bibleoutlinenews

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION (Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 15 )

2009-08-24T17:45:00.000-07:00

The "Archeology" proved the events of the "TORAH" ,. but it could not give the faith, in the inspiration process, for the unfaithful persons, who assured that these events might be real , and the historical author might be the prophet himself , but it was not, in fact { according to their point of view},a prophetic process ,he has just a writer to a historical book, or perhaps a book of literature , The Archeological discoveries, helped us by giving evidences, to face the old group of people, who criticize the contents ,and produced some false mental evidence ,which have built on some uncompleted historical knowledge. The Critics of the first nineteenth centuries AD ,fell under this group. But from the beginning of the second half, of the twentieth century,a group of Critics who could not deny the historical trusted facts, in concern of the "TORAH", but they have stolen its spiritual effects . Also,some of them, tried to allow with some covered wickedness, that they had some observations, on some of the historical facts ."The School of Leipzig" fell under this later category, "The School of Leipzig" were establishing by ,"The Late Albrecht Alt",but the most popular person,who possesed some attractiveness, was "M.Noth" ,who wrote his book ,"Oberlieferungeschichte des Pentateuch" ,1948 . We will begin by denoting some positives opinion, of his views like :- His idea in concern of the "Deotronomy"that , this book was the base of the books of "Joshua","Judges", "Samuel I,II " and "The Kings I,II" He was brilliant ,when he have discussed the theories of the origins,and the documents . He was the first writer, who suggested that the story of the exodus ,as it was , the center of the theological thinking, in all of the old testament . He was the best Critic ,who dealt with the history of Israelite nation ,but he forgot some of the historical facts. Also his positive historical discussion, to the opinions of "Eeinrich Euald", who was in 1875,which reflected our positive idea about his historical attitude. "Euald" said that the number of twelve, was not a real number for the Israelite tribes, it was just an allegorical number,but "Noth" defending by saying that, the sacred covenant was at its very beginnings ,a common covenant for the twelfths tribes ,after a peaceful religious living , as the stage which happened in the Greek nation's history,That covenant began at the time of the Judges ,according to the written covenant ,of the previous books, specially , the "Deotronomy"..The covenant ensured, the importance of the centric place for worshiping together, according to what have recorded in the "TORAH" . We have, in fact, some observations, about the comparing between the Greek and the Italian unity, and what have real occur to the Israelite nation . His comparison were more real, if he have used it ,to compare between them and the Palestinian unity . But in the case of the Israelite nation ,they were in their original state one nation, related to one grandfather . generally, it was positive to reveal the existence of the twelve tribes ,during the sacred covenant . Also he had a strange opinion, about some kind of the covenants, during the days of "Joshua", he called it the"Amphictigony" ,which "Joshua"made it, to the Israelite, because the Bible taught us ,that the covenant during the days of "Joshua",were the same covenant of "Moses". This "Amphictigony" were to unite the tribes together, to be a united nation, in their political and religious affairs,under the authorities of the Judges, but it was some problems, faced us to agree "Noth"'s opinion, because we have observed, their desire to be under the rule of a king . and follow later . Rev. Joseph

ASCIENTIFIC REACTION ( Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 14 )

2009-08-23T18:07:00.000-07:00

The problem which the form criticism have created ,to themselves, was the question .Who wrote the "TORAH" ?,because they denied the "Mosaic Authorship" . One of their followers, his name was "The Late Ivan Engnell",have established "Uppsala School",in order to escape from this difficult question, he suggested an existence of two groups ,during the exile times, he called them the "P" group ,and the "D" group . The "P" group, kept in their memory the first four books :- Genesis,Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers . While the second group ,kept in their memory four other books, they were :- Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges , Samuel [ first and second] . The eight books were collected, from the total memory ,of those two groups ??? The original source of their memory, was the prophet himself . BUT they did not solve the problem, which the form criticism have created to themselves, he imagined that he solved it ,by suggesting that the source were the prophet himself, but he did not mention, What was the words of the prophet, and what they have added after him ,and how did they all agreed about the differences, and if the two groups were belonging to the grandfathers ,who were students in the school of the prophet, how did the grandfathers of the second group lived, in the times of "Joshua " ,and still alive to the end of the book of "Samuel",at the days of "David",to collect in their memory the contents of the four books . So, he did not solve the problem, but he added some problems, without any logical reasons. The school of " Uppsala" ,were not the only wrong attitude, which faced the "Wellhausen"'s theory, accompanied by the school of the form criticism, and the Scandinavian school , there were other schools, like the school of the" Traditio-Historical " ,or, the historical traditional attitude . The followers of "Edhard Nielson" who have established this school ,wrote his book "Old Tradition",1954 ,which depended upon the study of the Old Hebraic People's psychology, and with the using of the Old Eastern literature , added to that some kind of imaginations ,We can not describe it as a real Scientific thinking, they were as he, who searched what was in the mind of the King "Tut" ,while he was eating his last meal !!! WHY they denied the old writing for the "TORAH" ?? , WHY they tried to think about how the Hebrew people collected the "TORAH" later ??, by the using of their memories !! To answer about this question ,we have one definite answer ,IT was because, they were under the effects of the thoughts ,of "Wellhausen" himself who suggested that, the Hebrew language ,were not a written language ,before the exile ,this false idea led them to some closed roads .What was the archeological discoveries said, after their time ,to answer them, if they were following the themes of "Wellhausen", and attacked him at the same time . The origin of the "Hebrew" language ,which was the "Akadean" language, were still common as a diplomatic language, before the twentieth century ,to the fifteen century BC, as we knew from the letters of "Tell -el-Amarna", the Hebrew language itself,were formed from the twentieth century BC, but we have also some Hebraic writings ,up to the fortieth century BC, in spite of it was not developed, as the other "Holographic" language , "W.J.Martin" recorded that in his book ,"Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah " p18,at1954 , it was before "Moses"times . The " Texts of Nuzi " and the "Texts of Mary" , proved the validity trust in the contents of the "TORAH" , and let us see later Rev. Joseph

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION ( Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 13 )

2009-08-23T15:03:00.000-07:00

"H.Gunkel" and "H.Gressmann"established the form criticism,after the failing of the school of "Wellhausen." . "H.Gunkel" compared between the "TORAH" and the other archeological manuscripts of the other cultures at "Moses" times . He suggested that the religious thinking ,among the Israelite nation ,was transmitted to the generation ,with some written books, although it was some knowledges in their memory, their fathers have transmitted it to them, while it belonged to many nations,by the time (as he suggested)they mixed what they have known from their fathers with what it was written in the books,thus ,even their doctrine in God, have been formed through many stages, according to the quantity, which they have accepted from the memory, which added it to the books . Therefore ,"Gunkel" delayed the the doctrine of the inspiration completely , since he thought that the written books were under the will,or the desire of the people ,who were not prophets . it is known to us that the oldest legal laws, during the patriarchal ages, before "Moses "were transmitted across the different generations, through the memory .therefore it was not a strange accident, to find some similarity, between what was in their memories ,and what was inspired by God to 'Moses" . It was some agreement, we do not deny it, but also some big differences . At last it is expected to find some manuscripts like what "Gunkel" have found . "Gunkel" failed in maintaining the form,of the original written source, which he have suggested . To argue with his thoughts ,we must analyse his theory , He puts us before three persons, the First who composed the books,the Second, the people who trust in this writting , the Third were the memories of the people who directed the thoughts of the people, which comes from the memories, and what was added across many ages to the written source[the form] .. To discover that form, we must ask him , Who is the speaker in that form? and, Who were the listeners? and ,Who were the persons who had the right to suggest the correction ,by adding or by omitting ? The logical and the recorded answers for these three questions are:- First the inspiration of God who wrote.by using the prophet .. Second the people of God who listened and obey. Third it was impossibility to find someone, who have authority to correct the thinking of the people, who was not a prophet .while the.prophet, was the first one who wrote ,that's means that there were not three, but two the prophet who wrote by the inspiration ,and the people who listened ,or reads ,and obey ,it was impossibility to find the third imagined group . "Gunkel" could not complete his task,"H.Gressmann"completed it, by publishing a serial books, called "Die Shriften des Alten Testaments ",1911 .In this collection, he have destroyed, the beautifulness of the stories of the "TORAH",also denied the existence of the inspiration, to pave the way for the "Scaninavian Formal School" .BUT "J.Pederson"who was one of this school ,announced that the documentary's theory ,gone forever.,and the "TORAH" was a memorized thoughts, have been written from its first beginning, in its common form,in a later time ."ZAW.XLIX"pp161-181,1931 and thus he added other problems, to the form schools as we shall see followed Rev. Joseph

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION ( Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 12 )

2009-08-22T17:12:00.000-07:00

We have learnt before , that some of the scientists, during their attempt to defend against "Wellhausen" , failed as a victim of their self confidence,and became critics , but by using other way for criticism, in order to attack "Wellhausen". Their aims were not to protect the the word of God, but to prove their cleverness, against "Wellhausen" ,so some of them , have created the school of the form criticism, whom we will answer them the next essay ,but now, let us discuss one critic, who had no relation to the form school ,his name was "E.Robertson",he wrote his book "The Old Testament Problems",although he have written some positive ideas in his book ,to attack "Wellhausen"'s methods in thinking, he found himself at last ,in a strange situation , because his thoughts led him ,to find another theory against "Wellhausen's"theory,so, he said that "Samuel" the prophet ,was the composer of the book of "Deuteronomy", in order to revive the legal respect, to the Mosaic laws , and put that book of legal laws, inside the "Ark of the Covenant ", where the priests kept it, until the days of "Josiah",who used it to be the base of his reformation,.The student of "Robertson" completed this suggestion ,.his name was "R.Brinker" who wrote a book called ,"The Influence of Sanctuaries", to suggest that the sanctuary ,with its legal duties , have created in "Samuel" a sacred duty, to reform the states of the people ,who accepted the foolish practices of the priests, before him, by collecting the legal laws of "Moses",to control his position, in the sanctuary,"Robertson" and his follower, found some one , to follow them , his name was"U.Cassuto" who wrote his book "La Questione dela Genesi" . The story of "Samuel" as they have recorded, were just as a short story, imagined by some person,it have not any biblical or historical bases, only their depending on an individual situation , have recorded to "Josiah", who had not any relation to "Samuel" . Therefor, we found "E.Dornseiff", in the big refernce"ZAW.LII-LIII",1934 defended for the the "TORAH"'s authorship, as a whole, because he believed in the unity of the "TORAH",also he wrote his book "Antike und Alter Orient" ,about the normal unity of the "TORAH". Also there was "A.R.Jonson" who warned us from the danger of these thoughts, saying that , the real danger in the Old Testament studies , is in the misconstrue, to that part of the inspired bible,Did the inspiration has a different sources ? Did it divided in its authorship stages , to rewrite it to be suitable to the generation's conceptions ? ,these are a conflicted opinions, which attacks the theory of the inspiration, which our respect to the great value of the "TORAH", depends on its bases . It is clear that the apologetic scientists, found themselves before the face of the critics, and , the scientists with the writers, who walked in a wrong way, to attack the critics , but they succeeded in performing their duty, due to their abilities , this success were based on the Holy Bible ,only, but they used it,and it was sufficient and qualified to win ,at the end. and followed , Rev. Joseph.

