Disproving the claim

[lukpet]

I watched a part of that video: youtube.com/watch?v=IYMKQKSV0bY

And I wanted to ask how to answer correctly the claim about the changig style. (It is from about 31:30 and lasts a few minutes)

Thank you,
God bless you

 

[Vico]

I watched a part of that video: youtube.com/watch?v=IYMKQKSV0bY

And I wanted to ask how to answer correctly the claim about the changig style. (It is from about 31:30 and lasts a few minutes)

Thank you,
God bless you

By “changing style” do you mean that the books of the Bible have various authors with writing styles? Yes, of course. The Old Testament scriptures were oral tradition committed to writing later. Catholic faith was established first in liturgy, belief, and practice and then the books of the New Testament were written later by various authors.

 

[lukpet]

No no, I meant what he says in the Video. He says that in the Torah there is a chapter with clear and beautiful Hebrew and then 2 chapters later a Hebrew which is broken

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Does he explain how it’s broken, or just claim that it is?

Regardless, perhaps there is a stylistic reason for the change. You can’t just treat the Bible like modern book. It follows the stylistic conventions of its time, many of which would seem completely foreign to modern authors and readers

We also can’t discount that there may have been multiple people writing the books. These are transcribed oral histories, so it’s entirely possible that different people retained different portions of the history, which resulted in apparent stylistic changes when the “teller” transitioned.

…Yeah, I just listened to some of what that guy had to say. This is nothing more than his opinion, based on the fact that he has trouble comprehending that changing nature of God’s covenant. I’d ignore it, the guy does not seem well versed in scriptural history. He doesn’t provide evidence, only assertions and opinions based on what he thinks God would do.

Sometimes there is no way to answer a claim because the claim is completely unfounded. When you come across these sorts of opinion driven arguments, ask them to provide evidence. You have no burden of proof here.

 

[Gorgias]

And I wanted to ask how to answer correctly the claim about the changig style. (It is from about 31:30 and lasts a few minutes)

Something I’ve noticed from folks who reject Christianity and turn to another religious tradition: it’s less a rejection of Christianity itself, but rather, a rejection of a fundamentalist-literalist approach to Christianity. Having rejected that literalist view, they think that Christianity itself is false.

(He makes the claim that “in Christianity, you cannot ask questions” and the response is always “don’t let a little knowledge wreck your faith”. It’s clear that this is not what Christianity teaches or recommends (although there are certainly individuals or groups within Christianity who say this).)

He also makes the error of attempting to read the Bible without context.

To your question: why would differences in style be a problem? He makes the claim that there are errors – and worse, deliberate and calculated modifications! – that people introduced over time. His claim has a germ of truth, but he’s spinning it really, really hard…

The response, I think, is that although there were authors and redactors, we wouldn’t say what his friend is claiming: namely, that people deliberately attempted to change the Word of God in order to further their personal goals.

 

[Vico]

No no, I meant what he says in the Video. He says that in the Torah there is a chapter with clear and beautiful Hebrew and then 2 chapters later a Hebrew which is broken

Those five books are attributed (through style analysis) to various authors with different styles: Elohist, Yahwist, Priestly, and Deuteronomist.

 

[Spyridon]

The Churches Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum (the Word of God) explains this in chapter 3, paragraph 11:

"Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text)."

I strongly suggest you read the whole Dogmatic Constitution: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html