Samuel and the Witch

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

These statements reflect the understanding of the authors at the time the material was captured.

These statements, as observed earlier, may have to be understood as correctly describing the view of the author rather than the actual situation.

---

The statements contained in the Bible were inspired by God, Who knows all things. Whether the mode of inspiration was 'thought,' as I believe, or 'verbal,' as some groups believe, "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

Quote:

---

The oldest parts of the Bible were captured in written form at approximately the time of the Babylonian captivity.

---

That is not correct. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, for example. The view which you are stating here, is one held by addvocates of 'higher criticism.'

Quote:

---

The State of the Dead doctrine was so poorly worked out even in Jesus time that the two major sects - Pharisees and Sadducees - did not agree! A fact that Paul exploits to his advantage. You can see this also in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

---

That statement is not historically accurate. Around 150 B.C., Hellenistic philosophy (courtesy of the Macedonian empire) spread to the Jewish community. Judaism was divided on this issue when Jesus was here. The story of the rich man and Lazarus derives from Hellenistic Judaism.

Quote:

---

You can see the major misunderstandings about the shape and origins of the earth in many OT places - reflecting the fact that the Babylonians and Israelites and everyone else thought the earth was flat - until the Greeks finally got it right.

---

That is not what I recall from reading the OT. Please provide cites.

Quote:

---

You can see the major misunderstanding of genetics in the story of Laban and the goats.

---

Perhaps you mean the story of Jacob and the goats?

Quote:

---

And the ritual baths of the Jews, even in the time of Christ, were NOT purifying in the modern 'hygienic clean water' sense - the water was filthy, and you or I would no more get into them than we would drink the water of the Ganges.

---

How would you know that?

David Koot

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, for example

---

Prove it - or even show some strong SCRIPTURAL evidence for it.

The rest of your issues are along the same lines. I am not going to bother defending my statements from attacks that are clearly based on bias and ignorance.

/Bevin

[jasd]

QR frame:

Let’s stipulate that Saul and the witch, together, saw an ‘apparition’ passed-off by fallen influences as the prophet Samuel – well and good. However, as rational, and shall we add… orthodoxical a presentation as this exposition might seem – we are still left with the following…

Isa 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make [me] equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

[…]

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [i am] God, and [there is] none like me,

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

to consider.

Were it Satan masquerading as Samuel declaring, “…and to morrow [shalt] thou and thy sons [be] with me:” – we are confronted with the dilemma of accommodating the foregoing verses in Isaiah 46 with the passage under discussion.

Surely then, one must acknowledge that Satan was a God ‘divining the end from the beginning’ – however measure the scale. B-b-but,

it is exactly that – “knowing…”, which Gd declares to be His purview – His bona fides. Given that, one might pause…, as it appears

that it may, indeed, have been the erstwhile prophet Samuel ascending, as other gods were perceived to be ascending.

/ We are left to mull whether, in fact, Gd and Satan collaborates upon the “end” or demise of an individual; therefor, Satan’s foreknowledge…

/ That Gd does not collaborate but that somehow Satan has knowledge – in the instance of the impending arrival of an individual to the nether-regions… a telegraphing sort of frontal wave, perhaps.

/ Or that Gd, when speaking of His knowing the end from the beginning… actually speaks to greater events such as eons and epochs.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

/ Or that Gd, when speaking of His knowing the end from the beginning… actually speaks to greater events such as eons and epochs.

---

Thus alluding to a conclusion that Almighty God is only Sovereign over the larger issues and has no intimate knowledge, desire, care, or ability to order His created children's welfare, those made in His own image, even should they want it, and especially not if the prince of darkness wants it contrarily. And then the God of heaven and earth still asks us to trust Him with our lives.

[:"red"] "Do not, therefore, fling away your fearless confidence, for it carries a great and glorious compensation of reward." [/] Heb 10:35 AMP

Confidence in what? A blind God? Or belief in the Word?

[:"red"] "As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all." [/] Ecclesiastes 11:5 KJV

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

Quote:

---

Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, for example

---

Prove it - or even show some strong SCRIPTURAL evidence for it.

---

There are over 700 references to Moses in the Bible. Of those, nearly 200 are outside the Pentateuch. Numerous references describe Moses as having written at least portions of the Pentateuch. In the NT, Jesus or the gospel writers speak of that in Mt. 19:8, Mk. 12:26, Lk. 16:31, Lk, 24:27, 44, Jn. 5:46, Jn. 19:8, and other places. Paul the apostle speaks of Moses writing the law, in Rom. 10:5, and in other passages as well.

