|
|
Post by Pietro on Jan 21, 2004 10:38:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jan 21, 2004 18:06:43 GMT -5
Whew!! That was a heady article  I'm not that smart, but I understand the gist of oral tradition being extremely important, in some instances of equal importance. In more ancient times, oral tradition would have been more important than written. As I understand it, most biblical material was not written down, or at least collected, until well afer it's origin. Help me understand more of what your getting at...thnx God bless |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 21, 2004 19:29:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jan 21, 2004 19:41:50 GMT -5
Very interesting counter site. I have to admit, I, at no time, have ever believed that Moses wrote the first 5? books of the Bible. By reading it, it is abundantly clear that he did not. He may have written a version that does not exist anymore, but I don't feel that the books as we know them were authored by one person. Just my own opinion. Extremely interesting topinc. I'll try to do more reading on it God bless |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 21, 2004 20:36:43 GMT -5
Authorship does not mean that a work remained untouched for all time. Presumably someone other than Moses added the account of his death to the end of Deuteronomy. There are also notes in the Pentateuch to indicate that the names of places have been updated (for ex: Gen 23:2, 19: 35:19). It is possible that other parts of the documents were also updated, but it is only in place names that one finds clear indications of this, because there the later editor includes both the original name and the updated name. The point is that a work is still an author's work even if it has been edited, revised, updated or otherwise added to. When the Bible says that a certain work is by a given individual, it need not mean that the author is always responsible for every word or even for the general style. The author is considered responsible for the basic content. We can trust what the Bible says about the authorship of His Word  <>< |
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jan 21, 2004 20:46:33 GMT -5
Authorship does not mean that a work remained untouched for all time. Presumably someone other than Moses added the account of his death to the end of Deuteronomy. There are also notes in the Pentateuch to indicate that the names of places have been updated (for ex: Gen 23:2, 19: 35:19). It is possible that other parts of the documents were also updated, but it is only in place names that one finds clear indications of this, because there the later editor includes both the original name and the updated name. The point is that a work is still an author's work even if it has been edited, revised, updated or otherwise added to. When the Bible says that a certain work is by a given individual, it need not mean that the author is always responsible for every word or even for the general style. The author is considered responsible for the basic content. We can trust what the Bible says about the authorship of His Word <>< I do believe that there might have been a version written by Moses, but I don't believe it exists anymore. Genesis itself is like a pathwork of vaguely described events. I believe that the sumerian culture also has a Genesis-like account that pre-dates the Hebrew version. I'll do some more research on this, but I believe its true until I learn otherwise. God bless |
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jan 21, 2004 21:02:10 GMT -5
The original story, from which the Hebrew Testament's version was derived, is found in the Gilgamesh epic discovered by G. Smith (Tablet 11 dated circa -1,950GC) while he was digging through the ruins of the library of Assurbanipal in +1,872GC. The hero of the original flood myth is named Ut-napishtim / Sit-napishti. "Noah" and the Hebrew creation myths found in Genesis One and Genesis Two were written over 1,000 years after Tablet 11 was written. Judging by ancient artwork, the original Gilgamesh flood myth appears to be around 6,000 years old, circa -4,000GC.
As a note, it's possible that the sumerian people might have actually been Hebrew www.holysmoke.org/bib-cre1.htmGod bless
|
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jan 21, 2004 21:26:54 GMT -5
The early chapters of Genesis also narrate the familiar stories of Cain slaying his brother Abel, the general decline in humanity following the fall of Adam, and the Flood sent by God to punish the wicked ways into which men and women had descended. This story, in which God selects the one righteous man left on earth, Noah, and commands him to build an ark to preserve human and animal life, has unmistakable parallels in pre-existing literature of the region. Archaeologists agree that a real flood or floods of astonishing proportions did take place in the region of Babylonia and Sumeria sometime during the 4th and 3rd millennia BCE. An ancient Babylonian account written in the 17th century BCE describes a flood sent by a god who regrets having created humanity. In this story, another god intervenes to warn a priest-king named Ziusudra, who survives by building a large boat. An early Sumerian king-list identifies Ziusudra as king of the city of Shuruppak in Babylonia c.2900 BCE. Whether the Biblical authors were relating a story that had been handed down to them, or reinterpreting an old narrative in a moralistic, monotheistic context, is hard to say.