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION ( Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 11 )

2009-08-22T11:47:00.000-07:00

When "Carlstadt "criticized the "TORAH", he assured that the story of the death of "Moses", at the end of the Deuteronomy , was his major proof ,that "Moses" was not its writer ,.he was in fact, effected by the opinions of "Ibn Ezra" ,but when he studied the contents of the "TORAH", he commented on the unity of its style, and its inside evidence in Ex 17.14,24.4-8,34.27,Nu 33.1,2,Deuteronomy 31.9about the writer of the "TORAH", he said that, it was impossible for any person, to speak on behave of "Moses" ,with using the Personal pronoun of "Moses",and produced the books of the "TORAH",which had a unity style , it is clear to us now, that some of those critics ,attacked the "TORAH" before giving a sufficient chance for the deep thinking . But "Wellhausen"had a special privacy, .he observed the history of the Israelite people ,along many ages ,and commented on the times, when they were practicing the polytheism, after the times of "Moses",and their worshiping tn many places, after the "Tabernacle" ,because of that, he suggested that the story of "Moses",and his thoughts and deeds,were composed in a later ages ,after his existence , or , he imagined that the folkloric descriptions, were attached to his personality ,and united with the books of the "TORAH" ,along many stages {we can give him a scientific pardon, if he have shown us some scientific samples ,of the "TORAH", along the ages,but,as we know, he did not have had any sample, or any eye witness, who saw it ,or,any confidential source ,which have described what he have said}. He could not understood that, the people were in Egypt with"Moses", and the paganism were their original sin, which they could not leave it ,at the moment of the exodus ,in spite of the oracles of "Moses",the "TORAH" itself described that disobedience of the people, also, when they entered the promised lands ,they found themselves between the nations, who believed in the paganism ,and the polytheism ,many hundreds of years , the prophet "Solomon" played an important part, in concentrating on the place of the worshiping, but he could not prevent the people, to be loyal to the one God,because the relation between God and his people, ,in fact,is a secret personal relationship ,BUT through these ages of the disobedience, there were some of faithful people, increased ,or decreased ,according to the political ,economical,social,and the real states of the Israelite community. The state of the Israelite people in the past, looked like the states of the people, who belonged to any religion, at any time , the faithfuls always only a percentage amount,less or more the percentage of the unfaithful persons . And if we added that "Wellhausen" himself, referred to the "TORAH" to prove his suggestion , the Scientific base is, To prove your themes ,it must established on the bases of the confidential sources , if the "TORAH" was confidential, then his theory was false,but if it was not, Where is his confidential sources ? Where were these confidential origins ?. Therefor the results or the conclusions of that theory ,did not have any validity, it was unscientific theory . and follow, Rev. Joseph

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION (Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 10 )

2009-08-20T13:52:00.000-07:00

(3)The double recorded stories:- They are as follows, {a}"Wellhausen" said that it was a double recorded story, about the casting out of "Hagar"at Gen 16.4,9.21 .The first refer to "J" but the second to "E" BUT,when we refer to the two stories, we find them Two Different Stories, The first about "Hagar's"escaping by her free will ,when she was pregnant, and ,The second is the story of her casting out by the will of "Sarah"when The Son of "Hagar "was a teen ager. {b}The story of "Beersheba"in Ge21.31,Gen26.31 . "Wellhausen "did not know ,that their were two words in the Hebrew language, both of them consists of three letters, (sheen),(beth),(ain), [SHABA and SHEBA] The first root means satisfaction, but, The second means seven. The three letters "SH,B,A"could not reflect the same root, at Ge 21 "ABRAHAM " named the "WELL"which is the translation of the Hebraic word "beer" of the seven" BEERSHEBA", but the second at Gen 26.31"ISAC" named the "COUNTRY" "beer" which also means "well"or"source"of the" satisfaction" the Hebrew word is "shaba""BEERSHABA" . {c}The story of the denying wife three times Gen 12.10,Gen20.1,Gen26.6 . "Wellhausen "also did not tray to understand that three were different, it was not a single story, recorded three times, The first one occurs by "ABRAM"at "EGYPT" because the "FAMINE" ,but the second one was by"ABRAHAM" [the same person but after many years] at"GERAR" while he was "TRAVELING" far after the accident of "Sodom" ,also, The third were by "ISAC" because of a"FAMINE", "Gerar" and "Abimalech" ,the king of "Gerar ",were "Wellhausen's" bases ,for his suggestion, But now we have found in the Archeology, that the name of "Abimalech",was common at that time ,as a title for the king of "Gerar", it was not the same person ,it was the name which the pharaohs have used, to call the chieftain of the Palestine leaders,.as they called themselves Pharaohs .They were three accidents, every one of them has its circumstances , "Aalders" and "Allis"made a study for these stories, and proved that ,the changing in these stories, ensured the anti Wellhausen's thoughts,because the repeating was common style of the old semitic literature ,and it employed to prove the story ,and to make it easy (see J.Muilenburg,"A Study in Hebrew Rhetoric Repetation and Style in Supplements to the New Testament" 1953),also the book of "J.Pederson" "Israel,I,II,1926", The christian scientists, were not the only persons ,who attacked the "Wellhausen's"assumptions, in concern of the double recorded stories {due to his idea), but some of the critics, also ,defended the repeating , like "B.D.Eordmans" who accepted the theme of the origin "P", he said that all these stories, referred to the same origin "P" not to many origins, although he have suggested other origins for other parts . And followed Rev.Joseph.

A Scientific Reaction ( Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 9 )

2009-08-19T09:53:00.000-07:00

(2) The claims of the different literal style :- The modern science have developed the statical measurements, in order to be able to help the scientists ,by giving them , a definite probabilities , to test it ,due to its actually occurrence, in the fact real present order , to reach to many results, in their scientific research . We must observe that, the statical methods, has given us a probabilities, not the results , probabilities to study it, not to find a definite positive or negative conclusion . For example, if you analyse my Message when I was angry, you may conclude that,I have used some expression ,from the vocabulary ,different than the expressions of some other people else, it may reflect my personality,or my literal style,but it also may not reflect it , perhaps I was under the influence ,of some variable expression,which was used by the media ,at the moment of my writing, or perhaps it was a unique accident, that it has been occurred to me, and can not be occurred again ,also perhaps it is my real habitual style , therefor if any other analytical study, found another Message used these expressions, it will reach to a probability ,that may be that,the later Message is mine,because it used my expressions ,or my style of writing . Observe that I said MAY BE ,because the verbal analytical studies , has given us probabilities, not results,but it alert us, to study this probability,in order to find, if it was positive or negative, as it is a just probability only . But what the Critics have done is, to jump over their research's responsibilities, to record the probability ,as if it was a result or conclusion . This kind of scientific methods, is not able to measure and control the human literature, without any limits, but it is only a helper method . What about the Divine literature? Can this kind of the indefinite measure valued it ? "W.J Martin" in his book "Stylistic Criteria"1955,.rejected the way which the critics was using, to deal with the Holy Bible because :- (1)The Holy Bible is not a normal book of literature, to measure it by some indefinite, or definite measures of the human literature . (2)All these measures are variable ,the measures of the modern literature, can not measure the old literature,the eastern literature measures can not measure the western literature.....etc, and follows Rev. Joseph

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION ( Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 8 )

2009-08-19T07:36:00.000-07:00

In the past essays ,we have declared how some critics, like "Wellhausen", have suggested some different origins for the "TORAH", due to the different names of the Divine personality, between "ELOHEEM' or "YAHOAH". The defense of the scientists depends briefly on the following five points :- (1) Proofs from the Septuagint translation :- We know that the Septuagint, was the oldest Greek translation, for the old testament ,before the birth of Christ ,this translation was adopted by the apostles, and the well educated people, at that time, but we find the two names ,translated as God or The lord ,to reflect the mention of one personality ,according to his function in the accidents . So the Massoretic text ( a Hebrew manuscripts older than the Septuagint itself) also, have the same attitude, "J Skinner" in his book "The Divine Names in Genesis "1914 , have declared this normal differences ,between the two names ,and recorded how the translators have translated "ELOHEEM" which means" God ",to translate it by the word" The Lord " sometimes ,and how they have chosen to translate the word "YAHOAH" which literally means "The lord ",to translate it "God", .he mentioned many examples in concern of this normal types ,of the translations ,to close the door before the faces, of who suggested ,the different sources of the theological background history, of the two names, in the mind and memory of the writer of the "TORAH". (2)In the studies of "R.D.Wilson ,we find how some old books like El Qoraan have recorded many names for God ,which means that the old nations, used to call God with many names (PTR,XVII,1919,pp644 etc.,) (3)The compound name for God, in the old testament ,ensured this fact ,for example "YAHOAH ELOHEEM" as a compound name together (see Genesis 2.4,3.24,Exodus9.30) this compound name, is a great difficulty ,which faces the guesses of "Wellhausen", in concern of his themes ,about the two origins of "ELOHEEM" or "YAHOAH", because it is impossible to remain every part of this compound name, to a different origin . (4)The double names for God, were famous ,and have a commonly used, in the old Egyptian Literatures, and the old Greek Literatures ,which was written during the age of "Moses" (see the book of C.H Gorden,"Christianity Today "1959,. (5)The different theological theory , as a background of the different names, is a false theme , because the different qualities of God ,is a logical result ,as He is An Unlimited One, it is normal to find a name ,for his Divine personality ,due to the different situations,with its private accidents ,which demanded a private function practiced by God,who have been described ,by a special name, due to this situation ,which he have been described.according to what "J.Engnell" have said in his book "Galma Testament I ".1945. and followed Rev. Joseph