Aside from direct references to Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, there are evidences which point to his authorship as well. One student has pointed out that the writer of Exodus gives eyewitness details that only a participant would have known about. And, that the writer of Genesis and Exodus had a remarkable knowledge of Egyptian names and places, and used a writing style "containing a large number of idioms and terms of speech, which are characteristically Egyptian in origin, even though translated into Hebrew." (Gleason W. Archer)

I should also point out that the Wellhausen theory has been largely discredited in recent decades. "Scholars are admitting that the way the books use common words, phrases and motifs, parallel narrative structure, and deliberate theological arrangement of literary units for teaching and memorization support viewing the five books as a literary whole." (Andrew Hill & John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Ttestament, p. 81)

In regard to Hellenistic influences in the Jewish community, I refer you to standard historical treatments of "pan-Hellenism." Josephus also may be a good source. Regarding the shape of the earth, you are the one who asserts that "You can see the major misunderstandings about the shape and origins of the earth in many OT places." Let's see these references. As for "Laban and the goats," please give a reference. Concerning the water supplies for the Hebrews, you are the one who has claimed that they were filthy. Let's see your documentation for that statement.

David Koot

[Nicodema]

A rose by any other name ...

[bevin]

Quote:

---

In the NT, Jesus or the gospel writers speak of that in Mt. 19:8, Mk. 12:26, Lk. 16:31, Lk, 24:27, 44, Jn. 5:46, Jn. 19:8, and other places. Paul the apostle speaks of Moses writing the law, in Rom. 10:5, and in other passages as well.

---

Which one of these texts has Jesus or a disciple or Paul saying that Moses wrote the any of the books of the OT?

The text's refer to the Law of Moses - but that is different to saying that Moses wrote the Book of the Law - it just says that Moses was given the original.

Yes, people at the time of Christ may well have believed that Moses wrote the books - however they were also very familiar with a long and honorable tradition of writing books and ascribing authorship of them to much earlier people.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

I'm not going to take the time right now to look it up again, but I seem to recall reading Bible references which refer to what "Moses wrote" in the law--the "law" being one of the three divisions of the OT, which we call the 'Pentateuch.' One may easily peruse those references by typing in the word 'Moses' on a Bible software 'word seach' function, and setting the search range to 'New Testament.'

I believe that the issues about Moses' authorship of the book of the law, did not arise because of uncertainty about what the Bible verses say. Instead, they arose because students who bought into 'higher criticism' did not believe what the Bible verses say, to be true.

If THAT is the case, then we really are rolling the dice. However, as for me, I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, so if the Bible indicates that Moes wrote the book of the Law, I will accept it as truth.

If, on the other hand, someone is going to dispute the inspiration of Scripture, and suggest that what the Bible says about the subject is not true, then we have no common ground on which to pursue a discussion.

David Koot

[bevin]

Quote:

---

If, on the other hand, someone is going to dispute the inspiration of Scripture, and suggest that what the Bible says about the subject is not true, then we have no common ground on which to pursue a discussion.

---

Using this criteria, Moses would have had no common ground for pursuing a discussion with Pharoah. Noah could not have talked to his neighbors. Abraham ...

We have a lot in common. We can discuss even when we disagree about the origins of the Bible and about what it means for the Bible to be inspired.

I have no doubt that the NT authors believed Moses was given the Ten Commandments and the Levitical Law by God. I do not see proof that they conclude from this that Moses was the author of the Pent. They probably knew that the Pent. was assembled during the Babylonian captivity.

But the original point of this thread is that there are mistakes in understanding that God has not corrected, and that the description of Saul at Endor is one of them.

SDA should be very aware of this. The writings of EGW show many such instances - as can be seen in her changes from her earlier materials to her later ones.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

But the original point of this thread is that there are mistakes in understanding that God has not corrected, and that the description of Saul at Endor is one of them.

---

I think it is accurate to say that the Bible records mistakes in some people's understanding, which God chose not to correct. Saul is an example of that. I don't see clear evidence that the WRITER of 1 Samuel had a mistaken understanding. I believe that he merely recorded what Saul and the witch believed. As for EGW, I am aware that there are different views in regard to what you mention.

David Koot

[there buster]

Quote:

---

But the original point of this thread is that there are mistakes in understanding that God has not corrected, and that the description of Saul at Endor is one of them.

