NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a question that has been in my head... we are often told Moses wrote the first five books - but there is no reason to believe he could read OR write, lest of all in Hebrew. Also - the fifth book describes the funeral of... you guessed it... Moses. So - it's unlikely he is the literal author of that scripture.

Much of the Old Testament is very reminiscent of other, earlier, scripture and texts from neighbouring cultures... so we should perhaps suspect some influence.

None of the four Gospel texts have names on the original Greek texts, so - and names attached to them are 'best guesses'.

So - why do we 'believe' we know who wrote the books?


The other question is - we are also told that God 'inspired' the whole thing - but again, why do we believe this? Isn't it equally likely that the whole history of Christianity has been a trick, and the text was actually dictated by Satan himself?

Tradition and textual clues I suppose. It's probably also much easier to assign the traditional figures as opposed to saying By Anonymous (Given just about every other religion does the same after all).

As for why we think God inspired the text, it notes so a number of times that God commands that records of such and such be kept. How do we know it's God and not Satan? An act of faith.

So - why do we 'believe' we know who wrote the books?


The other question is - we are also told that God 'inspired' the whole thing - but again, why do we believe this? Isn't it equally likely that the whole history of Christianity has been a trick, and the text was actually dictated by Satan himself?

Speak for yourself mate

Tradition and textual clues I suppose. It's probably also much easier to assign the traditional figures as opposed to saying By Anonymous (Given just about every other religion does the same after all).


So - you're saying it's a kind of scriptural dishonesty?


As for why we think God inspired the text, it notes so a number of times that God commands that records of such and such be kept. How do we know it's God and not Satan? An act of faith.

But... what is that faith based on?

Speak for yourself mate

Not for myself, actually... at least, not now. As a child I accepted it. I've been something of a skeptic on the matter for some time, now. :)

The 'we' is a collective 'we'... those of 'us' that live in predominantly Christian cultures, and/or were raised around Judeo-Christian scripture.

So - you're saying it's a kind of scriptural dishonesty?
Perhaps, but then again we site Homer for the Odyssey and we cannot even confirm the existance of Homer, let alone that he composed those poems.

But... what is that faith based on?
That the Word comes from God, and that God would not allow the wrong words to flourish as they have.

Perhaps, but then again we site Homer for the Odyssey and we cannot even confirm the existance of Homer, let alone that he composed those poems.


But, does Homer claim to be the pen behind the 'voice of god'?

We can use analytical techniques to be fairly sure that all of Homer's work is authentically the work of one author... even if he(?) was not called 'Homer'. We can use the same sorts of techniques to show that the books attributed to Moses were likely written by two to four different authors. So - whether or not 'Moses' is a real name, the text wasn't written by 'him' (or 'her')... but by 'them', whoever 'they' were.


That the Word comes from God, and that God would not allow the wrong words to flourish as they have.

But, why would we believe that? Our only evidence that that 'god' even exists, is the very scripture we are discussing, no?

Well, considering that there were no photocopiers, whatever was written (or whoever wrote it) in the first edition is really not all that important.

It was changed again and again, especially when it made the jump from a book for a local "cult" (for want of a better word) to the program of a massive organised religion. They'd had to add all sorts of things, change bits and pieces, leave some things out and so on.

Hell, we actually know about several councils in which they decided what was written in the Bible. These weren't secret meetings, these were very open and clear discussions, at the end of which stood the message that they decided what was the word of god and what wasn't.

I think it doesn't get any clearer than that: A committee decided what's written in the bible.

the short answer is "scribes and pharasies".

the long answer, involves a bit more scholarship then i'm up for delving into at the moment.

suffice it to say, human ink on human paper is inscribed by human hand. albeit the very real and excelent possibility of devine elevation of one human born every thousand years or so, to chanel its will to the rest of us.

=^^=
.../\...

But, why would we believe that? Our only evidence that that 'god' even exists, is the very scripture we are discussing, no?
Basically, it's because if "That God" didn't exist then it would be unfair for the book saying that it did to have survived so long, whereas it makes perfect sense for the survival of the book to be related to its divine authority.

I don't like it myself, but any faith in the bible that claims to be justified in reality is similar to that.

You know what's funny? For several centuries a legion of historians, archaeologists, and theologians have researched his very question in ridiculous depth, many of them devoting their entire professional career to studying the Bible and it's origins! And yet, here you are, a skeptical atheist so sure that...

*Ahem*

"There Is No God"

... questioning something you know virtually NOTHING about with the same adamant certainty in your own ignorance. While "we" are on the subject, I assert that "we," being the people who actually bother doing their own research before dicking around with vague claims, actually have a pretty good idea about the history of the written "Word of God." I suggest that "you" figure it out for yourself... If you actually even cared to begin with.

There are books, scholarly research papers, massive archaeological projects, and countless studies done on this very topic. It is FAR from an unanswered question, it just takes some time to answer.

For starters, I shall point you in the direction of a book that asks the question of who wrote the Bible. It’s title? Not surprisingly, Who Wrote The Bible? (http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Bible-Richard-Friedman/dp/0060630353)

It’s an easy book to digest and it’s intended for an audience that doesn’t know much about the subject. Good intro material.

