didnt give Saul a chance.More like whatever he did wasnt good enough for him.

I think God plays favorites.

i hope i made  sense

scratching my head

0
Avatar
Newbie

is the fallacy of the bible positively affecting you in any way?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Is the veracity of the bible negatively affecting you in any sense?

0
Avatar
Newbie

you are not showing because the fact remains that there is non, whats wrong with acknowledging that fact? . . .is the bible your writing, thoughts or reason. . or is it your fathers?. . . why are you defending a book that was written so many years before your grandfather was born? so many of its assertions have been debunked by science, history and simple reason? stop talking about plagiarism because the bible is not ur thought or reason. . . the only things you have to fall back on is that i used some one else's words are the biblical words your? the plagiarism card is all you have up ur sleeve. . . you are a shame to your fellow blockheads. asked why the biblical god is an advocate of slavery you come up with answers that moslems are enslaving people in mauritainia too.  how dull can one be. . you are a silly joke. . keep on running in your silly circle of delusion and stupidity. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

I'm not showing evidence as much as pointing out the fact that you dont seem to have a firm grasp of the issues you're hyperventilating about.

Start by reading Long's work that you plagiarised at least.

0
Avatar
Newbie

keep on running round and round and ranting like a mad dog. . . you still have not shown me evidence to show that moses wrote any of the books apart from blindly defending what is written in the bible which has been debunked by science, history and common sense . all you have to your silly defense is that he never said he didn't you are a a silly joke. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

funny, because Dr. Long's timeline of the exodus and one major reason he disagrees the Jews could have built pithom and Raamses 127 yrs before Raamses II became Pharaoh is based on backdating from the 4th yr of Solomon's reign which was 480 yrs after the Exodus.

I repeat again . . . i'm not even sure you bothered to read Long's treatise that you so shamelessly plagiarised.

0
Avatar
Newbie

learn to read and understand you cretin before spewing rubbish the guy and other scholars agree that the events as to the establishment of isreal according to the bible is bogus. . and that is a fact . . the exodus and other events didn't happen as portrayed in the bible. . his original premise was that the books were written long after moses died and after the kingdom of isreal was established. . . and his timeline is different from that of the bible. .no where did he agree with the time line of the establishment of the kingdom of isreal according to the bible infact he said it was bogus and the kingdom was established much later than it was claimed in the bible. . . go ahead and break your. neck no where did moses ever claim authorship of any of the books. . keep on deluding yourself with your senseless pranks. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

You're shooting yourself in the foot badly:

1. The guy said the books were written long ago - where is his proof? Who does he know wrote the books?

2. He provided enough evidence - no he did not! His entire book of fluff is based on delegitimising the veracity of the books. He provides NO evidence at all of who wrote the books and when. All he does is plagiarise Thompson's JDEP hypothesis.

3. If indeed you claim that the biblical account of the establishment of Israel is BOGUS . . . that automatically invalidates a major plank of Dr. Long's hypothesis of who could have potentially written the 5 books of Moses. One hypothesis assumes that the writer was someone domiciled in the northern part of Israel . . . a kingdom you claim is bogus.

Again i repeat, do you have a ball of wool in your head?

0
Avatar
Newbie

you are clearly a disturbed slowpoke. . the guy said that the books were written long after moses died and he provided enough evidence to show for it. .the biblical account of the establisment of the kingdom of isreal is BOGUS and you are here coming up with your usual convulated idea of joshua. . . why are you using the bible a standard since most of its claims have been debunked by science,  history and common sense?

0
Avatar
Newbie

which would also mean Mohammad is a fake since we dont see his name anywhere in the quran no?

Alhaji, have a dose of sense.

0
Avatar
Newbie

There was no such "land of Israel" until the period of Joshua. Moses never saw the land so he could not have included it in the 5 books.

You dont seem to have a capacity to think at all.

