To prove Christianity is true we must first prove Judaism is true. Right?

[Moses613]

To arrive at reasonable conclusions while doing biblical research, there should be no agenda based on ones belief. If one is trying to prove that God wrote the Bible, that is different from trying to find out who wrote the Bible. The first is deductive and the latter is inductive. The first approach establishes a premise that is universally accepted as being true and then trying to find convincing evidence, while the second is to discover evidence that one can use to formulate conclusions.

The first approach is a priori and the second is a posteriori.

Academic Bible scholars and those who accept the authority of the Bible approach its study from conceptually different frameworks which are fundamentally irreconcilable. Academic Bible scholarship proceeds from the assumption that the Pentateuch is the product of the human mind and then attempts to adduce evidence that would indicate characteristics about the human authors, including historical epoch, political and religious goals, and even personality. They attempt to find interwoven strands which have been edited together into one work.

The foundational principle of the approach to the Pentateuch by the faithful is that it is the product of the Divine mind. Therefore, categories which apply to the study of human literature are totally inapplicable. A Divine document is a phenomenological singularity; thus, no test can be devised to determine whether the claim of its divinity is true or false (i.e.: If X were a Divine document, it should have characteristic set {Y}. Since it does not have {Y}, X is not Divine. This is impossible because there is no indication of what {Y} would be from any other source.). It is an unfalsifiable claim, which is inadmissible in logical debate, therefore debate about this topic based on pure logic is fruitless. Yes, believers approach the Bible in an a priori fashion and they a priori reject the conclusions of the a posteriori approach. Basically, the problem comes when these two frameworks try to mix. If I were to try to “prove” the Torah’s divinity, it would not be in the form of logical axioms, but rather an argument of reasonableness to the human mind.

Re: the 6000 years issue. This comes from a Rabbinic midrash. According to traditional Jewish chronology 6000 years is not up because the current year is 5774 anno mundi. This is within the religious framework and has nothing to do with the measurement of 15.3 billion years in the scientific framework. Again, the frameworks cannot be mixed. Another point I would make is that in my humble opinion, I don’t think the 6000 year deadline is like some kind of law of physics. Jewish tradition strongly maintains that it is impossible to calculate the date of the Messiah’s arrival. 226 years from now, there could be some circumstance which, G-d forbid, causes the further delay of his coming.

 

[nmgauss]

Academic Bible scholarship proceeds from the assumption that the Pentateuch is the product of the human mind and then attempts to adduce evidence that would indicate characteristics about the human authors, including historical epoch, political and religious goals, and even personality. They attempt to find interwoven strands which have been edited together into one work.

The foundational principle of the approach to the Pentateuch by the faithful is that it is the product of the Divine mind. Therefore, categories which apply to the study of human literature are totally inapplicable. A Divine document is a phenomenological singularity; thus, no test can be devised to determine whether the claim of its divinity is true or false (i.e.: If X were a Divine document, it should have characteristic set {Y}.

Much of the confusion exists in authorship. When was the scripture written and who wrote it? The fact that the document may have existed before it became canon throws another level of complication into the equation, for changes in the original text may have occurred in the copy that was available at the time of canonization. In many cases the written text was based on oral transmission. which lends itself to further alterations inserted by the speaker. Whether these changes were made by Divine revelation is another issue. As to the original text, if it was recorded in response to a revelation from G-d, unless there is written documentation of this revelation at the time it occurred or shortly thereafter, we don’t really know who originated the text.

And since massive destruction of ancient libraries has occurred, especially the one at Alexandria, precious source scrolls and letters have been lost.

 

[pocohombre]

Much of the confusion exists in authorship. When was the scripture written and who wrote it?

Is that really it ? When we do know by whom and about when NT stuff was written, some still are confused and use arguments similar to what you use hear (doubting correct writing and correct remembering from oral). Same arguments.

The fact that the document may have existed before it became canon throws another level of complication into the equation

Again, not sure .When was OT canonized by Judaism ? Was it 1-2 century ? Are you aware of the meticulousness with which cripture was written and copied ? Are you aware of the attitude that was taken by those who were entrusted with the work ? No litereray work on this planet has better authentication/accuracy than OT and NT.

In many cases the written text was based on oral transmission. which lends itself to further alterations inserted by the speaker.

Yes, yes, yes. Are we aware of the skill that was honed in oral remembrance and recitation that is capable by the human mind ? Are we aware of what of the rigors taken on by young Jewish kids on reciting whole chapters even books ? I am told Lincoln’s Gettysburg address took only minutes . The man who spoke before him spoke for hours…hours. Today’s technologies have left us cripple in these areas.

As to the original text, if it was recorded in response to a revelation from G-d, unless there is written documentation of this revelation at the time it occurred or shortly thereafter, we don’t really know who originated the text.

And…?

And since massive destruction of ancient libraries has occurred, especially the one at Alexandria, precious source scrolls and letters have been lost.

And the ones that survived ?

 

[rinnie]

Why is it necessary to prove that anything is right? Why not gather data, look at it, evaluate it, and come to a conclusion based on the data?

What would be the purpose then?

 

[nmgauss]

What would be the purpose then?

The purpose of any research is to seek answers to questions. If one wants to find out how the Book of Isaiah came to be written, one would gather as much data as one can find to determine its origin.