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION ( Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 7 )at

2009-08-19T05:55:00.000-07:00

Many of the great scientists ,attacked "Wellhausen's" themes, like "E.W.Hengstenberg" in his book "Dissertations on the Genuineness f the Pentateuch",1847, and "C.F.Keil " with "W.H Green" in his book "The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch", 1895 ,also "James Orr" in his book "The Problem of The O.T ".1900, when he established his defense upon the weakness of the proofs ,of "Wellhausen" due to its literature and theological values . Many scientists followed his logic, like "R.D.Wilson" in his book "A Scientific Investigation of the O.T ", 1926 and "G.Ch..Aalders",in his book "A Short Introduction to the Pentateuch",1949, also "O.T. Allis" in his book "The Five Book of Moses" 1943, AT last the great man "E.J.Young" ,(we have quoted one of his expressions when he described the purposes of the critics, in the past essays) and his book "Introduction to the Old Testament",1949. All these great men established their defense on attacking the three proofs of "Wellhausen" which was as follows :-(1) The deferent names of God . (2) the different literal style . (3) The double mentioned of some stories. But while these people defended ,another school of criticism have born ,by"H.Gunkel" and "H.Gressmann" it was the school of the form criticism ,which attacked "Wellhausen" but it was at the same time, a new wrong method ,which missed the real facts of the inspiration . At our following essays, we will explain briefly, how all these people helped us ,to analyse and comment on the real facts, counter "Wellhausen"' suggestions . and follows Rev. Joseph

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION (Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 6 )

2009-08-16T13:29:00.000-07:00

We have known from the seventh essay, about the author ,that "H.Hubfeld" and some critics, at the end of the nineteenth century, like "W.Vatke" have adopted the title "P", for a suggested origin, later than the suggested origin "J", which was a reference [due to their opinion ], to some contents ,recorded the name "YAHOAH", like the older origin "J" ,but these new contents [due to their opinion ] ,were used in a later time .. The letter "P" is the first letter of the word "priests" ,so,they suggested that, in a later time the records of the the priests, have played a part in correcting , or adding some data ,to the "TORAH" .What was their profs ? They said that, their were a conflict between the story of the creation, which recorded in the first chapter, of the book of Genesis, and the another story of the third and the fourth chapter, this last story,related to the history of the ancestors, which was recorded in the forth chapter ,but from the beginning of chapter five he referred to the origin of the chapter one again !!!! Their profs were (1) the differences between some accidents recorded in the two stories .!!!but in spit of their description [ Differences ], they could not succeed, to give us one example, to these differences, in concern of any individual fact. (2)the popular style of chapter two, three and four ,was a style which comments on the accidents, [the story of falling after the new story of the creation,and the sentence "and dead "after the brief history of the fathers] . (3)The returning of the title "ELOHEEM" ,which was in the first chapter ,to return in the fifth chapter . But who made this suggested quotation between chapter one and chapter five ? ,are there really any changes? ,or differences between the Two[due to their suggestion] stories?,we have not observed any double recording !!,we observed only the story ,and the comment on the private briefs,which was not mentioned in details, in the past general outline of the story,!! it was the style of one writer ,who spoke about one purpose, which he wanted to make it clear, before the most simple people ,of that age, at the first story he recorded the creation in general, at the second story he spoke about the man as a member in this creation, and his story of his dealing with god ,The man failed for the second time, in the test of dealing with God ,also the category of the ancestors at the end of chapter four ,were not a double category of chapter five , In chapter four was the category of "Cain" but in the fifth chapter was the category of "Seth" . What's urge us to astonish !! is what they have said, in concern of the fifth chapter ,they suggested that its body referred to"J" ,the first suggested origin of the first chapter[due to the name "ELOHEEM"] , but the writer added the word and dead after the brief history of every father, just a brief comment ,from "P" !!! if the same story of "J" was recorded in "P", what was the reason to transmit the story from "J" ,and recorded only " and dead " from "P" did the only reason was the title of God ?? did the writer was less intelligent to observe any differences inside his story ??? did the return of the name "ELOHEEM" when he began to speak about a new work,of the same God of the creation "ELOHEEM" ,during the flood ,is the reason of their suggestion ?? Any develop of the story, from the first chapter to the seventh,but, to the end of the book, had its suitable reasonable changing,due to the changing of the accidents , and the changing of the old ancestors' [ the subject of the story ] ,in their aims, no differences at all . They had not any example of differences ,all what they had is ,the comparison between a general brief story, and some details later for the same story ,without conflict . The style is united together, to reflect a style of an intelligent teacher, who wants to educate his people ,what is sufficient to urge them ,to be loyal to the one God ,who is "ELOHEEM" and his function in concern of his people as "YAHOAH",and again, Where is their "J" ? and Where is their "P" ? The different suggested origins ,are in fact, their different personal respect ,to the scriptures . And follow. Rev.Joseph

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION (Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 5 )

2009-08-16T08:49:00.000-07:00

The disagreed group of "J","E" ,misunderstood the message of the "TORAH" ,they dealt with it as a folkloric book, which have reached to them, along many different generations ,belonged to a different ages,and reflected many cultures ,but they failed EVEN in this task also ,because if it had a folkloric contents [due to their assumptions] why they could not study it ,using the idle scientific literal methods, according to what the scientists of the folkloric heritages, do in this kind of literature ? They have stopped only in the limits of titles, without a real study to the function of every title,Also imagined some histories ,about every title ,without having a real evidences between their hands, to make their suggested proofs scientific work, in the folkloric criticism .. If we refer to Exodus 3.11-17,we find the reason of the name "YAHOAH" ,as the personal title for God "ELOHEEM",it would be clear enough,that"YAHOAH" is the title which "ELOHEEM" himself called his being ,as the God of convenient with his people . "YAHOAH" in the Hebrew language, is the most sacred proper name of God , it came from the root "HOH" ,which meant "to exist", He is who exist the existence ,who has this power, is he himself ,who enter to a convenient, with his people ,and because he had that power, his convenient also protected by the power of himself . This accident when God revealed himself , or his personality to "Moses, were before the date of the writing of the "TORAH" ,because it occurred before the prophetic function of "Moses" ,therefore it was normally, when the time comes to write it, by moses to call God "ELLOHEEM" ,as His received name from the ancestors, and remember at the same time his title ,which he himself have received,by God ,especially ,when he wanted to maintain his relationship, between God and the Creation ,or the Existence ,therefore when He created He is "ELOHEEM" ,but when He dealt with the creation He is "YAHOAH", or,"YAHOAH ELOHEEM" . It was not a real reason ,to refer every title to a special origin, IF they have studied what they respected ,as a folklore, using a sincere study . Even when "Moses came to describe what's wrong between him and God ,during the accident of God's revelation to his name as ":YAHOAH",to him, in Exodus 3.15 he ["Moses" ] called God [ who speaks ] "ELOHEEM" and [ God who deals with his people ] "YAHOAH" . The differences between the titles of God, have been accepted normally,and logically ,when we mean by all these titles ,a one God ,due to his unlimited functions, towards the whole universe . And followed Rev. Joseph

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION ( Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 4 )

2009-08-16T06:30:00.000-07:00

Another example of the differences between the critics ,were the opinions of "Astruc"which compared by the opinions of "Ilgin". "Asruc"said that, the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis, belonged to the origin"J" !!! BUT,"Ilgin" said that they belonged to the origin "E"!!! To know what is "J" and what is "E" in their conception, we must explain that "J" is the first letter ,of the most sacred name of God "Jehova", "YAHOAH", this name is most sacred that, the Jewish used to read it "ADONAI",which means The Lord ,because they glorify the name of "YAHOAH" ,and have prevented their tongues, to pronounce it ,even to read its vowels, because it is belonges to the most sacred one. But the letter "E" ,is the first letter of the name "ELOHEEM", it is in a plural form ,which used to describe, the person of God as an individual ,as a creator , as a source of the whole universe. If the reason of their guesses, in concern of the origins ,was to find really an origin ,which denoted God as "YAOAH" ,and distinguish it from the origin ,which denoted God as "ELOHEEM". !!!! then WHY "ASTRUC" said that the first eleventh chapter of Genesis ,related to the origin "J" ? the logical ANSWER IS, because he observed that it related to the origin[from his point of view] that proclaiming "YAHOAH" as a truly God, The same question about the opinion of "Ilgin".WHY "ILGEN" said that the same text belonged to the origin "E" ? ,the logical ANSWER ALSO IS because he observed that the same text related to the origin[from his point of view] that proclaiming "ELOHEEM"as a truly God . Their different opinions, logically would comprehended, if we found a discussion, or conflict between the two principals, inside the eleventh chapters, by finding a kind of comparison, between the double attitudes . If it was the fact,then we can give every one of them ,a pardon ,that in his point of view, he saw that the "J" group, or the "E"group, is the real source, and even if it was the fact, we can not respect their thoughts ,as a scientific type of thinking,BUT IT WOULD BE a personal views . IN FACT any reader to the eleventh chapters of the book of Genesis ,does not observe that conflict ,or disagreement ,because every name, were used in its correct place ,to reflect something about God,While "ELOHEEM" reflects God's being as a subject of adoration,"YAHOAH" reflects His function towards His people( for example see Genesis 3.1 in Hebrew ASHERthat ,ASHAH made by YAHOAH the Lord ELOHEEM God " It was really a big problem for them both,Because their purposes were to prove some human origins,and if the text was related to one origin, their purposes would not released. Because this unique source, would comprehended ,and interpreted, to be belong to God,who have inspired his word to "Moses" . There are seventeen chapters in genesis, and in Exodus, emptied from the name of "YAHOAH", in spite of that ,some critics added them to the origin "J" of "YAHOAH". Also there are fifteen chapters ,emptied from the name "ELOHEEM", while some critics added them, to the origin "E" of "ELOHEEM" . It is clear therefore, that their opinions are not a scientific opinions ,it were just personal views of some people ,who had never any trust, or belief in the inspiration in general, and in the Holy Bible as a holy book . and followed Rev. Joseph

