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

             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

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 )

       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 )

      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 )

     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" )

             "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" )

 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