---

No, the point is that when we stray from the author's intent, our interpretation says nothing relevant about the text, and only reveals our own mistaken preconceptions.

1 Sam 28 wasn't interested in or commenting on "the state of the dead," it was demonstrating the state of the king.

Trying to derive information about the state of the dead from the text is no more sensible than trying to understand the military decision making process. The author of 1 Sam is interested in niether.

[olger]

Good points, David & Ed.

olger

[bevin]

Note that 1Sam28 v12,15,16,20 - indeed the whole tale - show that there are at least three people who think this is Samuel, not some spirit

The Witch

Saul

The author

and clearly the author believes his audience will also accept that this is Samuel.

This story solidly shows that the writer and the target audience did not subscribe to the SDA standard notion of the state of the dead, OR believed that God would allow Samuel himself to be temporarily roused. NOTE: This later approach allows the SDA doctrine, and the Bible statements to be in accord - but directly contradicts EGW.

It also solidly shows that the misunderstanding of an extremely fundamental issue is allowed to occur in definite statements in the Bible.

These texts are not a problem for me. I believe the dead are asleep, I don't believe Samuel needed to be roused, and I believe Bible authors and assemblers can and do make fundamental errors - and that our middle-age literal scientific reading of the material was never intended by the original authors or by the original readers.

The ancients simply did not have our concept of long age exact historical material, nor of science text books. As Jews constantly point out - we are guilty of a fundamental misunderstanding of their holy literature.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

---

This story solidly shows that the writer and the target audience did not subscribe to the SDA standard notion of the state of the dead, OR believed that God would allow Samuel himself to be temporarily roused.

---

Actually, no.

It is simply the narrative of events as related by the author. Since he is not concerned with what happens to the dead, it is not legitimate to ascribe a particular view of that issue.

He's only interested in Saul's fate.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Actually, no.

It is simply the narrative of events as related by the author. Since he is not concerned with what happens to the dead, it is not legitimate to ascribe a particular view of that issue.

He's only interested in Saul's fate.

---

Oh, so an Biblical account can be wrong in details that are not the fundamental point of the story.

For example, since the main point of the author of Genesis is that God created and sustains the universe, he can be wrong in the details about how God did/does this.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Oh, so an Biblical account can be wrong in details that are not the fundamental point of the story.

---

Details the author is not addressing.

When Gensis claims that God created the Earth in seven days, that is a central part of the claim.

Whether or not cephalopods are fish isn't.

[olger]

I like what Dr. LaRondelle told me once. "We would be better off criticizing ourselves than criticizing the Bible."

g

[bevin]

What leads you to that conclusion? When I read the story, the main point is that God is the origin of the universe, and is still involved in it.

The exact details are obviously not important - because the author(s) are not consistent in them.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

What leads you to that conclusion? When I read the story, the main point is that God is the origin of the universe, and is still involved in it.

---

On what basis would you limit the 'main point' of Genesis 1 in that way? Ch. 1 is quite specific as to HOW God created the world in six days.

Quote:

---

The exact details are obviously not important - because the author(s) are not consistent in them.

---

So, that is the reason you say the "exact details are obviously not important"? Because the author(s) is/are not consistent in them? Please specify which details you are referring to. And, please explain your use of the plural. Do you suggest that there was more than one author of Genesis 1 and 2?

David Koot

[there buster]

when you say "author(s) are not consistent," I'm guessing you read Gen 1 and Gen 2 accounts as 2 separate accounts of exactly the same process.

This is certainly popular with those who accept the JEPD theory.

Whether JEPD is true or not, it's not necessary in Gen 1-2.

The two accounts are completely compatible with a single author, using Hebrew parallelism and progression.

Considering the two accounts as totally independent, and just jammed in together is less in harmony with Hebrew literary forms than the parallel/progression model.

In its simplest terms, the Gen 1 account portrays God systematically (day-by-day) and perfectly (7 days) bringing order out of chaos of heaven, earth, and underworld (the three realms of the ancient cosmos-egg).

In Gen 2, portrays God--through Adam--brining the earth part of the cosmos into order.

Quote:

---

Gen 2

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens—5and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth£ and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth£ and there was no man to work the ground, 6but streams£ came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground—7the LORD God formed the man£ from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

---

Note the focus on the earth only, and it's lack of cosmic order: no plants, no rain, and no man.

So God makes a man from the earth to rule the earth.

