Bible written by different writers at different times for different people

me ^ | 12/6/01 | me

[Weatherman123]

Are you reading a translation or the original Hebrew?

I'm reading The New American Bible.

Have you studied the midrash, the mishnah or the Talmud? Are you familiar with the commentaries of Onkelus, Rashi, Nachmanides, Abarbanel?

Nope, I haven't. Puts me in the undereducated class, right? Any links you might send my way? I'm in the lifelong process of studying God's word and trying to make sense of it. I welcome all schools of thought. I don't know how I could have studied the Talmud, midrash and mishnah unless I was at student at Yeshiva, but maybe you can sum some of the 3000 years of writings for me.

Explain why you disagree with the explanation given by these sages of the seeming contradictions you found in scripture.

Can't do that, haven't read them. But can you shed some light? I'd appreciate it. It seems people don't believe me, but I was looking for conversation and open minded discussion. I don't know everything, I'm basing my beliefs on what I've read and studied so far. So, enlighten me! :)

[agrace]

Good one. :)

[Emmanual_Goldstein16]

As far as I know , there are three strata of source material for genesis; J, E, and P. J consistently refers to the creator's personal name Yahweh. It is translated in english as Lord, but that is incorrect. The name Yahweh does not carry the meaning lord. This is a later addition. The J source is the oldest. The Elohist source I believe is next, and has its origins in the northern kingdom. Elohim is used in place of Yahweh, and there are various theories as to why this is. P, I believe is the most recent of the three sources. It is believed that all three derive from a common sourceof which we have no specimens. That would make J the closest to the inspired scriptures as pertains to Genesis.

May the name of Yahweh be praised forever

[Weatherman123]

This conclusively proves that the writer of the last few paragraphs could not be the same writer that wrote the first paragraphs.

I see you've got the literary style of sarcasm down. Don't you have anything relevant to say or add to the discussion? Do you see any validity to this theory? Or is this your way of saying you don't? I'm sorry, I'm not fluent in sarcasm.

[WalterSkinner]

Using the word myth with anything revealed in the Bible tells me where you are coming from.
Now please go back there.

[Moby Grape]

The fact that the Bible was written by different people of many years is NOT a grand discovery....small children learned this in Sunday school for hundreds of years.

[Weatherman123]

Agreed. His book was the first I heard of this theory, many years ago, in a college class called "Bible: Myth and History". I was a cowardly atheist (agnostic) at the time. Now I've accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior. I'm in a four year Bible study program and it's based on the Historical Critical Theory of the Bible. I believe all of what's written in the wonderful library we call the Bible is divinely inspired, but I believe some books were written by some authors and some books by others. I believe some books were written by more than one writer (for instance, Genesis) and edited by another.

But I'm finding this is not a popular view on FR. Oh well.

[BibChr]

Honestly, after the first few lines of old, long-refuted glittering ignorance held up as if a brand-new discovery, I elected not to waste the time. It's like the Jesus Seminar which, overlooking a century of archeological finds and scholarly progress, announces long-decimated 19th-century radical liberalism as if it were cutting-edge academics.

We're to believe that the author of Genesis 2 was unaware of Genesis 1 and vice-versa, or that the final editor was unaware that he was pairing the two narratives. No, it took thousands of years, and this nimrod, to point out what everyone else had missed.

Oh, and to see the dessecated corpse of the Documentary Hypothesis propped up yet again — it's almost enough to make one wax nostalgic.

But not quite.

Let me know if you have a particular question.

Dan
Help for Bible Students
How to Make Your Very Own Jesus

[Weatherman123]

Would the Prussian's favorite method of exposition be superior to the nomadic Hebrew's? That's moot.

Agreed. As I stated in my original post, I believe all of the Bible is divinely inspired and no one writer is more important than the other.

[George W. Bush]

Let's talk about just the first two chapters of Genesis, the creation story/myth.

Since you seem to consider the Bible a fairy tale, I find your closing very humorous:

But I'm hoping for honest discussion with prayerfully open hearts and minds.

What you're hoping for is a pleasant opportunity to attack the truth of the Bible in a chatty way. Of course, someday you'll die and it won't be so funny or clever when you finally find out, much too late, that God is not Mother Goose after all.