0
Avatar
Newbie

very good example olabowale davidylan is a joke, when ever he is caught pants down he always comes up with some kind of convulated excuseembarassed by the ridiculous geneaology of jesus, he comes up with the idea that one is that of mary while the other is that of johseph even though nothing like that was written in the biblecaught pants down with the fact that dan became a city long after moses exsited he come up with some outlandish explanation that only himself understandsor plays the translation error card when it suits him by declearing the english translation erroneous and rendered the word inapproprietly. . . faced with some embarrasing doctorines or principles in the bible he comes up with the excuse that such doctorines were meant for the jews, corthintains, thessaloneains or addressed to the people living at that time alonefaced with the fact that the bible has been editted so many times to conform to a single narrative he comes up with the excuse that other books have been editted too . . . this guy is a master when it comes to throwing things on the wall to find any one that sticks i dey fear the guy sef i must confess. . the guy is a typical defination of a charlatan. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

@DaviDylan: « #69 on: Today at 12:40:16 AM »

While you guys, are fighting on material issues which are different from the meat of the topic, I just can't but observe that David is nullifying the import of Tacitus, because his name is not directly link as the authorship of "the Book!"

David A_ _n_ _ _, of Ijebu Ode, please apply your mode of argument against Tacitus, exactly like that, to the Word "Trinity" in the Bible? It is not there. Hence it is a Fake!

0
Avatar
Newbie

The annals were finished and published around 116 AD. Besides the titles (similar to the gospels) there is no textual reference to tacitus at all in the annals themselves. [this is a fact that more serious scholars would have checked out rather than vituperating about "lies"].

Have you ever heard of Tacitus at all?

Ptolemy in middle of the second century was the first to make a quote possibly from Tacitus' works without a direct reference to Tacitus AT ALL. If Tacitus indeed existed and wrote the annals . . . why did Ptolemy refuse to mention him? [Note the similar style of argument against the bible is NEVER raised in questioning Tacitus as the author of the annals].

The same problem occurs with Cassius Dio who wrote his own work after 200 AD, quotes Tacitus annals (there is no where else he could have gotten his quote) but also FAILS to directly mention Tacitus AT ALL.

It is not until the third century (100 years after Tacitus work) that the historian, Tertullian, finally mentions him by name.

Not however that all the above have not changed the generally accepted assumption that the annals are the work of Tacitus . . . it is however funny that the basis for attacking the veracity of the books of the bible are the very same reasons it would be difficult to accept the annals as the work of Tacitus because according to Mazaje's premise, he does not declare himself as the writer.

How did you know that Moses DID NOT write the books? About time you blockhead answered a question too.

He never said he didnt either.

You have tried to plagiarise the "Reasons" of others why Moses could not have been the author, however careful analysis of much of Dr. Jason Long's write-up show it to be bereft of objective reasoning.

A typical example is the clear attempt to claim that Moses was writing about "palestina" in Exodus when merely crosschecking with the original hebrew translation would have debunked this false claim.

The "reasons" you post here are not yours. Until you put up urs and show that you are ready for a vigorous intellectual exercise, arguing with you is like trying to train a donkey.

Again i see your harebrained premise in bold, Tacitus never claimed any authorship of the annals too.

0
Avatar
Newbie

This is a lie and you know it. . . who told you that the earliest hint came 100 years after he died? one of your fellow bible apologist? can you provide evidence to support your assertions? apart from the biblical assertions how did you know that moses wrote the books? he never said he did and there are more than enough reasons to show that he did'nt uptil now you have not reasonabely shown that moses wrote any of the books beside you nonsensical talking points. . . and the popular belief that he did which is false. . .

these are the reasons that suggest moses did not write the books. . . . provide your own reason to show that moses wrote the books. . . as i pointed out billions believe that mohammed wrote the quran which is false the koran was written after he died. . . but billions still believe he wrote the koran. . . i said moses never claimed any authorship its now up to you to show that he wrote the books. . . provide evidence or forever shut up and keep quite. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

Its obvious u've never read or seen the book in question.

- There is NO mention of the name "tacitus" in the entire book.

- The earliest hint as to Tacitus being the author came a good 100 yrs after the book was written.

I repeat again, think before you post.

0
Avatar
Newbie

try again . . . where has it been established that tacitus did not declear authorship in the book? you are a silly joke. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

The same argument could be levied against Tacitus being the author of Tacitus' Annals.

sometimes you need to think before you post.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.