Oh, I'm sorry, you wanted a NSG caliber explanation for all of this, didn't you? Fine, how about this... *ahem*

There is no Bible

Good enough for you? :rolleyes:

There is no Bible

Good enough for you? :rolleyes:

Not quite. I can take the Bible and literally thump you with it. But it's awful hard to get a hold of god. Or any god for that matter. Shiva isn't answering his phone.

[/nitpick]

Not quite. I can take the Bible and literally thump you with it. But it's awful hard to get a hold of god. Or any god for that matter. Shiva isn't answering his phone.

[/nitpick]

Ah, but you see, I named my... Err, "private parts" God a few weeks back. I can get a hold of it quite easily. Maybe all Grave_n_idle needs is a good cockslap, and then he, too, would believe! :p

Ah, but you see, I named my... Err, "private parts" God a few weeks back. I can get a hold of it quite easily. Maybe all Grave_n_idle needs is a good cockslap, and then he, too, would believe! :p

Hmmm. So does that mean that I can smite god? I must put this to the test! *brandishes hammer*

Hmmm. So does that mean that I can smite god? I must put this to the test! *brandishes hammer*

Silence worm! *cockslaps thou mightily* Thou shalt not question mine divinity, nor shalt though threaten mine Omnipotent Shaft and Most Holy Pair!

Repent!

From a question on the origins of the Bible to bad cock jokes in less than a page.

That has to be some kind of record even for NSG.

You know what's funny? For several centuries a legion of historians, archaeologists, and theologians have researched his very question in ridiculous depth, many of them devoting their entire professional career to studying the Bible and it's origins! And yet, here you are, a skeptical atheist so sure that...

*Ahem*

"There Is No God"

... questioning something you know virtually NOTHING about with the same adamant certainty in your own ignorance. While "we" are on the subject, I assert that "we," being the people who actually bother doing their own research before dicking around with vague claims, actually have a pretty good idea about the history of the written "Word of God." I suggest that "you" figure it out for yourself... If you actually even cared to begin with.

There are books, scholarly research papers, massive archaeological projects, and countless studies done on this very topic. It is FAR from an unanswered question, it just takes some time to answer.

For starters, I shall point you in the direction of a book that asks the question of who wrote the Bible. It’s title? Not surprisingly, Who Wrote The Bible? (http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Bible-Richard-Friedman/dp/0060630353)

It’s an easy book to digest and it’s intended for an audience that doesn’t know much about the subject. Good intro material.

Oh, I'm sorry, you wanted a NSG caliber explanation for all of this, didn't you? Fine, how about this... *ahem*

There is no Bible

Good enough for you? :rolleyes:

well, rad. i live in a town without a bookstore. its a minimum 150 mile round trip for me to go pick up that book today. hows about YOU summarize it for me so i dont have to wonder what you are talking about.

Well, considering that there were no photocopiers, whatever was written (or whoever wrote it) in the first edition is really not all that important.

It was changed again and again, especially when it made the jump from a book for a local "cult" (for want of a better word) to the program of a massive organised religion. They'd had to add all sorts of things, change bits and pieces, leave some things out and so on.

Hell, we actually know about several councils in which they decided what was written in the Bible. These weren't secret meetings, these were very open and clear discussions, at the end of which stood the message that they decided what was the word of god and what wasn't.

I think it doesn't get any clearer than that: A committee decided what's written in the bible.

That's just canonisation - that's deciding which documents, of all those you are saying have alrady been written, are accepted as 'real'. There are traces of 'editing' from earliest manuscripts (especially in Greek) - a lot of text 'migrates' from a given gospel to similar passages in other gospels, for example.But, I'm more thinking about who wrote the texts to start with, and why we should believe 'god' was the inspiration for it.

the short answer is "scribes and pharasies".

the long answer, involves a bit more scholarship then i'm up for delving into at the moment.

suffice it to say, human ink on human paper is inscribed by human hand. albeit the very real and excelent possibility of devine elevation of one human born every thousand years or so, to chanel its will to the rest of us.

=^^=
.../\...

What's this about 'real and excellent' possibility for divine something or another? Why real? How is this probability excellent?

Basically, it's because if "That God" didn't exist then it would be unfair for the book saying that it did to have survived so long, whereas it makes perfect sense for the survival of the book to be related to its divine authority.

I don't like it myself, but any faith in the bible that claims to be justified in reality is similar to that.

The argument runs "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist"... but, what if that is only his second best trick, and his piece de resistance was convincing people that a 'holy book' he knocked-off to lead people astray... was actually 'god's word'?

the short answer is "scribes and pharasies".

the long answer, involves a bit more scholarship then i'm up for delving into at the moment.

suffice it to say, human ink on human paper is inscribed by human hand. albeit the very real and excelent possibility of devine elevation of one human born every thousand years or so, to chanel its will to the rest of us.

=^^=
.../\...

does that mean that you believe that sometimes that person has been born in a nonjudeochristian area and channels the will of god in a nonjudeochristian way?