[Ol' Sparky]

The universe was created....The universe could not have created itself. Matter can not create itself. Spontaneous generation has never been observed. The universe is going from order to disorder, winding down. Available energy is decreasing and, eventually, everything in the universe will use up all available energy and die. The universe could not have always been here or everything it would be dead.

Myth-peddling evolutionists and atheists have to invent unestablished laws and theories to try and contradict the existing laws of thermodynamics.

So, there is a Creator. Like it or not.

[kjam22]

These discussions are always silly. Was Genesis literal or symbolic? It doesn't matter. If I have to decide... I'll say literal. If I'm wrong and it is instead symbolic so what... the outcome (the message)is the same. And the message is this.... That God created everything, including mankind. And man walked in fellowship with God. But somewhere along the line man sinned. He disobeyed God. He used his free will to do something that he was specifically instructed not to do. And because of this his lot in life has changed. He works the fields, he doesn't have fellowship with God. He has problems, trials, and pains.

This is the message of Genesis whether read literal or symbolic. Those that compare part b of one verse with part a of another verse in another chapter are the same as those that can't see the forest for the trees.

The bible tells us this in a nutshell. That God created everything including us. That we chose to disobey and break that fellowship. That God made a way to reconcile this fellowship through a savior. It gives the history of the lineage of this Savior. A record of his teachings, and a record of the life and teachings of his disciples.

Read it with that in mind and you'll understand a lot more.

[Weatherman123]

Actually, I read a bit further and ignored the rest when it became clear that your examples of differences between the two seemed to revolve around nonsensical differences.

Too bad, I wish you had read the rest, then you wouldn't be misunderstanding me.

If the point of the thesis is that more than one human author may have contributed to Genesis there can be little doubt that you are correct. This is relevant because????

Again, it's relevant because I'm continuing a conversation I had earlier this week with people who disagree with me that the Bible was written by different authors.

Instead, your post seems more like the arguments we have heard... "here is a contradiction in scripture... therefore scripture is not authoritative" and is probably not worth additional study.

Nothing could be further from the truth. But you didn't read my entire post so how could you know that? I in NO WAY said scripture is not authoritative or not worth additional study. I believe exactly the opposite.

I see however, that you have called in some of my friends from the "Neverending Thread" who no doubt can "assist" you better than I.

I've seen this thread but don't think I've ever read it or posted on it. I sent this post to people I was having this discussion with earlier this week. In hindsite, I probably shouldn't have started a new thread. I did so in hopes of getting more people involved in discussion. Careful what you wish for.

[kjam22]

Thanks for the ping. See my post 53

[jimt]

Try Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason.

It bears on your subject.

[slhill]

You might be interested in "Surpassing Wonder" by Donald Harman Akenson on the subject of P, J and all the rest. FWIW, I don't find the textual evidence re "G-d" and "the Lord" any more convincing than the traditional Jewish explanation, that the two names are used to signify different aspects of the Holy One, blessed be He.

[slhill]

An excellent post!

[Alouette]

Nope, I haven't. Puts me in the undereducated class, right?

Fortunately for you, these famous commentaries, formerly found only in the original Hebrew and Aramaic, are now available in English for student like you.

Any links you might send my way?

STONE TANACH: All 24 books of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings are now at your fingertips in one magnificent 2,200 page volume, as interpreted by the classic sages of Talmudic and Rabbinic literature.

SAPERSTEIN RASHI: Chumash text, translated according to Rashi
The full and accurate text of Rashi and Onkelos
The literal translation of Rashi, highlighted and interwoven with explanatory words and phrases to ease and clarify the flow of Rashi's text
Notes on Rashi, including questions, answers, sources, and elucidations
Written by an expert on Rashi, in collaboration with a group of outstanding scholars

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Historical facts? NO Scientific truth? NO

I would answer "yes" to both of those questions.

It's almost universally accepted among us believers in the Bible that the first 5 books of the Bible were writings COMPILED and written by Moses. So what's the big revelation here? Why don't you be honest and tell us you don't put much stock in the written word of God instead of coming in thru the backdoor? Sheesh you people.