God begins to order the earth by planting the garden, and supplying it with plant life.

Quote:

---

15The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

---

God places Adam in charge as steward. God's oversight is demonstrated by the tree He reserves for himself.

Quote:

---

19Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name

---

Once again the steward/ruler status of Adam is affirmed as God brings the animals to be named. God had named the day and the night in Gen 1., and Adam names the land creatures in Gen 2.

So you have in the two accounts a parallel with progression, a very common Hebrew literary device.

In the first account, the seven days are necessary to account for creation and population of heaven, sea, and earth.

In the second account, the days don't matter, because the account deals only with the ordering of the earth. And the earth is not ordered until man is placed there.

[Kevin H]

Let's say that this is Samuel, it does not give any indication that what we are teaching about the topic is wrong. Whoever it was complained of being disturbed (like someone coming out of a deep sleep) Whoever it was needed to be updated on events that occured after Samuel's death. Who ever it was was not able to do anything else but repeat to Saul a message that Samuel gave Saul in his lifetime, and to paraphrase the warnings from Deuteronomy that who ever seeks information from the dead are as good as dead. (And there is evidence that Samuel's writings were edited into Deuteronomy and that the warnings against seeking the dead may have come from Samuel's hand.) Also, the woman screamed when whoever it was showed up, she was not expecting this, and both she and Saul were shocked and shaken by the event.

Saul was choosen to lead the Army of God to victory, Saul constantly feared that God would not keep His promice and kept asking for signs but still constantly worried.

The story of Saul and the Witch of Endor and the story of Gideon and his 300 are related. Both men had their Army on Mt. Gilboa with the enemy in the valley between Mt. Gilboa and Mt. Moreh (don't confuse with Moriah). Both men were looking for signs but still worried. After crossing the spring Gideon's heart sank with only 300 men, decided to give up trusting in signs and began trusting in God and won the victory.

To travel between Mt. Gilboa to Endor, Saul had to cross Gideon's spring, where the Holy Spirit would have been giving Saul the message to follow in Gideon's footsteps in trusting in God instead of the signs.

We even find that Saul escaped the battle to Mt. Gilboa. Yes, I know that there was a person who said that he and Saul was in hot persuit and killed himself before being caught, but reading between the lines, the witness was able to take in a lot of information for someone who is fleeing for his life, and able to strip Saul's body, therefor there are Biblical scholars who feel that the Bible writer was trying to make us read between the lines and see that Saul had escaped, that the Holy Spirit was working with Saul until the end, helping him to escape so that he could go home raise up a new army an return for the victory. Sadly Saul decided that if the enemy was not able to kill him, he'd do it himself.

As for Mrs. White's chapter on this topic. First the principle is correct, the message for us is not to seek the dead for advice. Prophets use the text to focus on the message they are giving, they are not interested in exogesus or what actually happened. Mrs. White felt that was something that we should do for ourselves, that was not her job. She also simply copied the work of J. N. Andrews on this topic, no elaberation, but used Andrews as a running narative for the story, and as a warning not to seek the dead, as she was moving on to the next point where she wanted to take more time and focus on. Saul was in a unique position that we will not be in, for us, most likely we'd be victims of human trickery or demon actvity, thus Mrs. White is more interested in our position, not Saul's.

Oh, by the way, the story did not end there. On Mt. Moreh, where the village of Endor is, there is also Shunam, where Elisha came and raised a dead (or dieing as it can be translated either way) boy, and the village of Endor where Jesus raised a dead boy.

I hope this helps.

[Kevin H]

I see the train of this thread has changed, so may I mention some about the JEDP theory. It's roots were started by believers who in the 1700s noticed different writing styles. It was called "Higher Criticism" while the study of the finished product was called "Lower Criticism" but these two forms were not seen as in conflect, but simply two methods for studying the word of God, but it was believed that useing both together will help us know the Bible better.

In the mid-1800s Higher Criticizism was hijacked by the "Modernists" or liberals who believed that God was not active (if God existed at all) and did further study to notice that the different styles fit four major styles, but said these were evidence that the Bible was not inspired but was human and that it followed human evolution, that there was first the J, then later the E, followed by D, and finally the P or priestly after the exile and written at a higher point of . That all of these (except for P) were written long after the events that they tell about and that the events never happend and the people never existed. The Modernists used higher criticism to try to chop up the Bible with the purpose of disproving the Bible. One mystery that baffelled the Modernist scholars is why was there so much "P" information in the "D" writings, including places where "D" would talk about "P" and dissagree with it or modify.