But, does Homer claim to be the pen behind the 'voice of god'?
No, just of gods. ;)

We can use analytical techniques to be fairly sure that all of Homer's work is authentically the work of one author... even if he(?) was not called 'Homer'. We can use the same sorts of techniques to show that the books attributed to Moses were likely written by two to four different authors. So - whether or not 'Moses' is a real name, the text wasn't written by 'him' (or 'her')... but by 'them', whoever 'they' were.
*sighs* The point is that we don't know for certain so using Moses or the other traditional writers acts more as a place holder than anything else, the same with Homer (Or Shakespeare for that matter). We also have nothing showing that Moses didn't write said works. And, again, we have nothing to show that Buddha wrote some of the books attributed to him, or Mohammad the Koran, or that Emperor Jimu wrote some poetry, but it gives us a vague author to hang certain works on while discussing them.

But, why would we believe that? Our only evidence that that 'god' even exists, is the very scripture we are discussing, no?
Why does ANYBODY believe ANYTHING (Yes, you included)? Sometimes we have real concrete reasons we can point to, sometimes we state that these are how we were taught, and sometimes it's just because we have faith that it is so.

I think belief comes down to (ala X-Files) we want to believe because otherwise we cannot face the universe and live out our day to day lives.

i always assumed that the first 5 were from oral traditions that got passed down until someone unknown wrote them down. whats the oldest copy we have of the old testament?

doesnt the book of job have at least 3 different authors based on the different styles of writing in the book?

i dont know anything much about the rest of the old testament.

as i understand it, the gospel writers (including acts) are unknown. most of the letters of paul were written by the same hand, presumed to be "paul". the letters of peter are not written by the same person. there is no reason to think that the book of revelations was written either by the same person who wrote the gospel of john OR by the apostle john.

The argument runs "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist"... but, what if that is only his second best trick, and his piece de resistance was convincing people that a 'holy book' he knocked-off to lead people astray... was actually 'god's word'?
If we're thinking along those lines, I reckon that'd be just the precursor to what was actually the most disruptive trick of all time: Convincing people that God was the murdering, oppressive and maniacal despot in the whole story and then having them worship him for it.

You know what's funny? For several centuries a legion of historians, archaeologists, and theologians have researched his very question in ridiculous depth, many of them devoting their entire professional career to studying the Bible and it's origins! And yet, here you are, a skeptical atheist so sure that...

*Ahem*

"There Is No God"


You're funny. The assertion "There Is No God" is part of my sig, not part of the debate. It is interesting that you chose to mention it in deciding whether you think I'm qualified to discuss the matter, though.

I am a skeptic. I am an Atheist. But the text in my sig doesn't necessarily represent how I feel on the subject.


... questioning something you know virtually NOTHING about with the same adamant certainty in your own ignorance.


Wow! Good landing! You must have needed a hell of a run-up to make a jump like that. And "Conclusions" is such a small target.

How do you know what I know? Indeed - how can you be certain of what I am "adamant" in my "certainty" of?


While "we" are on the subject, I assert that "we," being the people who actually bother doing their own research


And more of those spectacular leaps. You should contact the Conclusions Travel Authority... they might install a runway just for you.

I've done some research, on and off, for a while now.


before dicking around with vague claims, actually have a pretty good idea about the history of the written "Word of God."


I'm not sure I made much in the way of 'claims'... 'vague' ones, or any other kind.

I also have a fairly good idea about the history of the written "Word of God". I wonder if our notes would compare favourably... what do you think?


I suggest that "you" figure it out for yourself... If you actually even cared to begin with.


'Cared'? Seems like a loaded phrase. It is an intellectual curiousity for me - both the origin of the 'text', and the way the text is treated. It seems curious to me that, in a 21st century world, I can meet people on a daily basis that insist every book of the Bible is written by the author cited, and that there is no reasonable 'excuse' to doubt that.


There are books, scholarly research papers, massive archaeological projects, and countless studies done on this very topic. It is FAR from an unanswered question, it just takes some time to answer.


No - it is unanswered. A lot of scholarly work can give suggestions, but should never be considered... for want of better phrasing... "gospel".


For starters, I shall point you in the direction of a book that asks the question of who wrote the Bible. It’s title? Not surprisingly, Who Wrote The Bible? (http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Bible-Richard-Friedman/dp/0060630353)

It’s an easy book to digest and it’s intended for an audience that doesn’t know much about the subject. Good intro material.


I've not read that particular book, I'll admit. My approach has never really been to read what other people think on a subject. I prefer to do my own research.


Oh, I'm sorry, you wanted a NSG caliber explanation for all of this, didn't you? Fine, how about this... *ahem*

There is no Bible

Good enough for you? :rolleyes:

The Emerald City called. They want their Strawman King back.

Ah, but you see, I named my... Err, "private parts" God a few weeks back. I can get a hold of it quite easily. Maybe all Grave_n_idle needs is a good cockslap, and then he, too, would believe! :p

Easy, tiger. Step away from the marker pens, before you get yourself into trouble, sonny.

*sighs* The point is that we don't know for certain so using Moses or the other traditional writers acts more as a place holder than anything else, the same with Homer (Or Shakespeare for that matter). We also have nothing showing that Moses didn't write said works. And, again, we have nothing to show that Buddha wrote some of the books attributed to him, or Mohammad the Koran, or that Emperor Jimu wrote some poetry, but it gives us a vague author to hang certain works on while discussing them.


