Not a true Christian: Debate Christianity and Religion's role in Politics

Of course, in Deuteronomy it is Mt Horeb where he received the commandments. This, of course, is used as some of the evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis, which states different parts of the Torah (and other early texts) were written by different authors (as opposed to Moses writing it all). The Documentary Hypothesis helps explain why there are two different and contradictory flood accounts merged together in Genesis 6-9, two different and contradictory creation stories, two alternative accounts of the Sodom & Gomorrah story (the other one in Judges 19 taking place in the town of Gibeah), two different accounts of Abraham encountering a ruler wanting to marry Abraham's wife with Abraham telling the ruler that she is his sister (which was true based on the parentage of the two of them), two different 10 Commandment stories and locations, etc. The key aspect of the Hypothesis is that different authors used different names for God (Jehovah/Yahweh vs Elohim), portrayed God very differently and focused on stories in different parts of the Levant.

 

The docu conveniently skips the facts that part of the bible were simply copy pasted from stories the Jews heared in Mesopotamia.
The British archeologists were pretty disturbed by the fact they discovered tablets with stories, older than the copied versions in the bible.

 

I assume the two times Goliath was killed wasn't an example of this, but someone taking a good story and attaching it to David to make him look better.

 

It doesn't skip that actually. In fact, the P-source ("Priestly source" - one of 4 sources discussed in the Documentary Hypothesis) is believed to have been written by Hebrew priests during the Babylonian captivity, explaining why those Mesopotamian myths and legends appear in the Hebrew scriptures.

edit: Of the two Flood stories I mentioned, one of them is very similar to the Babylonian flood story - it's quite poetic and dramatic (it's the one that focuses on 40 days and 40 nights). The other flood story is quite tedious and analytical (it uses a much longer time frame for the flood).

 

One quick and easy way to usually tell is to look and see what name for God is used in the associated passages - is it Elohim, which gets translated as "God" in most English bibles, is it YHWH, which gets translated as "LORD" in most English bibles, or is it a combination of the two names, which usually gets translated as "LORD God".

 

@roby was there putting the final touches on the golden calf. Why don’t you ask him?

 

I read about this stuff about 20years ago and haven’t bothered to stay on top of it, but I remember distinctly that it was suggested at least 4 authors of the Torah. I haven’t heard it coined the “Documentary Hypothesis” before.

One author was very distinct and was part of the priestly tribe, the one which emphasized sacrifice, like when Noah sacrificed all the animals g_d had him save after the flood receded, also had him build that huge ass ark just to save and kill the animals. Seems odd.

 

I'm not taking any questions till i finish my scallopini.

 

But God needed to eat!

Mesopotamian gods ate by smelling the aroma of burnt / sacrificed food offerings. You'll notice that Genesis 8:21 explicitly says the aroma was pleasing to God ("YHWH smelled the pleasing aroma"). It helps explain why God preferred Abel's offering to Cain's - have you ever compared the smells of lamb chops or a steak to grains or vegetables at a BBQ? Of course God preferred Abel's sacrifice!

And yes, the Documentary Hypothesis is based on 4 authors: J, E, D and P, each writing from a different time and place. D is seen as the author of Deuteronomy (and is thought to be the "lost scroll" that suddenly turned up and caused the Israelites to repent of their behavior when read out loud). There are problems with the Documentary Hypothesis, for the record, and it is seen as a starting point for critically understanding the Scriptures, not the ending point for understanding them.

 

I remember jumping into the Documentary Hypothesis in my first class on the first day of college after convincing my advisor (who taught the class) that I should be allowed to take upper level classes my first semester. I immediately realized that I was out of my depth, but learning to swim in that class was greatly rewarding.

 

Jesus must've been one bad hombre if this is how our Republicans act

 

Yes, the Redactor(s) would be the one(s) who assembled the four sources together, albeit imperfectly as you indicated. Just look at how the two different flood stories were edited together into "one story" in Genesis 6-9. Because of the editing, you end up with noticeable contradictions, including the number of animals taken on board the ark (2 of each kind or 7 pairs of kosher animals and 1 pair of non-kosher, given both are made explicit).

Wikipedia provides a flow chart, as well as some of the criticisms.

 

Any mention of the two mosquitoes??

 

I know nobody cares about this but me , but you can tell the tweeter doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he makes it a Presbyterian church. It’s Baptist, Pentecostal or similar, or nondenominational evangelical, every time.

 

Lutherans do 2 years of confirmation classes, weekly during the school year. (At least we did in the mid 70s.). The first year covered the Bible, and of course we started with Genesis. This contradiction plus the two different versions of Eve’s creation were covered in the first month, if not the 1st or 2nd week. So from the very beginning of our eduction to be adult Lutherans, we were shown that inerrantism is stupid.

Just to let you guys know why I am the way I am.

 

God made you that way-- no need to blame the Lutherans!

 

Here’s a great retort to anyone speaking in tongues. 1 Corinthians 14:4. The one who speaks in tongues builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

 

The Talking Heads. Duh!

 

I haven't read it, but one of my old profs fairly recently published a book on Tongues. I do recall reading some books back then that tracked the phenomenon and how it spread. Different styles/languages and the personal vectors who spread it were pretty easy to trace. https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/09/book-review-blosser-sullivans-speaking.html

 

That whole chapter is basically anti speaking in tongues.

And reading the chapter straight through, you can see how verses 34 and 35 came to be considered a later interpolation. (Those are the verses about how women shouldn’t speak in church. If you skip those verses the writing flows more smoothly.)