Wrong again ...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Biblical Literary criticism: valid?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Wrong again ...
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
It happens. What about you?
Often.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
But you're not wrong about Jewish Biblical Criticism? How do you know?
That's rather strange wording (even leaving aside the ambiguous phrase "Jewish Biblical Criticism").
I believe that science is valid and valuable.
I believe that insulating either the Tanakh or Israel's ethnogenesis from scientific investigation is ignorant and cowardly.
And I believe that dogmatism is too often a cesspool breeding the most malignant anger and hatred.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Why do you assume criticism is science? Science attempts to limit its bias and prevent it from influencing the data-collection and the conclusions derived from it. Criticism, particularly the criticism coming from Jewish academics is the opposite of this.
They begin with a bias. The avoid collecting all the data as a consequence of the bias then force a conclusion to agree with the bias. Then, the dishonest part comes when they say there is no other way to read the stories. That is particularly Dr. Joel Baden from Yale, but I see it elsewhere repeatedly.
No one in the Reform Community is admitting that virtually everything that Jewish scholars have produced in the past 100 years in regard to dating and splitting the Torah into pieces was wrong.
Jay, the entire field has been proven to be rubbish. Their methods are a FAILURE. The scientific method would abandon the failed method and make public the false conclusions of the past. You and people like you hide the truth, and insult those of us who know more.
In 2011 everything came crashing down. The late dating of the Torah relies on the "Yahwist" source being influenced by Persians. But there is no Yahwist source. That was an assumption made by Jews who refused to listen and refused to learn. That's not science.
You're often wrong?
But you're not wrong about Jewish Biblical Criticism. You think it's science? Why?
Jewish Biblical Critics spent over 100 years working to dismantle the Torah. They failed. They were wrong. It wasn't science. Biblical Criticism is not like physics, not like chemistry, not like any other science.
Why don't you consider that you are wrong about this? You're often wrong? But not this? Even though all the evidence suggest you are.
Last edited:
Why do you assume that biblical criticism is ascientific, and why do you respond to is, and any and all rationalist approaches to scripture, with the most vile hatred?
I'll let you have the last word ...
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
You've become what you hate Jay.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I gave you the reasons. They're valid and strong.
I don't. The criticism is not even close to rational. It's rubbish.
I hate the hypocrisy. I hate the lying.
Claiming that scientific inquiry is the ideal, then ignoring the scientific process is hypocrisy. That's what is coming from the "scholars" of the Reform Movement.
Claiming that the Torah has multiple sources and multiple pagan Gods in it, because of science is a LIE. That is what's coming from the Reform Movement.
Reform Judaism has had over 20 years to adopt the new science and admit they were wrong for over 100 years. They haven't and you haven't either.
Why not? You're denying science! Yet you claim it as an ideal.
Why do you have such difficulty understanding Biblical criticism, or literary criticism in general?
Biblical criticism is science. It is an attempt to define the meaning of the text through careful scientific analysis.
It is totally different than the concept of personal criticism, which means censure or attributing blame.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, your statement that "no one in the Reform Community is admitting that virtually everything that Jewish scholars have produced in the past 100 years in regard to dating and splitting the Torah into pieces was wrong" is truly bizarre. Nobody that I know in Reform Judaism claims that virtually everything that Jewish scholars have produced in the past 100 years in regard to dating and splitting the Torah into pieces is wrong".
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
OK... What is it about Jewish Biblical Criticism (which asserts that the Hebrew Bible MUST be the product of multiple sources), that it is scientific?
Do you know anything about this subject?
Why not? That's the point. Why doesn't anyone in the Reform Judaism know or admit this simple fact? Heck you don't seem to know, even though I've shown you the evidence.
In 2011, everything that had been "accomplished" by Jewish Biblical Criticism was shown to be false. There is a single source for the Hebrew Bible, not 4 or more. All of the implications of the multiple source theory are pushed back into agnostic territory.
Why isn't anyone in Reform Judaism being honest about these facts?