We actually can be fairly sure Moses didn't write those particular books. For one, he is already dead when the last one is written. For two, there are clear traces of at least two different authors throughout Genesis, and probably a minimum of four throughout the Pentatauch.

Of course, we don't even have any reason to believe this 'Moses' character to be anything more than a fictional figure in the petatauch accounts, anyway.

Does it really matter (ultimately) if the 'works of Shakespeare' are written by a guy called Shakespeare? No - not really. They were plays that were honed to perfection through repeat performance and revision... it is the nature of such things to be collaborative.

On the other hand - Shakespeare wasn't claiming to be the voice of god. It is a question of what the claimed authority is used to 'justify', no?


Why does ANYBODY believe ANYTHING (Yes, you included)? Sometimes we have real concrete reasons we can point to, sometimes we state that these are how we were taught, and sometimes it's just because we have faith that it is so.

I think belief comes down to (ala X-Files) we want to believe because otherwise we cannot face the universe and live out our day to day lives.

I have no problems facing the universe or living my daily life, and I'm not sure I 'believe' anything. I certainly find it hard to justify taking anything on 'faith'... who can I possibly trust enough to take it as a logical assumption worth having, that they can only represent 'truth' to me? Hell - I'm not always sure I trust my own perspective on what is true.

there is no reason to think that the book of revelations was written either by the same person who wrote the gospel of john OR by the apostle john.
I can answer that one, the St. John who supposedly wrote (or dictated) Revelations was not the same man as the apostle, and was never held to be. The problem is that the two share the same name and are often confused.

I can answer that one, the St. John who supposedly wrote (or dictated) Revelations was not the same man as the apostle, and was never held to be. The problem is that the two share the same name and are often confused.

Again - this is one of the Christian 'traditions', though. People I deal with on a daily basis insist that the Gospel named after someone called 'John', was written by the Apostle 'John', and that this is the same 'John' involved in the whole 'revelation' thing.

I read somewhere (probably Wiki) that its likely that the first 3 gospels are all copies of an original gospel, considering that they share a large portion of their content almost exactly. It suggested that John was by a separate author that used both that original gospel and another document to write his account.

It was written by a guy called George in an office in 1912. Anyone who tells you otherwise is feeding you misinformation and is part of the big plot.

I read somewhere (probably Wiki) that its likely that the first 3 gospels are all copies of an original gospel, considering that they share a large portion of their content almost exactly. It suggested that John was by a separate author that used both that original gospel and another document to write his account.

Indeed - it is practically certain that three of the four gospels share a common origin... they call the suspected 'original' source the 'Q' scripture.

There are also strong assertions that "John" was written, based loosely on the other gospel(s), but with the specific aim of combatting the dominance in belief (at that point) that Jesus was entirely mortal.

Basically, it's because if "That God" didn't exist then it would be unfair for the book saying that it did to have survived so long, whereas it makes perfect sense for the survival of the book to be related to its divine authority.

I don't like it myself, but any faith in the bible that claims to be justified in reality is similar to that.

Are you suggesting seniority lends credibility to the Bible? Because if that's the criteria, apparently Brahma is the One True God.

Does it really matter (ultimately) if the 'works of Shakespeare' are written by a guy called Shakespeare? No - not really. They were plays that were honed to perfection through repeat performance and revision... it is the nature of such things to be collaborative.

On the other hand - Shakespeare wasn't claiming to be the voice of god. It is a question of what the claimed authority is used to 'justify', no?
You are attempting to mix in two different issues then. I would hold that the authorship of the Bible is the same as Shakespeare's plays because it DOESN'T matter who wrote them, what matters is that they were divinely inspired. Tradition has assigned names to them, but that is just tradition.

None of the books of the Bible claim to be the "Voice of God" as you put it, they simply reported the "Truth of God". That Truth comes through who or whatever It wants.

I have no problems facing the universe or living my daily life, and I'm not sure I 'believe' anything. I certainly find it hard to justify taking anything on 'faith'... who can I possibly trust enough to take it as a logical assumption worth having, that they can only represent 'truth' to me? Hell - I'm not always sure I trust my own perspective on what is true.
Right... Sure... You tell yourself that and the next time you find yourself believing in things such as justice or equality, or even that the asshole that cut you off in traffic will somehow be payed back in kind... well... that is you being human.

Again - this is one of the Christian 'traditions', though. People I deal with on a daily basis insist that the Gospel named after someone called 'John', was written by the Apostle 'John', and that this is the same 'John' involved in the whole 'revelation' thing.
They are a bit off then as most scholars state that they were two separate people.

One of Satans titles is the Lord of Liars, therefore he not only created all religions, he wrote (or inspired) all their scripture as well.;)

Are you suggesting seniority lends credibility to the Bible? Because if that's the criteria, apparently Brahma is the One True God.

Indeed. Even just in his neighbourhood, 'Jehovah' is the noob.

They are a bit off then as most scholars state that they were two separate people.