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION ( Biblical - Archeological -Literal - Historical "3" )

2009-08-13T21:28:00.000-07:00

"H.Hubfeld"'s purpose was to divide the "TORAH" into pieces,what we have possessed as a heritage of our ancestors, he did not accepted it, I mean that, he wanted the division as a purpose, in itself,in spite of he denied that ,he said about himself, that did not divide a records of a story, which was united together, but the "TORAH"[ due to his accuses] has a many kinds of stories,with different styles of recording, some of it has a statistical type, but the others has a folkloric type, therefore the statistical was from the origin "E1", but the folkloric was from the origin "E2" !!!! Our study to the historian books, who wrote the events as an eye witness, shows us ,that it contains of numbers and dates,but it is also consists of events and social reactions, no one can say that, that eye wittiness has two origins, to compose his history . I agreed with "E.T Yong"that those people have dealt with the "Holy Bible" ,worst than what any critic deals, with any other book of literature. Who read the book of "w.F.Albright" "History of Archeological and Christian Humanism",will find that there are many Archeological researches, about the traditions and the habits ,of the people, who were the habitants of this area, in the old times, which agreed typically, with what the "TORAH" has recorded,the archeologists proved that, the archeological investigations ,are like a mirror which reflected the facts of the events ,which was recorded in the "TORAH",. Yes, that is because, it is the mirror of God, which reflects the truth,the divine truth Until a recent time ,the scientists of the language, were similar to what "wellhausen" has said ,that the "Hebrew" language were not known as a writing language, before a recent time, after the exile,If it was true we have the faith that, the older system of recording their news ,were kept by God ,to handle it to us because it is his word, BUT thanks to God,The archeological discoveries showed us, some Hebrew writings, near the time of the patriarchal ages, before "Moses", but before"Levi" ,and before "Jacob "or his father "Isac".. In spite of the changes, which have occurs in the languages of the eastern people, around the "Hebrews" ,the "Hebrew" language have not changed, not in its grammar nor in letters. The 350 letters of Tel el Amarna, in Egypt, testified that this is the truth ,There were some letters, which have been written by the Pharaoh's workers in Palestine, to the Pharaoh, to till him some news ,or problems,during the EIGHTEENTH dynasty at the sixteenth century BC some of these letters were written by "Hebrew" ,it was discovered by a peasant woman ,and now they are kept in the "Berlin Museum" . And if we refer to the book of "Gressman" at 1700 we will find that there were also, some "Hebrew" writings during the "Hyksus" period, which were during the patriarchal ages.(see" A Horientalisch Bilder Zum Alten Testament"CCLIX,1926 and follow Rev. Joseph

A SCIETIFIC REACTION ( Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical "2" )

2009-08-13T18:36:00.000-07:00

The Biblical,Archeological,Literal,[ in concern of the old languages studies ],with the historical accompanied events,which accompanied the facts of the "Holy Bible", specially[due to our present research] which was at the times of the "TORAH" ,these sciences provided us with some comments ,on the theories of the critics. We observed from our studies to the accuses,the claims,and the suggested theories of the critics ,about the "TORAH" , that there were many differences between there opinions, both their assumptions and their results or conclusions ,which I called it suggestions . In the real scientific methods and bases ,we recognized how the new theory corrects or removes the old theories conclusions ,or results ,or canons, IF the subject of the new one, was the same subject of the old theory, BECAUSE OF some modern data OR some faults during practicing the theory ,as a result of another elements, which were not in the mind of the old scientist, but it was not the matter in concern of the "TORAH" . For example:- if you ask in the dark ages of the critics,or during ,or after the renaissance ,if you chose any year and ask about, What was the numbers of the suggested origins of the "TORAH" . You will find then many opinions, Are they one,two ,three, four, twelve,seventeen,or more some one said they were fourteen ???? were they E1 or E2 or P or J or D or all of them together???? Did they were in "Moses" times,or after his life directly, or at the time of the kings ,or during the exile ,or after it??You will find at every time ,some different answers,Therefore their deferent results, proves that all of their assumptions ,were wrong ,added to that two important observation, THE FIRST is:-no one of them succeeded in putting before us, an example for a real old document,contained his suggested assumptions ,or even some of it . THE SECOND observation is :- No one of them, could maintain the religious beliefs ,of the nation as a whole, before his suggested date for the writing,or adding, No one of them, gave us a proof ,or description ,which we can depend upon it, as a precise proof ,or description for the people's belief ,before his genius suggestion . To explain my thought let us take for example the time of "H.Hubfeld"1853 who said that the "TORAH" comes from three origins "J","E1","E2", added to them "D",the oldest origin was "E1" ,At his time was "K.H.Graf" who said the" P "was the oldest ,At their time "H.Ewald" said that E was one combined origin. But if ask, Where is "E" ? Have you an old book contained "E" only ?or contained "P" only ?or" D" only?? You will find no answer!!!! . So, before they added "D", or" P" or "E "What was the believes of the all the people ?, Do not please, give me a verse,which describes someone , or an ignorant person ,or some group of the people, or even one of the great persons, because you then ,will fall in a dangerous scientific mistake, because your sample, is not a scientific sample, it makes your results shows a wrong conclusion, established on a wrong reasons and followed Rev. Joseph

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION (Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical "1" )

2009-08-13T15:42:00.000-07:00

The claims and the accuses of the Critics, were not hidden to be in a limited area , no one of those critics was killed by any Christian authorities, or individuals , but in contrast of that , it has revealed and proclaimed their accuses all over the world,at their time. Some persons who did not build their faith on The Rock ,failed in the test of their faith( see Matthew 7.25-27,Luke 6.47-49,compared by the prophesies of "The Lord Jesus Christ" in Matthew 24.24,Mark 13.22,23) But most of the people, have kept in their mind and souls, the light of the real truth,"The Truth" which was one of the Lord's titles(see John 14.6) who testify that "Moses" was the real writer of the "TORAH"(see John3.13,7.16) and the disciples (see John1.17) . The renaissance had not only a negative disorders,but it has a positives aspects. The reformation movements were spreading also all over the European countries, and collected more people, belonged to the rich and the poor people,the well educated and the simple persons,the northern or the southern natins,from all the standards of living . Those great men, returned to the "Bible" ,and revive the "Word of God " in the "European Nations".They were well educated people, who have studied the history ,the Latin, the Greek ,the Hebrew, the importance of the original language of the scripture were obvious in the first principle of "Martin Luther", that "the Holy Bible is the only book which have never any fault in his original language for the faith and the deeds". Some scientists directed their researches, to discover and re - discover, the old sources of knowledge, in the history and the archeology.For example:- Through the French mission to Egypt by "Napoleon" 1798 AD He accompanied with him some scientists, to study the" Eastern Egyptian Civilization",one of these scientists was "J.F.Champolleon" ,Who found "The Rosetta Stone" 1799 . "Napoleon's".men had dealt only with the visible structures, Excavation of the subsurface materials in the Middle East grew out of the French and British interest in "Paul Botta" who became the French consul at "Mosul" 1842, He was a person, who liked the antiquities, and then he was inside the market for the antiquities ,so he used his authorities ,and relations to find the laborer, to dig in many places, to search about the monuments , .At the same time ,there was a wealthy man, called" Colt Hoare " (1758-1838) who used his wealth,to put a book,contained a geographical records of the historian sites, of the east , Scientists and archeologists, have found proves which destroyed the critics assumptions . On the other hand the scientists of the languages, developed their informations about the old languages ,its origins and the shapes of its letters, along the different ages . The Physics also, provided us with the invention of the radiocarbon, which maintained the ages of the antiquities ,many of the critics tongues had stopped their attacking ---------------- and Follow Rev. Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF THE TORAH----------> (THE CRITICS HISTORY during the renaissance to the twentieth century)