Abram, a descendant of Noah whose name God later changes to Abraham, is said to have come from Ur, an historical Sumerian city of the 4th and 3rd millennia, not far from Shuruppak. God directs him to leave his father's house and go "to the land that I will show you." Further, God promises to make of Abram's descendants "a great nation," and makes a covenant with him, saying: "To your descendants I will give this land." Historically, the Hebrews probably began as one of a group of wandering tribes known as Habiru, a hard-to-cpkmtyollify group of herders, often warlike and predatory, who roamed the regions of Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt in search of water and pastures. They tended to settle near established kingdoms until their numbers grew too great and the local powers urged them to move on. The image of the Jewish people as "strangers and sojourners" appears repeatedly in the Bible, and in retrospect appears to have had prophetic overtones.
www.myss.com/worldreligions/Judaism2.aspGod bless
|
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Jan 22, 2004 14:45:21 GMT -5
The article states:
“I recognized that liberal theologians had authored most all of the volumes in the library. The only conservative books in evidence during this quick survey were a collection of Billy Graham's works and two titles by C. S. Lewis. A student utilizing the library would have no evidence of any other approach to the authorship of the Pentateuch other than the theories proposed by scholars following the destructive forms of liberal criticism.”There are very few, if any, contemporary scholars, who have a different approach to the authorship of the Pentateuch. Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis, while being wonderful evangelists and writers, are not scholars. Also:
“The implications of the Documentary Hypothesis are breathtaking:
"(a) Mosaic authorship is rejected, with only bits of the Pentateuch attributed to the Mosaic period; (b) for many of the scholars who accept the Wellhausen view, the men and women of the Pentateuch were not actual human beings--at least they were idealized heroes; (c) the Pentateuch does not give us a true history of ancient times but it reflects instead the history of the divided kingdom through the early part of the postexilic period; (d) none of the people in the Pentateuch were monotheistic, and it was the postexilic priests who made them look like believers in one God; (e) God never spoke to any individuals in ancient times, but again, it was the work of the priests that gives that impression; (f) very few of the laws in the Pentateuch were prekingdom in origin; (g) very few of the cultic practices recorded in the Pentateuch were prekingdom, and many were postexilic; (h) the early Israelites never had a tabernacle such as described in Exodus; (i) all claims in the Pentateuch that God acted redemptively and miraculously in behalf of Israel are erroneous; (j) any concept that the present structural unity of the five books was original with Moses is erroneous, and, finally; (k) the skepticism inherent in the theory creates a credibility gap with the ordinary layman to the extent that the Pentateuch becomes practically useless to him (G. Herbert Livingston, The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974, page 229, quoted in New Evidence, page 394)."
These implications could destroy one's faith . . . if the theory is correct.”
If one’s faith is totally dependant on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, then it is a weak faith to begin with. Let’s face it. We all need to grow in our faith and we all have notions that we need to challenge. I don’t agree with everything contemporary scholars say, especially the Jesus seminar guys, but for the most part I think their approach to scripture is better informed than the rest of us and so I think we need to listen to them. The Documentary Hypothesis is far from being a nice well defined thing everyone agrees perfectly on, though the core of it is well accepted. See these article for an in depth exploration of some of the issues. Redefining Elohist: www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL1192.pdf On Deuteronimistic history: www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL1222.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Jan 22, 2004 15:17:40 GMT -5
BTW:
I don't think it matters a great deal who wrote it or how many contributed. It is enough for me that God inspired it. I do think it important not to idolize it, or rather, idolize our notion of it and how it came to be.
Article also states:
The Bible is clear in stating that Genesis through Deuteronomy had Moses as Its author.
pkmtyolpages that state Moses was the author: Exodus 17:14; 24:4, 7; 34:27; Leviticus 1:1; 6:8; 31:9, 24-26; Numbers 33:1-2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 11; Joshua 1:7-8; 8:31-34; 22:5; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 2 Chronicles 34:14; 35:12; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11-13; Malachi 4:4; Matthew 19:7-8; 22:24; Mark 7:10; 12:24, 26; Luke 24:44; John 1:17; 5:46-47; 7:19, 23; Acts 3:22; 26:22; Romans 10:5. This list is not exhaustive.
Many of these citations do not necessarily refer to the entire Pentateuch end even if they did I could allow for their human author to be generalizing. The Law is often attributed to Moses but the Pentateuch includes a great deal more material than the Law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Apr 2, 2004 12:21:34 GMT -5
What happened to the faith of our forefathers? There was a time in this country when Christians didn't sit around in a group and slice and dice up the Word of God into this author and that author. They did not discuss that there was three authors of Isaiah, or that Moses could not have possibly written about his own death.
If Moses could write about the Creation - sight unseen, but being the amaneusis of God, why could he not do the same as to his death.
What happened to the faith that we once had that God was the Author and that if God said it, it was settled?