Or three, even. There really is no especially good case for assuming that the Apostle John was author of the Gospel we call 'John'.

You are attempting to mix in two different issues then. I would hold that the authorship of the Bible is the same as Shakespeare's plays because it DOESN'T matter who wrote them, what matters is that they were divinely inspired. Tradition has assigned names to them, but that is just tradition.


"...what matters is that they were divinely inspired..."

Only if they were divinely inspired. We still haven't seen a good reason to believe that.

Actually - no, I still have to disagree. It really does matter who wrote the texts, and if that matches who is 'recorded' as writing the texts. Simple reason - if the texts weren;'t written by people who actually saw the things they recorded, and actually aren't the people they claim... then all of the 'testament' value is void - since the source is a lie.


Right... Sure... You tell yourself that and the next time you find yourself believing in things such as justice or equality, or even that the asshole that cut you off in traffic will somehow be payed back in kind... well... that is you being human.

So, wait - you are telling me what I believe?

I don't 'believe' in justice or equality. I certainly don't accept any form of karma, divine retribution or poetic justice.

well, rad. i live in a town without a bookstore. its a minimum 150 mile round trip for me to go pick up that book today. hows about YOU summarize it for me so i dont have to wonder what you are talking about.

Err, I posted the link to Amazon.com for that book, the name is a hyperlink. Here - http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Bible-Richard-Friedman/dp/0060630353

It's a shame your town doesn't have a book store. That would bother the hell out of me. :(

No, just of gods. ;)

*sighs* The point is that we don't know for certain so using Moses or the other traditional writers acts more as a place holder than anything else, the same with Homer (Or Shakespeare for that matter). We also have nothing showing that Moses didn't write said works. And, again, we have nothing to show that Buddha wrote some of the books attributed to him, or Mohammad the Koran, or that Emperor Jimu wrote some poetry, but it gives us a vague author to hang certain works on while discussing them.

Why does ANYBODY believe ANYTHING (Yes, you included)? Sometimes we have real concrete reasons we can point to, sometimes we state that these are how we were taught, and sometimes it's just because we have faith that it is so.

I think belief comes down to (ala X-Files) we want to believe because otherwise we cannot face the universe and live out our day to day lives.

Oddly enough, there are two versions of the of a large number of Biblical stories (Creation, the flood, Abraham and Jacob, etc, etc...) that are very similar in some ways, differ significantly in that one refers to God as Elohim and the other Yahweh throughout, and that often contradicting each other significantly. The Old Testament makes it fairly clear that at least two different people are recounting the same stories in different ways. Also, it is never actually asserted anywhere in the text itself that Moses was the author of any of it. The fact that the hero "dies in the end" makes this pretty clear as well. There is also a type of "third set" of stories, different in style and language and much more interested in subjects relating to priests (if you can call them that.) Finally, while the first four share the triplet of perspectives, Deuteronomy is so vastly different from the others that it is obviously written by a fourth author!

Basically, imagine getting four people to write a book for you, then chopping it up into the parts you like, editing it, and then claim that it was written by one person. That's the Old Testament. The weirdest thing is though, Moses may have actually never existed as a person; and if he did, it's most likely that he is more like Homer then you imagine. One guy stuck with centuries of tradition, his name used by generations that never knew him. In essences, Moses, or at least the concept of Moses, is where the buck always used to stop. I doubt that he wrote anything at all, personally.

This isn't particularly strange when it comes to ancient figures. I mean, there is more evidence suggesting that Jesus existed then there is for several Roman Emperors! In history, there is very little you can do to "prove" something like authorship - you very Homer and even Shakespeare in this regard. A host of oriental literary figures are up there as well. The bottom line is that someone, somewhere had to write what we have today. Hell, for all we know, it could have been Brian!

It's the content of the writing, in the context of the setting that you need to consider more so then the author(s) themselves.

You're funny. The assertion "There Is No God" is part of my sig, not part of the debate. It is interesting that you chose to mention it in deciding whether you think I'm qualified to discuss the matter, though.

I am a skeptic. I am an Atheist. But the text in my sig doesn't necessarily represent how I feel on the subject.

Wow! Good landing! You must have needed a hell of a run-up to make a jump like that. And "Conclusions" is such a small target.

How do you know what I know? Indeed - how can you be certain of what I am "adamant" in my "certainty" of?

And more of those spectacular leaps. You should contact the Conclusions Travel Authority... they might install a runway just for you.

I've done some research, on and off, for a while now.

I'm not sure I made much in the way of 'claims'... 'vague' ones, or any other kind.

I also have a fairly good idea about the history of the written "Word of God". I wonder if our notes would compare favourably... what do you think?

'Cared'? Seems like a loaded phrase. It is an intellectual curiousity for me - both the origin of the 'text', and the way the text is treated. It seems curious to me that, in a 21st century world, I can meet people on a daily basis that insist every book of the Bible is written by the author cited, and that there is no reasonable 'excuse' to doubt that.

No - it is unanswered. A lot of scholarly work can give suggestions, but should never be considered... for want of better phrasing... "gospel".

I've not read that particular book, I'll admit. My approach has never really been to read what other people think on a subject. I prefer to do my own research.