2009-08-11T15:09:00.000-07:00

The renaissance was a great revolution, which developed the European societies, in Arts,Science, Culture ........etc, .The freedom was the main idea, which the writers established ,.the Scientists and the People of the Culture. They began to feel the weakness or the fall of the Popedom, due to the different schools of learning, at that time.,after the fail ,during the crusader's wars. the Pope himself, began to feel his weakness ,and begged the people using the systems of his ancestors, to cover his weakness by the power of his position, as a Pope ordering his people, to buy the forgiveness of God ,through his false documents ,but the feeling of the freedom as a Right of the Human ,was more stronger than the power of the Pope himself,The scientists and the writers divided into two groups :- (1)Those who put the Bible in the same bag of the Popedom ,which they must find the reasons of its weakness, but keep its authority and sovereignty ,as a traditional sign ,for the last European empire,and the wished futurity empire . (2)The people who knew that the system of the Popedom ,and the Pope as a title,as a non biblical source,and has not an original biblical expression ,or even reflected any of the bible instructions and commandments.The Bible taught us that The Lord Jesus Christ himself, have forbidden his followers, to use a great or a precious garments, as a uniform, to reflect their great positions,or their greatness, before the people of God ,or to call themselves ,or allow to others to call them ,as Fathers,Lords,Teachers in concern of our riligious possesion between the people of God, [see for JUST examples in Matthew23.9-12, 12.38,39, Luke11.43, 20.46 The apostle "John" himselfe condemned one person, his name was "Diotrephes", because he thought that, he was the first ,among the people of God [see 3John9 ].. The first group were more loyal to the Popedom ,some of their writers have respected the Bible as their sacrifice, to defend for the decayed system, as for Example, between those:- "Andreas Masius",The Roman Catholic Lawer1574,"Benedict Spinoza"1632,The Jesuit Scholars "Jaque Bonfrere" and "Benedict Perreira"."Thomas Hobbes"1651,The Roman Catholic Writer "Richard Simon",The Catholic Preist"JenLeClerc"1685,"Hans Witter"1711,Jean Astruc The French Roman Catholic Physician 1753 .......etc,. In that soil, "Wellhausen" grew up.,and form a different Plant ,He used the "Evolution theory "of another scientist called "John Darwin" to kill the remains of the "Religious Taboo" by dealing with it ,as any human book ,but gave himself the right to deal with it, using more courage in his critical views ,than the courage which he could use, to criticize any human book .BUT to be great , you must win the quarrel with the great ,[as they said].all these great persons in the feild of the criticism have dead ,and their thoughts could not have won their quarell with God, their criticism of his word . On the other hand, we have found the Reformation movements,which was by "Martin Luther","John Calvin","Zwingli","Farrel".,"John Hus","John Wesley","The movement of the brethren of Plymouth" and others.The movements of those great men, were full of the great men also, who were defendants of the Bible ,which have possessed the reality itself ,and Jesus in the Bible who is the Truth itself ,He have told all the ages in Luke 19.40"If those should hold their peace,The Stones would immediately cry out" For that reason the sound of the critics now began to vanish ,after the beginning of the twentieth century, because the Archeological descoveries in Egypt,in the Sacred Lands,Lebanon,Syria,Jordon,Iraq and many other countries,The rocks testified the truth , and most of the assumptions of the Critics,have changed to be some of the old imagined stories .And the truth proclaimed itself . It is now very clear before any one ,who have a sincere desire, to know the truth ,and for those who have believed in God, And His Word -------------- the next essays ,we have the Lliterture,Historical,Biblical,Archeological comments on the Critics Thoughts ------------------------- Followed Rev. Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF THE TORAH---------->15:-(THE CRITICS HISTORY after the birth of Christ to the Medieval ages)

2009-08-09T10:50:00.000-07:00

The second period of the Critics history, was from the birth of the Christ to the renaissance, I divided it to two connected stages as follows :- (1)from the birth of Christ to the Medieval ages. (2)Through the medieval ages .The critics in this period related to the folkloric works ,of the post Christianity period. And effected in the Traditional attitude, of the Popedom Churches after many hundreds of years, to accept some of these folkloric works, which some of them were called by the scholars," Apocrypha". In spite of the old church ,according to its official opinion, denied the legality of these books,due to the legal books which was used in the churches at that period [ see the Arabic book of the "Archemendrite Anania Elias Kassab" "Magmoaat Elsharea Elkanasi",Elnoor publishers ,Lebanon,1975 ] which translated to "the group of the legal laws of the Christian Synagogue of the Catholic church". At page 902 He recorded the list of the canonical books, which the Catholic(general) church trusted in ,The list were made by "Gregory the Theologian" at 328 A.D using the song style ,NONE of these books were Apocrypha, NONE of these books were folkloric, And finished his song by describing who dare to suggest other books, by the description "Heretics" . First :- From the birth of" Christ" to the" Medieval Ages". All what the scholars have known ,about the critics of that period,were the Philosophers and the Heretics thoughts, which the Bible itself attacked,and the remained archeological discoveries ,about the unchristian thoughts ,which came to us ,from the unbelievers outside the church , but some of these writings belonged to some suggested church's fathers .Some of these writings ,still until today, in the doubt circle(see J.P.Migne,PG,XCIV,688-689in concern of" the Homiletics of Clement of Alexandria")Between those fathers "Irenaeus","Tertullian","Clement of Alexandria" ,"John of Damasus","Anastasius The Sinait "which belonged to the seventeenth century .The folkloric story of burning the "TORAH", were the main subject ,which they have established their critical views ,upon its bases .We have discussed their thoughts, at THE AUTHOR OF THE TORAH 1:- you can refer to it ., Second:-During the "Medieval Ages" "Isac Ibn Jasos" was their hero, who effect in the writing of "Carlstadt","Spinoza","Masius","Jaque Bonfrere" ,"Benedict Pereira","Richard Simon","JenLeClerc" and "Jean Astruc" at the beginning of the last period ,between the renaissance, to the present time, which we shall speak about it in the next essay. All these people,have developed the folkloric suggested thoughts, used some false mental thoughts, to what they have suggested,to be as a double records ,which led them, to the ideas, about the different sources ,which we have disscused in THE AUTHOR OF THE TORAH 2,3 if you want to refer to it . AT LAST(1) we can observe the shameful part of the church ,during the Medieval ages,I mean The Popedom Church, during the darkness of the ignorance, who persecuted the faithfuls ,and the Scientists, but let the decay spread, if their authorities were safe ,and their Royal Worldly Glory remained, From the bosom of the "Catholic Church" as we saw, the critics came .Some of them were priests !!!!!???, (2) the ignorant attitude of those churches,to accept some strange writings, which called the Apocrypha, which were the spinal cord, of the critics thoughts followed for another essay. Rev. Joseph .

THE AUTHOR OF THE TORAH-------> 14:- (THE CRITICS HISTORYbefore the birth of Christ)

2009-08-08T05:05:00.000-07:00

Our great professor of Trinity,Dr,Jonson C Philip, have taught us that the critics ,changed their tactics,and their aimed subjects, generation after another, but the Holy Bible itself, had possessed its great valuable reliability ,along thousands of years,our professor have written books,articles,shared in many conferences, taught directly his pupils and people to defend, using his great source of knowledge, in many sites like the site which you will find under my profile at your right hand . Therefore we shall categorize the critics tendencies in our last three essays before examining their thoughts by the same scientific methods which they have used.. Before Christ, the old nations were fond of remembering their heroes ,they have put them in their folkloric works as songs or stories,etc.The loyalty to their heroes ,urged them to imagine sometimes ,a mythological great deeds ,to attach them to their real history ,at the local limited usage . This old behavior was able ,to create the satisfaction,the sense of peace which gave them courage,and created a high example for the new generations . The people of the old testament have a real heroes, "Moses" the hero of the exodus ,and the writer of the "TORAH", they have established some kind of folkloric writings about him, out side the "TORAH". "King Solomon" ,who was the hero of the great kingdom of "David" ,and the founder of the great Temple ,they have established also some of folkloric writing about him, outside the book of "NEVEAEEM" W"KOTOBEEM"or the book of the prophets and the writings. But where is the hero during the exile period?, they can not comment much about "Daniel"or "Esther",although they have some comments,but they were just captives defeated by the foreign authorities ,and became under their rules,.Even "Ezra","Nehemiah" the heroes of the returned journey,they have not the description of the imagined heroes ,who have abilities to conquer their enemies,But why not ,they haven't other heroes belonged to that period ,after some time,or,many tens of years they can describe one of them, to be a hero in a folkloric work outside the Holy Bible, to attach some great deeds to him,like the mythological story of burning the "TORAH" by the oppressor, the king of babel ,and the miraculous deed of Ezra to write it, using his memory . It was not a believable story, not in the past, nor in present, because all the folkloric deeds of the "Jewish", were out of their Holy Books, because they were"chiefly , because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Romans 3.2"They were the faithful keeper of the law,. therefore the Critics before the Christ, have not any tool ,to criticize the Author of the "TORAH",without establishing their themes, upon the folkloric stories, which was without power ,without real reliability, before Christ ,and even during the life of Christ ,we have many proves ,that this story could not effect ,the pure belief.,or the general knowledge between the simple people and in the minds of the educated persons,But although we have analysed that story before, and prove that it was false,and although we will deal with it later, we can say that the critics before Christ ,were distinguished by their depending upon the folkloric deeds.. we shall meet later. Rev. Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF THE TORAH---------------->13:- (THE CRITICS HISTORY)

2009-08-07T05:44:00.000-07:00

The book of Deuteronomy, was subjected to many researches, for some reasons:- (1)Because it contained , in its contents,a total revision,or what seemed to be a revision, about the history and the instructions during "Moses"times . (2)Because it concentrated on the ritual activities, and the legal laws, and the duties of the priests in worship and in society. (3)The last song of "Moses"at chapter 32 and its content and style . (4)The story of "Moses'" death at the end of the book. At 1925 "Moller" when he was defending about the idea of writing the "TORAH",.which was written by "Moses" ,that he agreed also with the opinion that respected the Deuteronomy, as a complete right reflection to what was mentioned in the first four books of the "TORAH", but it had not any modern reflection, or any added modern contents . Therefor it was written according to his thoughts, by "Moses"himself ,at the time of his life . At1963"Meredith.G.Kline" invented a strange idea ,about the reason of writing the "TORAH".It was in his suggestion ,that the "TORAH"reflected a general kind of discussion, between the Israelite and a Hittite prince, because he observed the general view of the "Mosaic"doctrine ,which was written in a systematic style, as a general report !!!!? Some contents in the book of the Deuteronomy, which reported the origin of the Jewish nation ,and their legal system ,and the type of their political religious government ,led him to that opinion. But he failed to give us the name of that prince,or the reason of that argument, or the sources that he had depended upon it,to suggest his opinion. Generally he had some active thoughts about the book ,as a book which had a systematic style more than the other four books, and it contained a full sufficient idea about the "Mosaic" beliefs and practice. The background history which "Kline" described, gave us opinion that he was assuring his trust in the book's contents,and the history events which is concluded in the Deuteronomy . Next three essays we will discuss the different forms of the critics, to replay using our modern analysis,.after that Rev.Joseph .

