Proof That the Bible Isn't the Word of God
January 28, 2013 at 9:58 am
(This post was last modified: January 28, 2013 at 10:01 am by FallentoReason.)
I have just finished reading Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. I thought I would unify some of his arguments in order to produce an argument showing that the Word of God is nowhere to be found in the Bible, according to the Bible. To do this, I will first establish what is meant by a revelation and hence why the Bible is seen as the supposed Word of God.
Revelation
A revelation is a dialogue of some sort between God and a person. The person is then left with the choice of believing their experience to be a revelation or not. When said person shares their experience with another, it ceases to be a "revelation" as such. It is now information being passed from one person to another and since the 2nd person can't enter the mind of the 1st to experience for themselves the alleged revelation, they have the right not to believe it was a revelation from God. From this point onwards, it is merely hearsay as the account passes from person to person to person.
According to the claims of those who believe the Bible, we have at best testimonies of people's revelations and not the direct Word(s) of God. I believe it is on these grounds that the Christian thinks they hold a rational belief in the Bible. They believe that the documents which make up the Bible hold authority because of who wrote them, which were allegedly people who had revelations. But was it really these people, such as Moses, who were the authors of the books which are attributed to them?
The first book of the Bible is attributed to Moses, as are the next four, which altogether form the Pentateuch, which Moses allegedly wrote. But is this the case? Let's examine the Bible's internal evidence to ultimately show this is not the case, that they are in fact anonymous traditions passed down through the generations.
Genesis
In Genesis 14:14 the author tells us that Lot was going to be rescued from a town by the name of Dan. This town is referred to in the book of Judges, where we get told in verses 18:27-29 that "the people of Dan took what Micah had made, and the priest who belonged to him, and they came to Laish, to a people quiet and unsuspecting, and struck them with the edge of the sword and burned the city with fire. And there was no deliverer because it was far from Sidon, and they had no dealings with anyone. It was in the valley that belongs to Beth-rehob. Then they rebuilt the city and lived in it. And they named the city Dan, after the name of Dan their ancestor, who was born to Israel; but the name of the city was Laish at the first." This account is placed immediately after Samson's death in 1120 B.C. which makes it 331 years after Moses' death in 1451 B.C. therefore proving that Moses could not possibly have written Genesis. But the more obvious fatal fact here is that in Genesis it refers to the town as Dan and not Laish which undeniably means the author was writing sometime after the invasion by Dan's army.
As if this isn't enough evidence, there's another instance whithin Genesis that reveals it was written centuries after Moses' time. This comes from Genesis 36:31 which says "and these are the kings which reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" which, for it to make sense, must necessarily have been written after at least one king reigned Israel. Therefore, this brings us to no earlier than the time of Saul, who was the one to establish the Jewish Monarchy around 1000 B.C. i.e. 451 years after Moses' death. This is also supported by the fact that the rest of the chapter in Genesis appears word for word in 1 Chronicles 1:46 onwards, which was most certainly written (at least) after King Saul's reign.
These two examples are more than enough to show, by the Bible's own standards, that Moses did not write Genesis. This therefore severes the line of revelation between God and the author of the book of Genesis, as all it is now is a bunch of hearsay passed down through the centuries since it has no real authoritarian power since Moses didn't write it.
It can also be shown just as easily that the rest of the Pentateuch, Joshua, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel weren't written by whom it is said wrote them, again, according to the Bible itself. I'll leave it here though and wait for some feedback on what's already been said.
Revelation
A revelation is a dialogue of some sort between God and a person. The person is then left with the choice of believing their experience to be a revelation or not. When said person shares their experience with another, it ceases to be a "revelation" as such. It is now information being passed from one person to another and since the 2nd person can't enter the mind of the 1st to experience for themselves the alleged revelation, they have the right not to believe it was a revelation from God. From this point onwards, it is merely hearsay as the account passes from person to person to person.
According to the claims of those who believe the Bible, we have at best testimonies of people's revelations and not the direct Word(s) of God. I believe it is on these grounds that the Christian thinks they hold a rational belief in the Bible. They believe that the documents which make up the Bible hold authority because of who wrote them, which were allegedly people who had revelations. But was it really these people, such as Moses, who were the authors of the books which are attributed to them?
The first book of the Bible is attributed to Moses, as are the next four, which altogether form the Pentateuch, which Moses allegedly wrote. But is this the case? Let's examine the Bible's internal evidence to ultimately show this is not the case, that they are in fact anonymous traditions passed down through the generations.
Genesis
In Genesis 14:14 the author tells us that Lot was going to be rescued from a town by the name of Dan. This town is referred to in the book of Judges, where we get told in verses 18:27-29 that "the people of Dan took what Micah had made, and the priest who belonged to him, and they came to Laish, to a people quiet and unsuspecting, and struck them with the edge of the sword and burned the city with fire. And there was no deliverer because it was far from Sidon, and they had no dealings with anyone. It was in the valley that belongs to Beth-rehob. Then they rebuilt the city and lived in it. And they named the city Dan, after the name of Dan their ancestor, who was born to Israel; but the name of the city was Laish at the first." This account is placed immediately after Samson's death in 1120 B.C. which makes it 331 years after Moses' death in 1451 B.C. therefore proving that Moses could not possibly have written Genesis. But the more obvious fatal fact here is that in Genesis it refers to the town as Dan and not Laish which undeniably means the author was writing sometime after the invasion by Dan's army.
As if this isn't enough evidence, there's another instance whithin Genesis that reveals it was written centuries after Moses' time. This comes from Genesis 36:31 which says "and these are the kings which reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" which, for it to make sense, must necessarily have been written after at least one king reigned Israel. Therefore, this brings us to no earlier than the time of Saul, who was the one to establish the Jewish Monarchy around 1000 B.C. i.e. 451 years after Moses' death. This is also supported by the fact that the rest of the chapter in Genesis appears word for word in 1 Chronicles 1:46 onwards, which was most certainly written (at least) after King Saul's reign.
These two examples are more than enough to show, by the Bible's own standards, that Moses did not write Genesis. This therefore severes the line of revelation between God and the author of the book of Genesis, as all it is now is a bunch of hearsay passed down through the centuries since it has no real authoritarian power since Moses didn't write it.
It can also be shown just as easily that the rest of the Pentateuch, Joshua, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel weren't written by whom it is said wrote them, again, according to the Bible itself. I'll leave it here though and wait for some feedback on what's already been said.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