You are not making any sense. The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous skepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation. It doesn't have to involve the physical sciences. Researchers, regardless of the field, reach conclusions based on evidence, in this case being that there is not one single source for the Hebrew Bible. So yes, unlike yourself, I do know about this subject.
Why can't you admit this simple fact? Clearly your hyperbole, for example, "everything that had been "accomplished" by Jewish Biblical Criticism was shown to be false" is nonsense. Everything??? Jewish Biblical criticism is 100% wrong and you are 100% right? LOL!
Here is a section from wikipedia which is worth reading (with my added emphases)...
Different branches of Judaism and Samaritanism have maintained different versions of the canon, including the 3rd-century BCE Septuagint text used in Second Temple Judaism, the Syriac Pe****ta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and most recently the 10th-century medieval Masoretic Text compiled by the Masoretes, currently used in Rabbinic Judaism. The terms "Hebrew Bible" or "Hebrew Canon" are frequently confused with the Masoretic Text; however, this is a medieval version and one of several texts considered authoritative by different types of Judaism throughout history. The current edition of the Masoretic Text is mostly in Biblical Hebrew, with a few passages in Biblical Aramaic (in the books of Daniel and Ezra, and the verse Jeremiah 10:11).
The authoritative form of the modern Hebrew Bible used in Rabbinic Judaism is the Masoretic Text (7th to 10th century CE), which consists of 24 books, divided into chapters and pesuqim (verses). The Hebrew Bible developed during the Second Temple Period, as the Jews decided which religious texts were of divine origin; the Masoretic Text, compiled by the Jewish scribes and scholars of the Early Middle Ages, comprises the Hebrew and Aramaic 24 books that they considered authoritative.
...
Clearly, there are different interpretations of what is the authentic Hebrew Bible. Your extreme statement that Reform Judaism is in error is laughable. Why can't you admit the simple fact that there are different scholarly opinions about what is the true Hebrew Bible? Making extreme statements just shows your lack of consideration of other viewpoints, which are based on careful research. => We are dealing with ancient documents that have been existence for thousands of years <= They have been hand copied, so there are bound to be human errors, and researchers must decide which are the most accurate.
Your claiming that only one interpretation of the ancient texts (plural) is accurate is laughable. There is not a single source for the Hebrew Bible, All of the implications of the single source theory are pushed back into mindless absolutism.
Why isn't anyone in Conservatism Judaism being honest about these facts?
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
And that is precisely what is missing from Jewish Biblical Criticism. It's that simple. I showed you and I proved it.
Why do you assume that Jewish Biblical Criticism is "science"?
Do you know what Jewish Biblical Criticism is?
a) You haven't proven anything regarding Jewish Biblical Criticism. You have simply stated your opinion.
b) The scientific method is defined as "the steps of making observations, asking a question, researching, formulating a hypothesis, designing and performing an experiment, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions". It is not limited to the physical sciences. It is a proven method to arrive at a valid conclusion, including the authoritative Jewish Bible.
c) That has nothing to do with the statement that Jewish Biblical Criticism is "science"! Yours is an absurd, naive statement.
d) Some modern Jewish Bible scholars contend with the challenges raised by scientific study of Judaism, and biblical criticism. Others read the Bible with an eye towards advocating a particular kind of Jewish ideology. Whatever your perspective, the biblical text is open and your interpretation valued. (excerpted from myjewishlearning.com)
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I gave two scientific articles. You said you had read what I wrote.
Irrelevant
So the answer to my question is : "No". You don't know what Jewish Biblical Criticism is. But you assume that you do, and I don't?
Why? Because @Jayhawker Soule impugned my character demonizing me, associating me with Trump supporters and and science deniers even though he knows that it is a false comparrison?
Are you okay? Seriously.
I can dismiss your statements as irrelevant, but that proves nothing. The same as your dismissing mine as irrelevant means nothing. It just shows the weakness of your argument, i.e., you can't prove your point, so you resort to ad hominem tactics.