THE AUTHOR OF THE TORAH-------------->12:- (THE CRITICS HISTORY)

2009-08-05T15:02:00.000-07:00

Another example for the conflict between the Critics, after "Wellhausen" .it was also clear in the different assumptions and results, between"R.H.Pfeiffer" and "B.Baentsch" While "R.H.Pfriffer" was suggesting that, there was an origin for the "TORAH",came from the southern part of the Israelite kingdom ,during the reign of the kings of the kingdom of Judah, that origin was compatible to the opinions of the people of Judah,and because it came from the south he called it "S", thus the "TORAH" was written after that period, because he suggested that ,the origin referred to the date, which followed the division of the kingdom( a later date) . "Eissffeldt" have suggested as we have denoted last essay, that there was an origin called "L"(Lay source), but "R.H.Pfeiffer" put "L" in the contents of [his] "S".Did that part was the oldest as the suggestion of "Eissfeldt" ,or the newest as the suggestion of "R.H.Pfeiffer ????? On the other hand we found "B.Baentsch" who divided the origin to 7 divisions ,one of them called "P"(from Priest) and wrote his opinion in his book"Leviticus" at 1900, to express his opinion ,that that origin ,was somehow not the oldest ,and sure not the newest,Was it new or old ??was it "P" or "L" or "S" ?????? After that time"C.A.Simpson"wrote his book"The Early Traditions of Israel.a Critical Analysis of The Pre Deuteronomic Narrative of Hexateuch," at 1948 to defend and answer about the critics questions, and to deal with their critical tendencies,( although we did not agree about some other opinions, which he have recorded it in his book ). "Simpson was not the only one who produced some proves against the critics, but many other writers have done the same , The tools of the studies improved, The archeological discoveries increased, as we shall see after 4 essays, but let us complete tomorrow with the critics Rev.Joseph

THE AUTHER OF THE TORAH------------>11:- (THE CRITCS HISTORY)

2009-08-04T17:39:00.000-07:00

"Wellhausen"deals with many ideas, like :- The Sacrifice,The Feasts,The Laws of the Priests and the Leviticus ............etc,using the same mental attitude,due to the philosophy of "Darwin"and his evolution theory. Every thing must have a development history,the effect of his thoughts remained among some scholars indirectly, till now. Also his theory became now without any scientific value,and useless ,especially after the Archeological discoveries ,which released after his guesses. These discoveries assured the impossibility of both his assumptions ,and his history analysis, for the Jewish community, it proved that the history which we have found in the "TORAH", integrated more with the evidence ,which was have found ,to prove that,the community during "Moses" times, had the same figure which the TORAH" have reflected. The criticism after "Wellhausen" was different than the criticism before him ..Before "Wellhausen"they were agreed in the virtual idea ,which was the subject of their criticism, they had some differences in the added thoughts, but after "Wellhausen" they had many differences between each others,It was enough to us, to let them before each others, to let them decay their thoughts, by their differences. For example :- The differences between "Otto Eissffeldt" ,and his enemy"Jullian Morgensterns" "Otto"invented a new idiom, it was "Lay-source"or "L" he said that "L"was the real old source, but through many writers who came after it, along many centuries, who revised "L" and re - revised and re-re-revised it many times, by adding ,or omitting ,or correcting....etc, till now [ although he could not told us what was written in that "L" ?or where it was ?or why it disappeared even in the discoveries?.............etc,just guess] In contrast "Morgensterns" invented another idiom "K" which was the "Mosaic"opinions in concern of the ritual bases of the Jewish worship ,which made it different than the ritual bases of the people of Kan-an, [see his opinion in HUCA,IV at 1927] if you was between them, let them told you, was the origin text an historical writing or ritual informations?,was it real original without any previous reasons, or it was written to deal with a post previous case which dwelt in their lands ?. was it "L" or,"K" ?and let them give you a conflicted answers During the following 5 essays we will see the rest of those, who criticize the "TORAH" -------------------------follow later Rev. Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF THE TORAH-------------------> 10:- ( THE CRITICS HISTORY)

2009-08-03T14:32:00.000-07:00

(1) The "Evolution Theory " of "Darwin" was the real motive of "Wellhausen", He did not understood, according to the philosophy of that theory, how did the "Tabernacle"of "Moses" was found ,without any previous example before it ?.The worship in "Solomon's Temple" compared with the neighboring nation's "Temples" ,may be comprehended as a new type of worship, practiced in a modern great building,more greater, than the "Temples" of the nations ,and "Wellhausen "could comprehend that development in shape, by using the philosophy of "Darwin", but it was impossible to use it ,to explain the "Tabernacle". (2)The verses about "David" and the ignorant people, who have not a places to worship in [ the Bible expressed the meaning ,that they have not a possible. places, which means that the place of worship, may be very far from their country,therefore it became over than their abilities].we must now that "David" himself have chosen to be a king, by God ,was anointed by "Samuel",who was not a priest ,he was a "Nazarite" see 1Samuel 1.22 the law of the Nazarite was in the book of Number 6.1-21, but he played the act of the priest ,,because the priest was not faithful, 1Samuel 2.27 so God called him instead of the priest ,about this period we found the quotations of "Wellhausen",which he have chosen, in spite of , this quotations did not reflect the general state, in the Jewish community, during all the stages of its developing .."Wellhausen"therefore has a great academic fault in his proof, which makes the validity of his conclusion's =ZERO At the period which "Wellhausen" quoted his passage as an example "David" have known that it was a "Tabernacle". see 2Samuel 7.2 "that the king said unto "Nathan" the prophet , See now ,I dewelleth in an house of cedar but The ark of God dwelleth within curtains". (3)"Wellhausen" himself told us that the centric warship, began after the withdrawal of "Sennacherib" from "Samaria", and the destruction of the second "Temple"of "Samaria" .in spite of he confessed that, the second temple of "Samaria" was built ,after the reign of "Solomon", during the reign of his son "Rehoboam", therefore he have fallen in a contrast, that it was a great confession that the centric worship were known before his assumption at least during the reign of "Solomon" through his indirect confession. (4) At last ,if the "TORAH" as he have suggested ,were written after the books of the prophets,Why did he quote from it, to prove that the worship at the "Patriarchal age"[the age from "Adam" to" Moses"] ,were free, and every one of those fathers, have chosen the place of His worship freely. His theory suggested that, the history of its writing was more than 800 after the death of "Moses"therefore it assumptive that the history inside it is wrong, not only that, but he also allow clearly ,that the history is wrong.Did he find some faults in his assumptions, that he rejected it ,and accept our evaluation to the TORAH ? it is a strange matter.WE will complete our evidences ,after 6 essays let us be tolerant and wait "Wellhahausen" next time. Rev. Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF THE TORAH-------------->9:-(THE CRITICS HISTORY)

2009-08-02T11:35:00.000-07:00

"Wellhausen's" point of view about the history of the worship ,was the real bases ,which all his assumptions have been established,IN BRIEF, he has divided the stages of the worship's development and history, into three stages ,as the following :- (1) The" ANIMISM " it was a theory, that separated between the spiritual existence as it was the source of the religious thoughts, and the individual's doctrine. The first man who used this expression was "E B Tylor" in his book "Primitive Culture" to define the religion, which was established by the normal sense of the man , while another person his name was "Stahl" ,told us about a vital effective basses, of the universe ,which agreed the human nature,The "POLYTHEISM " was during that stage of "ANIMISM",which means the worshiping for a collections of Gods. (2)The "HEATHENISM":- Through this stage the man described a superior power of a God, more than other Gods . The expression contains of two original Greek words "HEIS" which means over,and "THEOS" which means God . (3) The "Monotheism" "Wellhausen's" assumption was, that the man have reached to that idea ,after 8 centuries, of his first dealing with the idea of God's existing .He dated this stage by 850 years, before the Christ, during the reign of the king "Solomon" ,and using some data from 2 Samuel 24.5 and from1Kings3.2 where we found "David" who built an alter to slay the sacrifice,and in the days of "Solomon " before the temple there were many people who had their private Alters, which was contrasted [according to his theory] with the assumption of the" Tabernacle" existence ,as a place of the central worship,therefore, he suggested that the books of the laws ,or the "TORAH" has been written after the time of the kings,or after the building of the "Temple" of "Solomon" He suggested that the passage in "Isiah"60 ,which describing God as "The Exalted Almighty Lord" ,as a later high top, in the developing history ,among the people of the old testament . the logical theoritically thoughts of "Wellhausen" ,seemed to be right ,but in the practical experience, of the old testament people, all his themes failed. He did not accept that the "Tabernacle" and the centric worship during "Moses" times, were interrupted by the ignorant kings ,and Judges, and the weak political effects of the priests ,to interfere in the political affairs ,and the sovereignty of the kings ,over them which weakened the effects of the "Tabernacle" ,and the laws ,also the proofs from the "TORAH" that the people were not obedient ,also they used to imitate the pagan people ,or the nations around them, The books of the prophets recorded ,Who God have condemned the behavior of the kings ,according to the "TORAH", The legal bases .It is not the time of the argument now, with his thoughts, let us wait after 7 essays to find if "Wellhausen" is alive today, and sees the archeological evidences, and If he have studied the religious thoughts among the old Egyptians, and the other old nations ,I am sure that he will have been changed his mind,because what we have reached now ,is in fact, is the real answer for his imagined rules, we will continue examining his thoughts later . Rev. Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF THE TORAH-------------> 8:-( THE CRITICS HISTORY)

