« Kiruv arguments: How arguing to persuade is different from arguing to rally. | Main | Hinduism's Message to the Jewish People »

July 24, 2011


Rael Levinsohn

The Documentary Hypothesis or critical study begins with the following foundation stone: "God doesn't write books, people do". Consequently, the bible as a human composition must be have been developed along the same lines as similar works of literature. Large, copious books with internal chronologies spanning thousands of years have to be based on existing sources (oral or written), with multiple authors and a final editor that brought them all together (analogous to the modern day Encyclopaedia). Without the critical component of revelation that is the only conclusion one would arrive at.

Further more, the issue gets compounded when the contents of the book depict fantastical accounts of global floods, talking donkeys, splitting seas, etc. The logical conclusion to come to again would be that this is a work of fiction, no different to Lord of the Rings, X-Men or the Odyssey and not an accounting of history. Without the critical component or divine providence/miracle that is the only conclusion one would arrive at.

So essentially if one doesn't believe in God, or if one has a deistic/naturalistic conception of him the documentary hypothesis is where you arrive - which is exactly what happened to say Benedict Spinoza.


The problem with your logic here is as follows:
If you, Mr. Avakesh, were born into a Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist family, would you approach religious and philosophical issues from the assumptions of those societies out of loyalty to your heritage, or would you seek the truth, whatever it might be?


Hello, every time i used too check web sitye posts here inn the early hours in the morning, for the reason that i like tto learn more andd more.

The comments to this entry are closed.