Again, the scientific method is defined as "the steps of making observations, asking a question, researching, formulating a hypothesis, designing and performing an experiment, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions". It is not limited to the physical sciences. It is a proven method to arrive at a valid conclusion, including the authoritative Jewish Bible. In my opinion, that is the only method end to determine the validity of a hypothesis, whether it is the authenticity of the Jewish Bible or anything else. How was the validity of the correct Jewish Bible decided?
I don't know what Jewish Biblical Criticism is? But you assume that you do, and I don't? Seriously? Again, you can't prove your point, so you resort to ad hominem tactics.
Your last statement is proof of the weakness of your argument. You resort to a personal attack against me but don't like it when someone attacks you.
FYI, www.etzion.org says this (with my emphases)...
According to the proponents of biblical criticism, the five books of the Torah are a compilation of four documents – J, E, P, and D. The diverse documents can most easily be distinguished on the basis of the various Divine names found in Scripture; proponents of this approach attribute each different name to a different document. They also speak of repetitions and redundancies, stylistic changes, and contradictions between different sources. The classic example put forward by the biblical scholars is the redundancy found in chapters 1 and 2 of the book of Berei****. In these chapters, Scripture refers to God by different names: "E-lokim" and "Hashem E-lokim." Moreover, the creation of the world is described twice with significant discrepancies between the two descriptions. We shall list the most prominent differences between the two accounts of creation:
1. In chap. 1, the creation is planned and executed in an orderly and structured manner, from the simple to the complex. In chap. 2, such order is missing, and at each step along the way there is renewed "deliberation" regarding what seems necessary at that particular point.
2. In chap. 1, man is created last. In chap. 2, he is created first.
3. In chap. 1, man and woman are created together. In chap. 2, woman is created only after both man and God feel her absence.
3. In chap. 1, man is blessed that he should "be fruitful and multiply." In chap. 2, he is charged with a moral mission ("to till it and to keep it") and bound by a prohibition (not to eat from the tree of knowledge).[1]
4. In chap. 1, man is created in the image of God; in chap. 2, emphasis is placed on the two contradictory elements of which he is composed – spirit and matter.
You can state over and over that Biblical criticism has no value, but that doesn't prove a thing. Personally, I prefer knowledge to ignorance.
1. In chap. 1, the creation is planned and executed in an orderly and structured manner, from the simple to the complex. In chap. 2, such order is missing, and at each step along the way there is renewed "deliberation" regarding what seems necessary at that particular point.
2. In chap. 1, man is created last. In chap. 2, he is created first.
3. In chap. 1, man and woman are created together. In chap. 2, woman is created only after both man and God feel her absence.
3. In chap. 1, man is blessed that he should "be fruitful and multiply." In chap. 2, he is charged with a moral mission ("to till it and to keep it") and bound by a prohibition (not to eat from the tree of knowledge).[1]
4. In chap. 1, man is created in the image of God; in chap. 2, emphasis is placed on the two contradictory elements of which he is composed – spirit and matter.
You can state over and over that Biblical criticism has no value, but that doesn't prove a thing. Personally, I prefer knowledge to ignorance.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Of course. How are you?
Not true. It's up to you to show relevance for your own assertions. Posting random disconnected ( yet factual ) information is against forum rules. It's SPAM.
We can stop right here. As I wrote in the very long post, which you said you read, Jewish Biblical Criticism is NOT asking a question. It is making a dogmatic and completely irrational assertion. Then it warping the evidence in order to support their religious position.
Jewish Biblical Criticism = "The Torah does not make sense and cannot make sense unless it is slit into separate pieces originating in Pagan religions."
If you need a shorter definition:
Jewish Biblical Criticism asserts "The Torah does not make sense."
Please notice: THAT ^^ is not a question. They begin with a preconceived argument from ignorance. If it were a question then, the Jewish critic would be... asking: "How does this make sense?" Then they would consult Rabbinic commentary which not only explains and answers their questions, it will offer usually 4 - 7 different possible solutions to the miscomprehension of the Jewish Critic.