In responce those who wanted to believe in God formed "Fundamentalism" and wanted to make God the author of the Bible, and therefore there was only one writing style and that Christians should not look for the different writing styles (besides, for most people the work done by the 1700 scholars was simply boreing.)

Durring the 20th century, both Modernism and Fundamentalism have run into problems, although their supporters do a strong stand against the evidence. But there has been a movment of conservative scholars who have given up the Fundamentalist ideas that there can not be differences in styles. These scholars belive that the Bible writers are indeed recording actual historical events with real people and with God real and active. They argue that JEDP did not follow human evolution, but that it started with an actual Moses who wrote laws which had a historical context and commented on and used by the Aaronite priests and decendents of Moses, and that in the north it developed as (I forgot which was which, but I think J) while the other (E)was the development in the south. That P should be moved from post exile to the time of Hezikiah and Isaiah ("P" probably being Isaiah, with the book of Isaiah being "Testomonies for the Church" and the "P" writings being "Conflect of the Ages series") while D was being developed in the north and brought south after the fall of Israel, especially promoted by Jeremiah. So it should not be JEDP but JEPD.

Also, in this view, JEPD are NOT authors collecting and making up stories about a distant past that never happened, but are reseachers and editors of the ancient material of real events and real people, that say "D" or Jeremiah was the editor who collected works of Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha and the surounding historical context to give the "D" writings.

Our church had been sort of an odd position on this topic. Some have wanted to be Fundamentalists, but even then more liberal fundamentalists. Dr. Gerhard Hassel said that there is evidence that JEDP could be trut, but that we are not to look at how the Bible came to be written but to only study the finished product and to pretend that the finished product is the only product, thus he opposed the study of these, and the rejection of using any form of Higher Criticism is a keystone in the approach of the Adventist Theological Society. (How ever they have have no problem using the method of Higher Criticism for studying the writings of Ellen White, and find it to be a Godsend when it comes to understanding her writings, but it is not to be used in studying the Bible.)

The SDA Bible Commentary was ambivalent on the topic, they tended to lean away from JEDP, however they saw the deuteronomic history as edited by Jeremiah, and it would crop up here and there.

As for some of the issues, there is the arguments to try to see Genesis 1 and 2 (as discussed above.)

When the 12 spies returned, how many faithful spies were there: 1, 2, or 12? Was Joshua one of the 12 Spies? The answer is "Depends on what part of the Bible you are reading at the time." The Modernists take this and says "See, it does not agree as to the number, therefore the writers made up the stories, there was no exodus, no Moses, no spys and no God. The Fundamentalists would close their eyes to these different numbers, read into the text different texts or come out with different theories to try to unify the stories. The moderate view is that there was indeed an exodus, lead by Moses, who sent out 12 spies. The Editor found ancient accounts that have one or two faithful spys,and "D" from the North remembered it as all 12 spys being faithful, but the people rejected the message and Joshua (who may or may not have been one of the spys) and Calab were the only ones willing to stand up to the people.

Also, we see a train of a story. Calab's faithfulness leads to Calab and his decendents becoming the warlord of Northern Judah. The warlord of southern Judah offered an alliance which would have made this decendent of Calab the King of Judah, but this decendent was a fool ("Nabal")and rejected this offer, died and his property became joined to Southern Judah, thus making the warlord of Southern Judah King over all of Judah-- King David (and looking at the texts where the story continues but with enough material inbetween to make you forget the connection) David rulled as king of Judah for 5 years while Saul was king in Israel, and a couple of years later David took over Saul's kingdom.

We also find a thread where in the Deuteronomic writings a number of people had curses placed on them. If studied out you will learn that most (if not all) of these curses eventually applied to one man, his name was Jeremiah.

I hope this helps

[bevin]

I find the debates for/against "higher criticism" to be rather like watching two people argue about whether it is a picture of a cow or a duck when they are looking at a cloud/ink-blot.

It is neither - it is a cloud/ink-blot.

There is no evidence that Genesis and Exodus as books were put together much before the Babylonian captivity - and they disagree with much of what we have evidence for of the period they describe. I think the exiles in Babylon used their various myths and legends and oral histories and other written materials, and compiled a reasonably consistent and sensible library out of them, and finally got it captured into a form that survived down the ages.