The Emerald City called. They want their Strawman King back.

Wow, you really have a talent for saying nothing at all in so many words, don't you? I'm THIS (><) close to declaring your post 100% content free! At least I gave you a book to read…

Your sig is part of how you represent yourself on this forum, it will be considered with each and every one of your posts if, for no other reason, given its significant size. Also, to put it bluntly, it's pretentious pseudo-intellectual wankery. Moving on...

Skipping over the aforementioned content free parts of your post, I'd like to restate that your OP is incredibly vague. If you did your homework, you would know that this dude named Moses never claimed in the text itself to be the author, and that the quintuplet I spoke of above did the actual writing. Again, this is very well documented. The idea that it was written by two sources was first brought up in 1711 by Henning Bemhard Witter, then again in 1753 by Jean Astruc, then again in 1780 by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn with the final conclusion being that four different authors wrote the five books of the Old Testament.

But you knew that already, didn't you? Didn't you?

I honestly don't care who you have met or what you claim they believe. I do, however, care about academic authority - it's a nice thing to have around. The Torah wasn't written by Moses and it wasn't written by God. It isn't infallible, it isn't consistent, and it isn't particularly admirable in its contents. Again, content and context > who scribbled it originally. There are many Bibles, each significantly different from the others. We know the name of who wrote some of them and we don't know others. Last I heard, the Church gets to decide which is authoritative... a chilling thought.

Run along grasshopper, flee to Google!

Silence worm! *cockslaps thou mightily* Thou shalt not question mine divinity, nor shalt though threaten mine Omnipotent Shaft and Most Holy Pair!

Repent!

Hah! You're puny weapons scare me not! If Lunatic Goofballs could not break my spirit with his organs of testicular indestructibility, you're feeble attempts to prevent my destroying them shall fail!

*hammers*

"...what matters is that they were divinely inspired..."

Only if they were divinely inspired. We still haven't seen a good reason to believe that.
And you never WILL see a good reason to because we can't even fine the Divine, or even regular insperation.

Actually - no, I still have to disagree. It really does matter who wrote the texts, and if that matches who is 'recorded' as writing the texts. Simple reason - if the texts weren;'t written by people who actually saw the things they recorded, and actually aren't the people they claim... then all of the 'testament' value is void - since the source is a lie.
*amused* And where does it say in any of the books who the author is? Chapter and verse please because I've never read that.

So, wait - you are telling me what I believe?

I don't 'believe' in justice or equality. I certainly don't accept any form of karma, divine retribution or poetic justice.
No, I believe you're human (as I have no evidence you're a computer program), and all humans make leaps of faith about a multitude of subjects every day.

Hah! You're puny weapons scare me not! If Lunatic Goofballs could not break my spirit with his organs of testicular indestructibility, you're feeble attempts to prevent my destroying them shall fail!

*hammers*

Slap yo dumb ass, fool! Your weapons can't harm me; I'm THE JUGGERNAUT, BITCH!

Woah, that was random. O_o *Backs away from self, slowly*

This isn't particularly strange when it comes to ancient figures. I mean, there is more evidence suggesting that Jesus existed then there is for several Roman Emperors!

That's interesting. Which particular Roman emperors are you thinking of?

Basically, imagine getting four people to write a book for you, then chopping it up into the parts you like, editing it, and then claim that it was written by one person. That's the Old Testament.


Not really. That's the Pentatauch.

What's your favourite saying... ah yes: "...If you did your homework..." you'd know that there are more than five books in the Old Testament.


Wow, you really have a talent for saying nothing at all in so many words, don't you? I'm THIS (><) close to declaring your post 100% content free! At least I gave you a book to read…


Your post garnered a response laced with all the respect it deserved. You might want to go back and read it, if you found mine 'content free'.


Your sig is part of how you represent yourself on this forum, it will be considered with each and every one of your posts if, for no other reason, given its significant size.


My sig is part of how I represent myself on the forum, well done. However, my religious affiliation (or, how I chose to represent/mis-represent) it, has no impact on the veracity of any argument I make.

What you did there was: engaged in a logical fallacy of 'poisoning the well'.


Also, to put it bluntly, it's pretentious pseudo-intellectual wankery. Moving on...


How is it 'pseudo-intellectual'? I'll not argue the pretentious or the wankery... the sig is a device, an artifact. It was created for a specific purpose, and lays a particular trap for my own edification and enjoyment. Amusingly... you have been attacking me from within that particular trap.


Skipping over the aforementioned content free parts of your post, I'd like to restate that your OP is incredibly vague. If you did your homework,


Of course my OP is incredibly vague. It is an opening post for debate. If I wanted to present an essay, or preach - I'd phrase it differently. On the other hand - if I was looking to encourage discussion of the issues, perhaps my opening gambit would be a snappier approach.


...you would know that this dude named Moses never claimed in the text itself to be the author, and that the quintuplet I spoke of above did the actual writing. Again, this is very well documented. The idea that it was written by two sources was first brought up in 1711 by Henning Bemhard Witter, then again in 1753 by Jean Astruc, then again in 1780 by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn with the final conclusion being that four different authors wrote the five books of the Old Testament.