2009-08-02T08:39:00.000-07:00

"Julius Wellhausen" published his book"Die Komposition des Hexateuchs", It was clear from it's title ,that he was dealing with the "TORAH" ,as it was a humanly book, has a composition, like any book , forgetting the doctrine of the inspiration, accepting the opinion of the late writing, putting it with the six books,( Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua) employing the two German words [Komposition,Hexateuchs] to proclaim his idea . He began his theory to suggest that, between the oldest period of the writing, and the last time ,about 400years , It begins at 850 BC when the oldest document ( according to his opinion) "J" which was written by a writer, therefore he called it" RJ" it was the first document ,. At 750 BC another writer added "E", to compose the document "1RJE", the most strange suggestion was, his next one, to think that after 29 years only, some one changed it ,by adding and omitting some of its contents, from 621 BC to 550 BC, It was ridiculous to imagine that ,any one could change it ,after 29 years only ,because the generation who have accepted it, as a sacred writing, might not allow to some one, to change it and called his suggested document "2RJED" but when the "P" document appeared ,some one mixed it with "RJED" to be"3RJWDP" it means 3 writers who revised and collected across a long term of age, every one of the three documents, to mix it every time ,with the original suggested version "J". The first thing :-His book was full of faults, and reflected the effects of the theory of "Darwin" in his mind, for example, the style of the improving and the developing for the "TORAH", looks like "Darwin's"style ,about the developing stages in the life, and the shapes of the creatures . The second thing::-His strange opinion to imagine that, the book was to record the effects of the society, although it was really the basic legal thought, which was written to affect , to change ,and to improve the situation ,and the attitude of the society from God, to change the present man's life to better. But in order to explain his thoughts, and let the chance to us to analyse it ,after8 essays , he imagined that, the idea of worshiping , have been developed from age to age ,at first the individual himself was responsible to worship, by slaying a sacrifice on behave of himself,.like what was done in the patriarchal ages, but it developed to be, by a priest as a professional person,And at last, it became a sacrifice, in a central place ,by a professional priest, to devote to one fixed God ,at a modern time, before or during the exile period , Not only this, but he maintained some stages, for this developing periods, exactly as what "Darwin" has done, before and during " Wellhausen's" themes, that is what we shall see later. Rev. Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF THE TORAH-------------->7:-(THE CRITICS HISTORY)

2009-08-02T06:07:00.000-07:00

The first half of the nineteenth century, ended by the writings of some writers, who paved the way for the fierce attacks of "Wellhausen". Every one of them, tried to maintain a history, for every suggested origin .One of these writers was "H.Ewald" at 1831, who suggested that the origin "E" ,was the oldest[imagined] one of the "TORAH" ,.He respected the "TORAH" as a Folklore[ a kind of literature, which a nation had found and written, through a definite period of time, to record some important views and accidents ,which related to that period, and although it records some historical existence,for some heroes, the writer / writers, of these stories was / were almost unknown as if He / They were expressing the culture of the nation in general ] "H.Ewald" suggested that the folkloric writing of the "TORAH", have begun by "E", but according to the improvement and the modern development ,of the society, it needed to revised by some one, or group of people, to record what was in the collective mind, of the nation, at that period ,The collection which they added was "J" In spite of the theme of the Folklore were attractive, to effect in the writing of the critics ,we found no mention to it in the writings at his time,.For example"F.Bleek" in his book"de libiri Genesis origine" at 1836 ,and "F.Tush" in his book "Genesis" at 1838 the two writers agreed ,with some assumptions of "H.Ewald" ,but without strissing on the theme of the "Folklore"idea.We observe that no one of them [Ewald,Bleek and Tush ] have been able to perform to us ,an example For the origin ,or the folklore.Even the suggested proofs which they denoted, were not a complete evidence, to support their suggested themes, because it was not suggestion which have been established ,on a real versions of "E'or "J" or original folklore versions as they have said . Also we observe that ,the mention of "ELOHEEM" or "YAHOAH", is mixed integrated, in the "TORAH" {see Exodus 3.15 in the Hebrew language"weomer(and said) aod(moreover) ELOHEEM (God's supreme name)el(for) moshah(Moses) khah(thus) taomer(you shall say) el(for) bne(the children ) yshrael(of Israel) YAHOAH(The Lord God) elahee(The God) abtekom(of your fathers)..................etc," as we shall see in details after showing you the critics' points of views. But "H.Hubfeld" in his book "Die Quellen der Genesis und die Artilirer Zusammonsetzung" at 1853 produced another opinion, to revive the theme of "Ilgen" ,with developing and adding, to claim that there was another origin,which "Ilgen" called it" E1 ",He called it "P"because it contains some Priesthood instructions and writings,.but while he was suggesting that the origines was "E1","E2","J",and "P" another critic whose name was"E Riem" wrote his book next year"Die Gesetz gebung Moses in Lande Moab" at 1854 to ensure "Ilgen"'s view, that the origins was "E1","E2","J"and "D" It was a confusions of thoughts between the critics, that urged "K.H Graf" to collect their thoughts ,and thus,he paved the way before"E G Reuss","J F L George" , and "W.Vatke" also "A.Kuenon"at 1869 all these critics and their works ,prepared the way for The Dangerous one ,who was called "Juliu Wellhausen" we shall discuss him later Rev. Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF TORAH---->6:-(THE CRITICS HISTORY)

2009-07-30T14:14:00.000-07:00

"Gaddes" did not attack the auther of the "TORAH" like "Ilgen",or,"J.G Echorn" in his book "Einleitung"1780-1783 ,or,"Austrc", but he was famous, that he attracts"J.S Voter",and "DeWette" to argue with his thoughts,perhaps because he was a Roman Catholic and his authorized personality was a priest. At 1802-1805 "J.S Voter" wrote his book"Commentar uber den pentateuch,3 Vol.s and argued "Gaddes" proclaiming that[ from his point of view] there were 30 documents which have been used in the cultural media of the old civilizations. "DeWette"published his book "Beitrage aur Einleitung in das Alts Testament"at 1807 after "Voter", depending on a comparison studies, between what was recorded in the "TORAH", as legal subjects, and what was recorded in the different old civilizations, which were at "Moses"times, and thus he reached to a conclusion, that the writer of the "TORAH",have collected it, after "Moses" times It was strange situation, from our point of view, if a man finds some different subjects, using some different expressions[it may be different sure, because it deals with different situations], to suggest that, it refers to a different documents, as Voter did,that he also specify them, as 30 references, and called them documents !!! And also it is strange to find, some similarerities between the legal rules, during "Moses" times,and the other civilizations, to proclaim that a writer after "Moses",have written them, due to that past collected references ,If we know ,dears, that the Right,and the Religion Bases,also theLegal rules were older enough more than that times,"For the Invesable things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. "Romans 1.20 .And because God have given the human the mind, and the logic, which is the base of the legal bases, it was not up normal, if we find in the old civilizations some similarities, with the legal rules of the "TORAH",added to that it was a similarities, in the circumstances ,and reasons for establishing these rules ,therefore it was normal to find some similarities in the concluded rules.But, Are there any near similarity which urge us to prefere his opinion ?I am sure not , that is what we will see after 10 essays. " DeWette"'s opinion in concern of "TORAH"was begun when he was writing his researches to be qualified to the Doctorate degree, at 1805 and refers to the suggestion of "Jerom" 1400 years ago,who suspected in the story of "Josiah"622 BC .that the " Deuteronomy " was the book which written during his rign,and divided the origins of the "TORAH" according to his assumption, to three origins,J,E,D {D is a sign for" Deuteronomy" while"Ilgen"called it E2} But "Jerom"'s suspects, in concern of the date of writing the "Deuteronomy" were not right, because if we read the story of "Joshiah"in 2 Kings 22,23 and in Chronicles 34,35 we will not find any sign, about any new book's writing ,but in contrust,we will find that, they have found an old book,The theme that, that book was "Deutoronomy",is not accepted till now by all the scholars . What about the movement of the criticism during the middle of the nineteenth cetury that is what we shall see later. Rev.Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF TORAH--------------------->5:-( CRITICS HISTORY)

2009-07-29T06:04:00.000-07:00

At the end of the eighteenth century, the theme of "Austuc"developed by a Scottish Roman Catholic Priest Called "Alexander Gaddis" in concern of "The Memoires" at 1792-1800 and by another man called "Karl David Ilgen" who published his book "Die Urkunden des Jusalemischen Templarchivs" at 1798and adopted in his book both the opinion of "Hans Wetter"and the themes of "Jean Austrc" in concern of the origin of the "TORAH" ,but he added an assumption, that they were not 12 documents, but they were 17, also added that, the person who have collected them, was not one person as the suggestion of "Austrc", but they were three (Redactors) or writers,Thus "the deux memoires" of the one writer who was" Moses" according to "Austrc", became three main memories, for three distanguished redactors,He suggested that , these three persons have collected the documents of the "TORAH", one after another ,and called them J,E1,E2 but he failed to maintain the time of this process, Then he reached to a far conclusion than"Wetter"or "Autruc" The Elohist " memory of "Moses" have belonged to two different persons E1 and E2 due to his imagination,.The third person was J ????? We observe that, the history of the criticism ,at the end of the eighteenth century, distinguished by the argument between the Critics themselves, about the "Mosaic"authorship AND THEIR DIFFERENT THOUGHTS, AND THEIR DIFFERENT PROVES TO FACE EACH OTHERS were in itself a suitable replay, that shows us now, How it was the real size of their assumptions !!! until we will discuss their thoughts after 11 essays . But we want at last to comment on the opinions of the Roman Catholic Priest "Alexander Gaddis" because he did not develop the themes of "Austrc" and "Wetter" only, but he accepted the themes of the numerous redactors or writers also, ? to pave the way for the sever criticism ,during the nineteenth century., therefore our story will be later Rev. Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF TORAH------------------>4;- (THE CRITICS HISTORY)