Let me say that again:
IF this ^^ is the scientific method, THEN Jewish Bible Critics are never using the scientific method. Why? Because they start with a statement, not a question. The Jewish Bible Critic cannot make sense of the Torah for several very good reasons. However, when an academic AVOIDS information for no good reason, the simply put their heads in the sand and declare: "No, No, I won't listen." That is not science. They are not asking a question.
However, even if I grant them, the nearly impossible task, of reviewing over 1000 years of Rabbinic answers to their so-called contradictions and unanswerable questions, and they have rationally assessed and discarded them for good reasons, even if I grant them all of that, they still fail.
The Jewish Bible Critics solve their contradictions and answer their questions one and only one way: "Torah is compiled from different pieces from different sources.". That's their only "tool" in the tool box. When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
In 2011 they were proven wrong. The Jewish Bible Critic's methods were proven to a SHAM. Those of us in the Orthodox community knew it, because the constant belly-aching about faux-contradictions and scribal errors are easily reconciled. But these individuals refuse to listen to the Orthodox Community. They Lie. They say there is no other way to read these stories. They assert The Torah doesn't make sense, and they shield themselves from criticism with their Jewish identity. Even though they sometimes use the King James Version to force a contradiction where none exists. They act like authorities, but their entire argument is coming from ignorance.
Jewish Biblical Critic: "I dont know? Therefore it MUST be...." <--- Argument from ignorance.
This is debunked in 2011 by non-biased computer software. The methods used by the Jewish Bible Critics are subjective at best, ridiculous at worst. In 2011, this was debunked in a similar manner as DNA evidence can reverse a conviction.
'Ghostwriting' the Torah? New algorithm distinguishes contributors to the Old Testament with high accuracy
A professor has developed a new computer algorithm to help unravel the different sources that contributed to the authorship of the scriptures. Sidestepping the problems of content-based analysis, his algorithm searches for patterns in writing style to give deeper insight into ancient writings...
www.sciencedaily.com
An Israeli algorithm sheds light on the Bible
Software developed by an Israeli team is giving intriguing new hints about what researchers believe to be the multiple hands that wrote the Bible. The new software analyzes style and word choices to distinguish parts of a single text written by different authors, and when applied to the Bible...
You're only listening to the proponents. You have tunnel-vision, or your head is in the sand.
Do you know where the 4 sources came from? Jewish Critics made it up. The Yahwist source? The Jewish critic made it up. The Elohist source? The Jewish Critic made it up. In 2011 it was proven they were wrong. But the Reform Jews are still telling the same lies: "The Torah doesn't make sense!"
The Torah doesn't makes sense to them. That's it. And the Reform Movement refuses to tell the truth about its ignorance and arrogance.
We saw the behavior of @Jayhawker Soule . Attack first. Attack the whistle-blower.
Confirmation bias. You're only listening to the proponents. That's a terrible way to conduct research.
Last edited:
Sadly, frenetic dogmatism tilting at windmills is rarely OK.
BTW, TheTorah_com > Biblical Criticism is worth perusing. There is much there that I do not particularly agree with, but I do believe that the content and the authors are worthy of respect.
(Also, if you're interested, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emanuel Tov is IMO great.)
I'd be interested in your feedback.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Reported: Unsolicited advertising. SPAM.
You're advertising for Torah.com and selling books on Amazon.
Last edited:
Lisa Sims
New Member
If you don't mind reading preported messages from the inhabitants of the Kingdom of God (Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus) delivered through inspired/developed mediums, you could check out The Padgett Messages (1914-present) and see if their own answers resonate with you. I signed up for a religion class which taught "higher criticism" my first year in college and walked out in the first week, mainly because the professor couldn't say whether or not he was a Christian. But now I believe what they are teaching is probably right, they just shouldn't
use it to turn people away from God. I'm not sure but I think something like this was why my older brother dropped out of seminary and won't discuss religion to this day.