But you knew that already, didn't you? Didn't you?


Yes. But you obviously needed to get that off your chest.


I honestly don't care who you have met or what you claim they believe.


Then why engage in a debate that centers around those issues? The whole purpose of the thread is to examine anecdotal evidence, no?


Run along grasshopper, flee to Google!

Errr. okay. You're funny. I think I like you.

I can answer that one, the St. John who supposedly wrote (or dictated) Revelations was not the same man as the apostle, and was never held to be. The problem is that the two share the same name and are often confused.

which brings up the question of why many people believe that this john is the apostle when its known to not be true.

*amused* And where does it say in any of the books who the author is? Chapter and verse please because I've never read that.


Really? How odd - the first one that leaps instantly to my mind is the book of Ephesians, which claims Paul as author as it's very first statement.


No, I believe you're human (as I have no evidence you're a computer program), and all humans make leaps of faith about a multitude of subjects every day.

I can certainly see you making leaps of faith on this subject. With little evidence, I feel.

You make the assertion that all humans must operate on this system of beliefs, and your evidence of it is - you believe it to be so. And, when something is suggested which conflicts with your assertion, you assert that the conflicitng source must be erroneous because (and here's the circular bit)... it doesn't match your assertion.

Err, I posted the link to Amazon.com for that book, the name is a hyperlink. Here - http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Bible-Richard-Friedman/dp/0060630353

It's a shame your town doesn't have a book store. That would bother the hell out of me. :(



are you suggesting that seeing the title of the book should be enough to prove something? if so, WHAT?

are you suggesting that no one has a right to discuss the bible until after they have read this particular book? if so, WHY?

if you have read this book, you should have no problem bringing out some of its best points about the authorship of the gospel. if you have a problem with that, maybe you dont belong on a debate forum.

which brings up the question of why many people believe that this john is the apostle when its known to not be true.

Most people are wildly uninformed.

Are you suggesting seniority lends credibility to the Bible? Because if that's the criteria, apparently Brahma is the One True God.
Maybe not seniority, but a lot of people who'd put their truck by the literal credibility of the book would say that the fact that God has allowed the book to have such a strong influence over such a long period of time implies that he is at least happy with what it's trying to say and that it must therefore be accurate, since God in his bountiful kindness and love would not allow such a controversial book to deliberately mislead people.

Yes, this ignores a blatent circularity in definition, but the second you convince yourself of a benevolent and omnipotent deity of any sort, this conclusion is easily reached. In other words, it becomes rational after the first time you ignore the fact that it's not. That's why it's impossible to convince a biblical adherent of irrationality; because to them, it's perfectly consistent.

Of course, the Hindu deities aren't necessarily benevolent or omnipotent anyway, which paradoxically denies them the same kind of reasoning. I still prefer them though. :D

Most people are wildly uninformed.

well that certainly is true.

but it seems that those who know the bible best either take it as a given that the authors of the gospels are the apostles they are named after or they dont see fit to inform their congregations/readers of this, thus leaving them in error.

Slap yo dumb ass, fool! Your weapons can't harm me; I'm THE JUGGERNAUT, BITCH!

Woah, that was random. O_o *Backs away from self, slowly*

My work here is done. God can be smitten.

Maybe not seniority, but a lot of people who'd put their truck by the literal credibility of the book would say that the fact that God has allowed the book to have such a strong influence over such a long period of time implies that he is at least happy with what it's trying to say and that it must therefore be accurate, since God in his bountiful kindness and love would not allow such a controversial book to deliberately mislead people.

Yes, this ignores a blatent circularity in definition, but the second you convince yourself of a benevolent and omnipotent deity of any sort, this conclusion is easily reached. In other words, it becomes rational after the first time you ignore the fact that it's not. That's why it's impossible to convince a biblical adherent of irrationality; because to them, it's perfectly consistent.

Of course, the Hindu deities aren't necessarily benevolent or omnipotent anyway, which paradoxically denies them the same kind of reasoning. I still prefer them though. :D

Except that - the God described, who wouldn't let people be misled... is supposed to be the same God that allows Eve to be misled in the Garden of Eden...

The argument is not just circular, it ONLY works if you disallow the God as described IN the scripture, to be the author and protector OF the scripture.

so how old IS our oldest copy of the old testament?

what about the other books of the OT, when were they supposed to have been written?

Except that - the God described, who wouldn't let people be misled... is supposed to be the same God that allows Eve to be misled in the Garden of Eden...

The argument is not just circular, it ONLY works if you disallow the God as described IN the scripture, to be the author and protector OF the scripture.
"Except that the book says he's benevolent and can do everything. So obviously it says that he didn't let Eve be misled, regardless of what we think it says he did. And thus the book continues to prove my point."

It's the Catch 22 of Religious scripture; the Omnipotent Benevolent God and the Infallible Book can be used to support each other in any given circumstance, even against the understanding of either. And, to the individual caught up in it, there's no escape by reasoning.

Really? How odd - the first one that leaps instantly to my mind is the book of Ephesians, which claims Paul as author as it's very first statement.

