<Snipped quote by Meta>
*smiles warmly*
Thank you.
No problem...
Meta Member
Dawn
- Last Seen: 12 hrs ago
- Joined: 10 yrs ago
- Posts: 7331 (1.99 / day)
- VMs: 0
-
Username history
- Meta 10 yrs ago
-
Latest 10 profile visitors:
-
Most recent →
Kimberly,
Server,
Memory,
Scrawl Banditta,
Nimda,
System,
Not a Sayan,
Yatagarasu,
SkyeOfStars,
Extra
Status
User has no status, yet
Bio
User has no bio, yet
Most Recent Posts
No problem...
Despite the OT having the Law for the Hebrew (Jewish) people, it doesn't exactly give the author (Moses, except at the end, which was probably Joshua or another contemporary) all that much political power. It's also more of a historical document than it is a political one. Moses was already the leader of the Hebrew people by leading them out of slavery, so he doesn't have much of a reason to establish a government and give himself power through it. Actually, Moses never gets to see a country born at all because the Israelites were in a desert for forty years, scared of attacking the Canaanites. So, TL;DR If Moses wrote the Torah for political power that he already had, he was really bad at it. In fact, the system they set up ended up with the Hebrew leaders losing power because it established a system of judges to control the land (similar to our Supreme Court). So to summarize, the Torah (first five books of the Bible) was written by a party that had no stake in the contents, so historians generally accept what was written as uninfluenced by a desire for political gain (especially since most of it isn't even political—it's a description of historical events).
Beyond that, the rest of the Old Testament actually has authorship with zero ability to be politically motivated by their writings. Most of them were persecuted or even killed for what was written, while most of it is historical writings recounting what was said or done by the Hebrew people. While there are commandments by God (mostly to Israel as a nation in laws and traditions rather than moral guidelines, though many of these do exist) in these writings, they aren't presented in a context that would suggest some random Hebrew wants to (or even could) influence the nation as a whole. And as for their history, they've certainly been questioned about whether or not they're accurate, but in fact, most ancient historians accept the reality of those events presented. A common objection is that because we know it was written by the Hebrews, we can contend that its recountings were biased in their favor. However, two of the main tenets historians use for analyzing the credibility of a source is whether A) The source would provide information that would be an embarrassment or a disgrace to themselves, and B) Whether they would provide information that would clearly damage their credibility. The ancient Hebrew historical writings fulfill both of these—the accounts of the Jewish people show that they did incredibly horrible things and failed over and over. The authors are often common people, such as farmers or those in poverty (though there are the writings of kings and scholars). Because of these reasons and other techniques, historians generally accept the events depicted in the Old Testament (on a historical, though not necessarily miraculous level). Before I talk about the validity of the New Testament, are there any questions about this or information you would like to dispute?
Beyond that, the rest of the Old Testament actually has authorship with zero ability to be politically motivated by their writings. Most of them were persecuted or even killed for what was written, while most of it is historical writings recounting what was said or done by the Hebrew people. While there are commandments by God (mostly to Israel as a nation in laws and traditions rather than moral guidelines, though many of these do exist) in these writings, they aren't presented in a context that would suggest some random Hebrew wants to (or even could) influence the nation as a whole. And as for their history, they've certainly been questioned about whether or not they're accurate, but in fact, most ancient historians accept the reality of those events presented. A common objection is that because we know it was written by the Hebrews, we can contend that its recountings were biased in their favor. However, two of the main tenets historians use for analyzing the credibility of a source is whether A) The source would provide information that would be an embarrassment or a disgrace to themselves, and B) Whether they would provide information that would clearly damage their credibility. The ancient Hebrew historical writings fulfill both of these—the accounts of the Jewish people show that they did incredibly horrible things and failed over and over. The authors are often common people, such as farmers or those in poverty (though there are the writings of kings and scholars). Because of these reasons and other techniques, historians generally accept the events depicted in the Old Testament (on a historical, though not necessarily miraculous level). Before I talk about the validity of the New Testament, are there any questions about this or information you would like to dispute?
@Meta How do you know the bible wasn't written by some fantasy writer some thousands of years ago and was used by a group of people to get themselves in power by manipulating the common folk?
That's a great question. Historians have several techniques for dating and determining authorship/purpose of ancient writings, which have been applied to the Bible. The "book" known as the Bible is actually a collection of 66 smaller books written by about forty authors over a period of roughly 1600 years.
I accidentally hit send so I'm going to continue this in another post.
@Meta Likewise. I had to read on some terms I hadn't heard of before.
There was a point, though, where I was going to question another thing but I decided that it would be foolish to tread on those waters. Unlike most you didn't rage in the middle of the argument and that's the best you can ask for from some person in the internet LOL
I agree. Feel free to question anything you'd like; if something is so protected that we're not open to questioning the validity of what we believe to be fact, how can we claim that we have any basis of considering it true?
@Bishop
I'd also like to thank you for conversing with me. I think it was constructive and accomplished a decent amount.
I'd also like to thank you for conversing with me. I think it was constructive and accomplished a decent amount.
<Snipped quote by Meta>
Dude socialism is literally how we managed to get this far. That's what we used as tribes in order to not die off.
Top kek Venezuela.
<Snipped quote by Meta>
I am asking to be your friend. I don't have many, and would like to call you one.
I suppose so...?
Socialism!
Is naturalistically super illogical.
@Meta Well that clarifies a lot.
So, can you mention this dark guy for me?
@DarkwolfX37
<Snipped quote by Meta>
You seem like a good person. Could i consider you a friend?
*tilts my head*
Erm, I'm sorry?
<Snipped quote by Meta>
The memory of why it's there, is more painful than the scar itself. If I can bear that, then this is nothing.
Alright...
© 2007-2026