Changes

A lot of things are possible, and of course you can have many alternative possible explanations. But the interesting ones are the likely explanation. Given the inconsistencies, it might be caused by a single person changing his style, but it could also be due to an editor compiling from different sources, especially since it is very likely that someone edited the text anyway some time after Moss death. It is argued that the changes are too big for a single author. While possible, it is not considered to be the most likely explanation that there were at least two stories, before an editor went to work. Anyway, point is there a lot possible, but that doesn't make it likely. A explanation becomes more likely, the more supporting evidence you have, and evidence can come in different shape and forms. The eyewitness standard was set by yourself, and indeed I think it is a bit unreasonable. If you defend an explanation that is just possible, you should at least have the courage to admit, that other explanations are considered more likely. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

A lot of things are possible, and of course you can have many alternative possible explanations. But the interesting ones are the likely explanation. Given the inconsistencies, it might be caused by a single person changing his style, but it could also be due to an editor compiling from different sources, especially since it is very likely that someone edited the text anyway some time after Moss death. It is argued that the changes are too big for a single author. While possible, it is not considered to be the most likely explanation that there were at least two stories, before an editor went to work. Anyway, point is there a lot possible, but that doesn't make it likely. A explanation becomes more likely, the more supporting evidence you have, and evidence can come in different shape and forms. The eyewitness standard was set by yourself, and indeed I think it is a bit unreasonable. If you defend an explanation that is just possible, you should at least have the courage to admit, that other explanations are considered more likely. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: You are wanting me to admit that my view of how the Bible came to be written is just one of several possible explanations.  Okay, I admit that—because I've never claimed otherwise.  It was you who said that you could argue that it ''wasn't'' an eyewitness account ("I could easily argue that the biblical account cannot be an eyewitness account"), and I was merely countering that argument, by pointing out ''possible'' explanations that would allow it to be an human eyewitness account.  If I can show even one ''possible'' explanation (i.e. one that you can't refute as being ''impossible''), then I have succeeded in refuting your assertion that it ''could not have been'' an eyewitness account.  Now you are (unwittingly?) trying to turn the argument around to get me to admit that my explanation is not the only possible one!  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: You are wanting me to admit that my view of how the Bible came to be written is just one of several possible explanations.  Okay, I admit that—because I've never claimed otherwise.  It was you who said that you could argue that it ''wasn't'' an eyewitness account ("I could easily argue that the biblical account cannot be an eyewitness account"), and I was merely countering that argument, by pointing out ''possible'' explanations that would allow it to be an human eyewitness account.  If I can show even one ''possible'' explanation (i.e. one that you can't refute as being ''impossible''), then I have succeeded in refuting your assertion that it ''could not have been'' an eyewitness account.  Now you are (unwittingly?) trying to turn the argument around to get me to admit that my explanation is not the only possible one!  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 17 December 2007 (EST)

===Scientific Claims===

===Scientific Claims===