2009-07-28T21:53:00.000-07:00

IN SPITE OF WE SHALL REVEAL WHAT WAS HIDDEN BEFORE THE SIGHTS OF THE CRITICS AFTER 12 ESSAYS,we must reveal now their thoughts as it was, to avoid the historical interruption. We must not forget that "JeanLeclerc" fall in a great mistake when he have suggested a human origin, this mistake was to maintain a date for that origin, It was due to his opinion, before the date of Ezra up to 722BC, And thus, he lost even the false base which the his previous critics refer to it , "Jean Astruc" was the man who used the expression"documentary hypothesis" and employed it with a great ugly using, Although "Hans Witter" at 1711, was the first person who imagined two origins of "TORAH",due to what he have observed from the double stories of the creation, in Genesis Chapter1 comparing with Genesis chapter3,"Jean Astruc"at 1753 who was a French Roman Catholic[ALSO]Physician,published his theory, which imagined that, there were two groups or categories ,contained 12 documents, The first group called "Elohist" [which calls God "ELOHEEM"], The second group called "Yahwist " [which called God "YAHOH"] , he called the two groups.Les deux memoires [ a French expression means the two memories] His opinion in brief was, that "Moses" had collected some informations about the story of the creation,for example,and kept it in his memory, but these informations or knowledges, divided into two groups of more smaller sources ,. that when you read his logic about the suggested " memoires" you will find some confusion, because you can find inside the "YAHOH " section, some forms of "ELOHEEM's names" and visa versa. Also what amazed you his sever defense in concern of the Mosaic writing to the "TORAH" ,some writers records as a joke, that he spent the rest of his life in attacking, who suggested that their was an human origin, but we haven't any separated writing related to him which dealt with this opinion, after publishing his completed theme and we will meet again Rev. Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF TORAH---------------------->3:-(THE CDITICS HISTORY)

2009-07-27T16:52:00.000-07:00

We have said that "D F Payne"suggested that the first man who have begin the criticism was" Masius" But who is "Masius" ?? His name was "Andreas Masius",he was a Belgian Roman Catholic lawyer,who have published his book in "The Commentary on The Book of Joshua"at 1574,and said that Ezra added some contents to the books of " Moses." as the opinions of " Irenaeus", "Tertullian", "Clement of Alexandrea" (see 1:-the critical history) .He did not invented any real new thoughts, but he stressed on their wrong acceptance for the untrusted book, and the unworthy story ,as we proved previously. .what's make his thoughts new ,his attractive style, which admired "Benedict Spinoza" at 1632-1677 who wrote his book" Troctatus Theologico-politicus" ,at the same time the opinion of "Masius" attracts also, two of the famous ,Jesuit ,Scholars, Philosophers, "Jaque Bonfrere"and Benedict Pereira" .The false story of burning the" TORAH" were their real base added to them," Thomas Hobbes" at 1651 in his book "Leviathan"who deny the Mosaic Authorship in concern of some parts of the" TORAH", The last one in this category of the critics,who referred to the suspicious book ,was "Richard Simon" who was ALSO a Roman Catholic writer. I said also, because the attitude of the main group which they belongs to its teachings have some unbelievable thoughts, about these suspicious writings ,what "Simon" did ,is to collect the wrong thoughts during the 12 centuries before him , to pave the way for"Jen Leclerc" at 1685who added to the last opinion that " The" TORAH" was compilation based on many documents,both divine and human origin".ALL OF THEIR THOUGHTS,WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY TREATED IN (1:-critical history)But the opinion of "Jen LeClerc" paved the way for a new historical periods of criticism called" The "Documentary Hypothesis" -----------We shall discus it later .------------------- Rev.Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF TORAH----------------> 2:- (THE CRITICS HISTOTY)

2009-07-26T05:59:00.000-07:00

During the darkness period of the Middle Ages, the criticism movement of "Rabbi Isaac Ibn Jasos" was the major theory, on which all the Critics, established their critical attitude, toward the TORAH, The most famous group of them was, "Ibn Ezra" at 1167,"Carlstadt" at 1480-1541 even Spinoza at 1670 In brief,His idea was to collect the similar names from the TORAH ,and suggests that , at the time of the later one, Some one re -write the old story, using his modern knowledge,with the modern data,so,"Hadad"of Genesis 36.35 is the same "Hadad" of 1Kings 11.14 {because he belongs to Edomite country-------------!!!!) . Why his opinion is not logical from our point of view? The answer is:- (1)We knew, as we are Eastern people, that our traditions, teaches us, that the people used to call their babies, from the first moment of their birth, by some of historical names, perhaps,the famous reputations of these historical names, urged them to use the name again, wishing that the baby becomes famous, as the real owner of that name----------------------- The similarity then is the normal base in the east , specially between the people of the same race or citizenship in the old times. (2)The first" Hadad " was "Hadad ben badad" who smote Midian in the field of "Moab" "Genesis" 36.35 , but the second was "Hadad Ezer ben Rehob" the king of "Zobah" one of the "Edomite" countries, he was an enimy against" David "the father of "Solomon" ,---------------Tthe different sites of their sovereignty capitals,the different accidents Which they were famous for,also the different fathers of the two similar "Hadad"s makes us quite sure that we are before two persons refers to different times Similarly he discussed "Genesis "12.6 and tied it with "Genesis "22.14, also tied "Deuteronomy" 1.1 with" Deuteronomy" 3.11 and so on . Even during the "Renaissance"we find "Carlstadt" discussing the problem of the authorship, of the "TORAH",according to the wrong style of "Issac ben Jasos" ,which build its assumptions ,on the bases of" similarity or differentialy "between the parts, inside the "TORAH", His opinion was briefly, established upon the different sorts ,of the literature writings poetry, instructions, laws, history recordings.....etc, in spite of he confessed that, their are a unity in its style of writing through the book of " Deuteronomy". But he added his logical assumption that, It was impossible for "Moses" to write about his death details---------from his point of view, it proves that the writer was not "Moses", but another one after him, perhaps his disciple "Joshua", or any other person, , But ,(1) He confessed that the writer has one peculiar style in writing (2) the story of "Moses"death does not contrasts with his being the real writer, because he was a prophet,which can till the future, according to the mighty power of the administrations of the inspiration. (3) the inspiration source is unlimited in knowledge , who can give his prophet many aspects of the learning, according to the real necessities,or needs of the people ,he wrote the history records,the laws ,the songs,the instructions ...etc, "The Renaissance"s coming, gave the Critics a new kinds of Criticism, as we shall discuss later Rev.Joseph

THE AUTHER OF TORAH------------------> 1:- ( THE CRITICALS HISORY)

2009-07-25T09:27:00.000-07:00

Attention :- WE ARE SEARCHING AS ACADEMIC PERSONS,WE MUST LET OTHERS TOLD US THEIR THOUGHTS FIRST IN A REAL ACADEMIC ARGUMENT ATMOSPHERE TO REACH TO THE REALITY:-- It was "Deorant " who gave us the idea that the history repeated itself as a repeatedly round circle,. that is the matter, in concern of the authorship of the TORAH ,.In the book of numbers chapter 16, we find that Korah, Dathan and Abiram , when they have refused the prophetic personality of Moses, in order to gain a respectable place, among their people,They gathered some people around them, but at last the earth opened its mouth ,and swallowed them . It is the same matter ,which happened and still happens, in the case of the "Authorship critical" ,in the past and in the present time. To follow the history of the Authorship Criticism for Torah ,Young proclaims in his article about" the Authorship of Torah"referring that date, to "Jen Astruc" at 1753,but "D.F Payne"has another idea, because he refers it to" Masius" at1573, while"F.F Bruce refers it to "H.B Witter at 1711 .We suggest that every one of those have created a special type of beginning-------------------BUT the real beginning in our suggestion refers back to "Irenaeus","Tertullian"and the Clement of Alexandria", in spite of they were not the Critical themselves, but they accepted a critical traditions, more older than their times, they have accepted whats said in The Second Book of Ezra 14.21,22 that "Nebuchadnezzar" the king of Babel ,took the books of the law and burned it, which urged Ezra to write it again . That accident was not true, because (1)Ezra { I mean the real Ezra not who mentioned himself as Ezra,He was just a writer of that Apocryphal writings}lives in a different time which proves that, he was not an eye wittiness, also he did not mention that he has a document to prove that opinion (2)the books of the law, were not only in Babel, but there were some people who remains in the sacred lands, between them were some prophets, like Jeremiah, who wrote his prophecy about that time, it is not acceptable to think that these religious persons ,who live in the remains, have not the books of the law (see Jeremiah25.12) (3)The writer of this passage did not refer to a trusted reference, to transmit this view to us,we may allow or accept his idea( if he has not a reference), in the case of, if he had a direct inspiration from God,but this assumption was not true ,according to the technical and historical reasons. (4). If Ezra (this later Ezra writes the books of the laws after the king who burned it,thats means that the Torah was in his mind or that he keeps the text in his mind thus the copy ( as he said ) were not the only copy but perhaps there were many of the Torah keepers, between the people(Nebuchadnezzer 605-562 BC-->the real Ezra458-398 BC) . in spite of the book was able to deceive some respectable men . These great men, were not have the right to report the facts as the inspired people, they were not prophets (with all our respect) they have some faults like what J.P Migne denotes in his "J.P Migne,PG,XCIV,688-89 about "John of Damasus"or Clement in his "Climent Homiletics, for example also the great "Anastasius the Sinait"who was the patriarch of Antioch at the seventeenth century,who said that he can not accept the "Torah" because in his point of view contains the book of "Genesis" which was full of mythologies(see J.P Migne,PG,LXXXIX,284,285) IT IS CLEAR that in spite of the real services which they have done for their churches, and for us, but they were, as all the people who repeat the views of others without some real study, in order to neglect what is said without a trusted bases,. Although we respect them very much, about some of their studies, but as we are Academic persons, we must not accept what did not established ,on the trusted resources------------------------------------------------we will continue the discussion later Rev.Joseph.