Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 121 posts

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#101

Post by davemel37 »

baldfat wrote: post #88
davemel37 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most people agree that the Torah had multiple authors Source? From what I can tell, most religious people disagree with this point.

Religious people and Academic Study are two different things. Technically this is Biblical Criticism (AKA the study of authorship, origin and sources). I am one of the people who love this stuff and still religious and that isn't as common as you would think. Deut 34:5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. I think it is pretty clear someone also had their hand in writing that lin…

Deut 34:5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said.

http://ohr.edu/3201

It is a talmudic discussion about this question.

The talmud literally covers every question people have, yet they dismiss the opinions of those who spend their lives studying the Talmud... and instead rely on lack of evidence...without actually studying the discourse around these issues.

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#102

Post by c0achmcguirk »

bduerst wrote: post #80
c0achmcguirk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the scientific method rely on the Inductive Principle? How would you prove the IP without relying on the IP? If you believe something that can't be proven, what do you call it?

No, it doesn't. The scientific method seeks to refute existing knowledge by testing falsifiable theories and predictions. Faith is an opinion on a belief that is not falsifiable.

Science doesn't depend on the Inductive Principle? The idea that nature is uniform doesn't inform Science?

How would you test falsifiable theories and predictions if nature weren't uniform?

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#103

Post by c0achmcguirk »

nitrogen wrote: post #82
c0achmcguirk wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By believing in the Inductive Principle and the future will be like the past. How do you prove that? By relying on the Inductive Principle... circularity is unavoidable and this is where faith comes in.

It's interesting how the word "faith" has many meanings in common usage. I don't think scientists would use the word "faith" to describe their tendency to extrapolate from prior evidence. Here are a couple of articles from one particularly vocal scientist about the distinction between religious faith and scientific confidence: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scien... http://www.slate.com/articl…

> I'll also note that science generally relies on empiricism rather than induction

I don't disagree, but how does that change my point? Empiricism and Induction both need the uniformity of nature to work. How would you prove that nature is uniform without appealing to the belief that nature is uniform?

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#104

Post by c0achmcguirk »

gnaritas wrote: post #92
c0achmcguirk wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It follows from your reasoning that it would be unwise to follow a scientist who believes in science, then.

No it doesn't follow because science isn't a belief, science is a method for examining beliefs. Scientists don't "believe" in science, they understand how to apply the scientific method in order to examine and discard false beliefs. Unlike beliefs, science requires no faith at all.

> Scientists don't "believe" in science, they understand how to apply the scientific method in order to examine and discard false beliefs.

Scientists need nature to be uniform for the scientific method to work, correct?

Has a scientist been able to prove that nature is uniform without appealing to the uniformity of nature?

If so, whom? And how?

If not--would you say a scientist is exercising "faith" that nature is uniform?

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#105

Post by duaneb »

davemel37 wrote: post #99
duaneb wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no firm source as the arguments are scattered over the last three decades. I can summarize the current viewpoints: Pro-JEPD camps point towards style analysis, dividing the pentateuch into four distinct dictions, each with their own (hypothesized) time frames. Anti-JEPD camps tend to a) pick apart style arguments (with mixed success) and b) argue for a cohesion of content. I tend to give the Pro-JEPD camps sli…

> AFAIK there is absolutely zero evidence for a historical Moses. Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. The scientific method is good for eliminating the likelihood of a hypothesis being correct based on evidence...not the lack of evidence. > "most religious people" will argue for Moses himself writing the Torah in its entirety It always amazes me how many people have opinions about the Torah without studying…

> Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. The scientific method is good for eliminating the likelihood of a hypothesis being correct based on evidence...not the lack of evidence.

I agree completely! But the claim that Moses wrote the Torah doesn't hold any water either, as you just argued, due to ZERO contemporary evidence. The same problem applies to e.g. the figure Lykourgos forming the pugnacious culture of Sparta: he's called out a few places, including Plutarch via Aristotle, but no contemporary evidence of him exists. Most likely he (Lykourgos) is a myth.

> It always amazes me how many people have opinions about the Torah without studying the Talmud in it's entirety.

What does the Talmud have to do with the Pentateuch authorship? I was not commenting on the authorship beyond Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus. The Talmud also wouldn't present any contemporary evidence as it dates to several centuries after the earliest Pentateuch fragments and ~1.5k years after Moses would have walked around.

I'm very open to arguments that the Talmud IS relevant (it'd be pretty exciting to me, I'm a big fan), but I don't see it off hand. The Rabbis had every reason to present a coherent narrative regardless of its accuracy, and they were certainly not in a position to verify it themselves. If they did, I'd love to see how.

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#106

Post by bduerst »

c0achmcguirk wrote: post #102
bduerst wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't. The scientific method seeks to refute existing knowledge by testing falsifiable theories and predictions. Faith is an opinion on a belief that is not falsifiable.