To me, the origins of the Bible is best described in the opening of the book of Luke. The authors did the best that they could to assemble a document that they could pass on, and God blessed their efforts, but did not correct their not-important-for-His-purposes mistake.

Literal recent creationism was, for most of Earth's history, a not-important mistake. Only in the last few hundred years, and only in some parts of the world, is the mistake finally causing problems - and then only amongst those who like to impose their beliefs on others.

I am quite happy worshipping with creationists - after all, I sleep with one :-) But I am not happy with being told from the pulpit that people who don't believe in short recent creationism are doing the devil's work, and I will neither belong to nor fund an organisation, such as the SDA church, that does this. See, for example, Roy Adam's article in the Adventist Review this week.

However I don't expect you to agree with me on this, because your reasons for your beliefs in this area are not based on external evidence but on internal conviction.

/Bevin

[Kevin H]

Sorry Bevin but you are wrong. We, EVERY ONE OF US are both subjective and objective. There are a whole spectrim between the liberal, moderate and conservative arguments. Each group has difficulties and suggestions, many with in the ranges of the specrum are being very fair to the evidence, but we all filter evidence from our subjective expirence and background. You have chosen to be open to one type of arguemnt, look at those who are at extreams and use them as excuses to hold on to your type of arguemnts and choose to use these extreams as an excuse to automatically dismiss the less extream approaches, and you have choosen an internal conviction that filters out the external evidence that you will consider. You only let in two kinds, those you agree with then the most extream of what you dissagree with so that you can rest your conscience that at least you are not one of them. But you could be much more objective than you are (we call can be) but you have inner convictions that greatly color what objective evidence will pass your eyes and ears and be allowed to stop in for as much as a cup of tea in your brain.

Yes, there are indeed those who are focused on the subjective and hostile to the objective, but no one is completely objective and not subjective. You are very subjective.

I also am not comfortable with your comparison with higher and lower criticizism with arguing over an ink block. I tend to see them more analogious to a hammer and a saw, things that can either be tools in building and reparing, or wepons used to hurt others. Lower criticism is studying how the text was finally edited, Higher criticism is looking at the sections used to build the final text. Let's take the book of Joshua for example. Lower criticism looks at the book as a book and maybe how it fits in with the deuteronomic history and the issues important to Jeremiah. Higher criticism, used as a tool instead of a wepon, would look at "How did Jeremiah edit the history, what did the text mean in Joshua's day, David's day, as well as Jeremiah's day, are there points to the story that may have been important to Joshua and David that was not important to Jeremiah and why."

If we want to approach Joshua with lower criticizism alone we have a problem, and need to start out with some higher criticizism with a choice. Does the text stand alone and do we only study the text in the context of Joshua's time and assume that the book was written as in at the time of the event, and therefore divorce it from the Deuteronomic History. Or do we decide that it is a part of the Deuteronomic history and see it's importance to Jeremiah and forget it's importance to the days of Joshua.

The way the Modernists abuse higher criticizism is "This is a story that is supose to deal with Joshua's day, but you see a lot of ideas that are latter important for the story of David, and also issues of importance for Jeremiah, therefore Joshua, David and Jeremiah did not exist, it's just some historical fiction from a latter writer. It is the way Modernism uses higher criticizism to attack the Bible that scares people away from the tool. But like a car, you can use it to travel or you can use it to run down people crossing the street.

As I said, even thought the Adventist Theological Society was completely opposed to using higher criticism in any way when it comes to the Bible, they use it very freely in studying Ellen White, and we know much more about Ellen White due to their use of higher criticism in her writings. Both higher and lower criticizism work together.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Lower criticism is studying how the text was finally edited, Higher criticism is looking at the sections used to build the final text. Let's take the book of Joshua for example. Lower criticism looks at the book as a book and maybe how it fits in with the deuteronomic history and the issues important to Jeremiah. Higher criticism, used as a tool instead of a wepon, would look at "How did Jeremiah edit the history, what did the text mean in Joshua's day, David's day, as well as Jeremiah's day, are there points to the story that may have been important to Joshua and David that was not important to Jeremiah and why."

---

Do I misunderstand you - neither of these approaches even pretend that the book was written by Joshua.

I can certainly see and understand the views that you should either try to see the progression, or you should ignore it and look at the result. However to look at the result and pretend that it is literally accurate is something I can not force myself to do.

The viewpoint I most disagree with is the one that says "Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and it is literally true".

/Bevin