Have we allowed the Germans to steal our faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Apr 2, 2004 14:29:19 GMT -5
What happened to the faith of our forefathers? There was a time in this country when Christians didn't sit around in a group and slice and dice up the Word of God into this author and that author. They did not discuss that there was three authors of Isaiah, or that Moses could not have possibly written about his own death. If Moses could write about the Creation - sight unseen, but being the amaneusis of God, why could he not do the same as to his death. What happened to the faith that we once had that God was the Author and that if God said it, it was settled? Have we allowed the Germans to steal our faith. There is nothing wrong with simple faith as long as it doesn't condemn sincere inquiry. Not everyone is equiped or interested enough to understanding how electricity works, what is the best composition of concrete, how does a plant grow, what causes heart disease and cancer, how did we come to have the Bible as it now is, what did it mean to the people who first reverenced it. But thank God there are people who have the where-with-all to specialize in such studies. If the results of such studies damage one's faith than that faith was rather fragile to begin with. The Germans did not steal my faith in God. Rather, they challenged my image of God and how God works in our world. If your faith is not up to challenge. Stay uninformed but please do not pkmtyolp judgement on others open to new understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Apr 2, 2004 14:39:35 GMT -5
What happened to the faith of our forefathers? There was a time in this country when Christians didn't sit around in a group and slice and dice up the Word of God into this author and that author. They did not discuss that there was three authors of Isaiah, or that Moses could not have possibly written about his own death. If Moses could write about the Creation - sight unseen, but being the amaneusis of God, why could he not do the same as to his death. What happened to the faith that we once had that God was the Author and that if God said it, it was settled? Have we allowed the Germans to steal our faith. I do believe that the content of Holy Scripture is sufficient to lead us to Christ. I don not, however, place my faith in a book, but in the living Word. I've read several scholars that even question the Apostleship of Paul. His doctrine appears to be inconsistent with much of the information in the four Gospels. He also apparently did not have much real knowledge of Christ's life. I haven't completely lost faith in Paul's validity, but I do have my questions, and I'm not ashamed of it. I still believe that Christ is the Son of God, and my doubts involving some Biblical material have not diluted my faith in any way. Christ did not say, believe in the Bible to be saved, He said, "Believe in Me" God bless |
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Apr 2, 2004 19:21:19 GMT -5
I do believe that the content of Holy Scripture is sufficient to lead us to Christ. I don not, however, place my faith in a book, but in the living Word. I've read several scholars that even question the Apostleship of Paul. His doctrine appears to be inconsistent with much of the information in the four Gospels. He also apparently did not have much real knowledge of Christ's life. I haven't completely lost faith in Paul's validity, but I do have my questions, and I'm not ashamed of it. I still believe that Christ is the Son of God, and my doubts involving some Biblical material have not diluted my faith in any way. Christ did not say, believe in the Bible to be saved, He said, "Believe in Me" God bless Of course Paul's writings do not agree with the four Gospels. There is a reason for that. We find the answer, in part, in Galatians 2:7-8 "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)." Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles, of the Church. Paul's epistles contain the truth necessary for the institution known as the "Body of Christ." In the Gospels, Jesus was preaching the message of the old Covenant, the Epistles speak of the new. As to Paul's knowledge of Christ personally - Acts shows us that Paul's personal knowledge of Jesus was limited to the vision on the road to Damascus. The fact that Paul met Jesus in the flesh, however, made him eligible to become an Apostle. This is why there is such a clash between denominations. They are unable to rightly divide at what points the Bible is being written to the Jews - and at what point the Bible is directed toward the Church. Paul's writings are at odds with much of what precedes it because the Church is radically different than Judaism. Those that attempt to make them all one group is failing to rightly divide. |
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Apr 2, 2004 19:27:03 GMT -5
There is nothing wrong with simple faith as long as it doesn't condemn sincere inquiry. Not everyone is equiped or interested enough to understanding how electricity works, what is the best composition of concrete, how does a plant grow, what causes heart disease and cancer, how did we come to have the Bible as it now is, what did it mean to the people who first reverenced it. But thank God there are people who have the where-with-all to specialize in such studies. If the results of such studies damage one's faith than that faith was rather fragile to begin with. The Germans did not steal my faith in God. Rather, they challenged my image of God and how God works in our world. If your faith is not up to challenge. Stay uninformed but please do not pkmtyolp judgement on others open to new understanding. There is quite a problem with "sincere inquiry" when it is used to destroy the faith of millions. No wonder so many have no desire to read the Bible - they've been told that it really isn't a reliable instrument for our faith and practice. Now we hear so many accuse people that trust their Bibles of being biblioters. Well, I worship Jesus Christ - and apart from the Word of God, there is absolutely NO OTHER WAY to know about Jesus Christ. Take away the Bible - and you have nothing left but church councils and Papal bulls. No thanks! I'm not interested in a Bible lite. |
|
I'm not that smart, but I understand the gist of oral tradition being extremely important, in some instances of equal importance. In more ancient times, oral tradition would have been more important than written. As I understand it, most biblical material was not written down, or at least collected, until well afer it's origin.