Science doesn't depend on the Inductive Principle? The idea that nature is uniform doesn't inform Science? How would you test falsifiable theories and predictions if nature weren't uniform?

That's what I just said, followed with what it's focus is which you ignored.

Since you have a lot of questions and I don't really have the time to give a history lesson in science philosophy, you should read Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper if you are genuinely earnest with your inquiries to learn more.

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#107

Post by davemel37 »

duaneb wrote: post #105
davemel37 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AFAIK there is absolutely zero evidence for a historical Moses. Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. The scientific method is good for eliminating the likelihood of a hypothesis being correct based on evidence...not the lack of evidence. > "most religious people" will argue for Moses himself writing the Torah in its entirety It always amazes me how many people have opinions about the Torah without studying…

> Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. The scientific method is good for eliminating the likelihood of a hypothesis being correct based on evidence...not the lack of evidence. I agree completely! But the claim that Moses wrote the Torah doesn't hold any water either, as you just argued, due to ZERO contemporary evidence. The same problem applies to e.g. the figure Lykourgos forming the pugnacious culture of…

>What does the Talmud have to do with the Pentateuch authorship?

As someone who spent 10 years studying and only covered about 10% of the talmud, I can assure it that there is deep and complicated discourse on everything you can think of including the authorship of the Torah. There is nothing taken for granted. No one is given a free pass to "maintain a consistent narrative". There is constant dispute about every single letter written in the Torah (in fact, dispute on grammar, sentence structure, etc.. to the point that there are rules compiled for how to interpret every single word choice, letter, phrase, etc... in the Torah.)

It is highly relevant and these discussions are beyond my capabilities to address fully other than to know to defer to the several dozen people alive today that are truly deep experts, or the several thousand others who at least completed the entirety of the talmud.

It's simply ignorance to have an opinion on the Torahs authorship without being a talmud expert. (Too many people dismiss it because they have no idea whats actually in it!)

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#108

Post by c0achmcguirk »

bduerst wrote: post #106
c0achmcguirk wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science doesn't depend on the Inductive Principle? The idea that nature is uniform doesn't inform Science? How would you test falsifiable theories and predictions if nature weren't uniform?

That's what I just said, followed with what it's focus is which you ignored. Since you have a lot of questions and I don't really have the time to give a history lesson in science philosophy, you should read Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper if you are genuinely earnest with your inquiries to learn more.

I always thought Popper's LSD was considered his best book to read on this. I haven't read it yet, but it's been on my To-Read list for a while.

Popper's view essentially boils down to: "Science can't prove anything, theories can only be corroborated." So we just have a list of theories, where some are firmer than others, correct?

My complaint with Popper is that true knowledge is impossible with this set of axioms. One can't know anything with certainty--and yet everyone actually lives as if they can know something.

I find people that subscribe to Popper's (and Hume and Russell before him) to be hypocrites as they interact with the natural world. Operating with a set of theories that could never be 100% certain, yet acting as if they were.

How sure are you that you're correct and I'm wrong? 40% or 60%?

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#109

Post by dosgonlogs »

exabrial wrote: post #95
dosgonlogs wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer if you spelled it out for us. Are you trying to say that if someone is religious, that they do not value the Scientific Method, and that they lack humility? Or are you saying it is the other way around? If I interpret it either way, I could not agree with you. Your statement comes off as presumptuous and ignorant, and therefore it is ironic and hypocritical, since you have drawn such a tremendous concl…

Neither, so no offense implied or taken, I'm a regular churchgoer mysel. All I was saying is when confronted by new science, weak or overstreched churches will deny obvious truths (example:evolution) while churches that are actually focused on the orignal mission of Christ will simply say 'thats cool'.

My apologies then. Looks like I was the one jumping to conclusions and being insulting to top it off.

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#110

Post by duaneb »

davemel37 wrote: post #107
duaneb wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. The scientific method is good for eliminating the likelihood of a hypothesis being correct based on evidence...not the lack of evidence. I agree completely! But the claim that Moses wrote the Torah doesn't hold any water either, as you just argued, due to ZERO contemporary evidence. The same problem applies to e.g. the figure Lykourgos forming the pugnacious culture of…

>What does the Talmud have to do with the Pentateuch authorship? As someone who spent 10 years studying and only covered about 10% of the talmud, I can assure it that there is deep and complicated discourse on everything you can think of including the authorship of the Torah. There is nothing taken for granted. No one is given a free pass to "maintain a consistent narrative". There is constant dispute about every sin…

Somehow i don't think you were interested in addressing anything I said. Assurances are worthless compared to the very specific evidence i requested.

I see no way anything written in the talmud would have any effect.

Post reply on HN