And yet many textual scholars feel like Ephesians wasn't actually written by Paul, but was written by a later follower who mimicked his style and claimed him as author so that the text would carry more weight. This is also the case for Colossians and Hebrews at the very least.

The books of the Bible are attributed to many people. The following is a list of authors of specific books. This information was taken directly from my New International Version (NIV) Study Bible.

Old Testament

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Dueteronomy- attributed to Moses. The Bible suggests that Moses wrote these books since Acts 15:1 refers to circumsision as "the custom taught by Moses", an allusion to Genesis chapter 17. The lifetime of Moses (which can be gleaned from the book of 1 Kings) suggests that Moses wrote the books during the 40 year period of Isreal's wanderings in the desert.

Joshua-The earliest Jewish traditions claim that joshua wrote his own book, except for the part at the end regarding his funeral which is attributed to Eleazar, the son of Aaron.

Judges- This book is attributed to Samuel

Ruth- Author unknown

1 Samuel, 2 Samuel- These books give no certainty as to who the author is, though Zabud, son of Nathan, the prophet, and King Solomon's advisior is suggested, since he would have access to the information contained in the books.

1 Kings, 2 Kings- Author unknown

1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah- attribute to Ezra, but not with certainty.

Esther- author unknown but textual evidence suggests a Jew who probably lived in Persia.

Job- The author is known NOT to be Job, but another Isrealite, since in original texts the Isreali name for God (Yahweh) is used.

Proverbs- Several authors includeing King Solomon, Agur, son of Jakeh, and King Lemuel

Ecclesiastes- Some evidence suggests that King Solomon wrote this book, while the attitute of the author towards rulers suggests a subject, rather than a leader.

Song of Solomon- attributed to Solomon, but debatable

Isaiah- the author is the prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz.

Jeremiah- written by Jeremiah. This is known because of the intimate details about the life of Jeremiah within the book.

Lamentations- anonymous but in Christian and Jewish tradition is ascribed to Jeremiah.

Ezekiel- written by Ezekiel

Daniel- written by Daniel

Hosea- written by Hosea

Joel- written by Joel

Amos- written by Amos

Obadiah- written by Obadiah

Jonah- ascribed to Jonah, but the author is debated.

Micah- written by Micah

Nahum- written by Nahum

Habakkuk- written by Habakkuk

Zephaniah- written by Zephaniah

Haggai- written by the prophet Haggai

Zechariah- written by the prophet Zechariah

Malachi- written by Malachi

New Testament

Matthew- early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, the disciple of Christ, wrote this Gospel. He is also known as Levi.

Mark- written by John Mark, a friend of the disciple Peter.

Luke- written by the Gentile Luke, a friend of Paul.

John- the apostle and disciple John

Acts- attribute to Luke based of evidence outside of the Scripture.

Romans, 1 Corinthian, 2 Corinthians, Galations, Ephesians, Phillipians, Collossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 1 Timothy, Titus, Philemon- all attribute to (many based on a direct citation at the beginning of the the book itself) to the apostle Paul.

James- the author identifies himself as James. He was probably the brother of Jesus.

1 Peter, 2 Peter- written by the aspostle Peter.

1 John, 2 John, 3 John- the suthor is John, the son of Zebedee- the apostle and the author of the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation.

Jude- the author identifies himself as Jude and he is either Judas the apostle (NOT Judas Iscariot, the man who betrayed Jesus) ot Judas, the brother of Jesus. The latter is more likely.

Revelation- The author is widely beleived to be the apostle John, but an African Bishop named Dionysius compared the style of the three books and concluded that Revelation was written by John the Presbyter, though evidence still leans in favor of the apostle John.


Please don't attack me and say that I can't possibly be right. This isn't my opinion, it comes from my Bible, and you'll have to debate some expert Biblical scholars, not me. I hope this was helpful to the person that started this topic.

Except that - the God described, who wouldn't let people be misled... is supposed to be the same God that allows Eve to be misled in the Garden of Eden...

This is not the same thing. God told Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree and if they did, they would suffer death. That was not misleading. God allows Satan to have power on the earth to test our faith and make us stronger. God has never said- "I will save you from all temptation." Even Jesus was tempted by Satan for forty days in the desert. The Book of Revelation contains a passage (Chapter 22 verse 18-19) that says: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add him to the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes the words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in his holy city, which are described in this book."

2 Peter 1:20-21-
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but man spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

2 Timothy 3:16-
"All Scripture is God-breathed-"

And yet many textual scholars feel like Ephesians wasn't actually written by Paul, but was written by a later follower who mimicked his style and claimed him as author so that the text would carry more weight. This is also the case for Colossians and Hebrews at the very least.

Oh, absolutely. That's kind of what I'm saying... the people that wrote the scriptures are unlikely to match the names attached to them. Which seems dishonest and deceptive... and suggests (to me) that the source material might not be as reliable as it pretends.

Please don't attack me and say that I can't possibly be right. This isn't my opinion, it comes from my Bible, and you'll have to debate some expert Biblical scholars, not me. I hope this was helpful to the person that started this topic.

This is information I already had - and most bible scholars agree that most of this information is either conjecture, or wrong. Thanks for taking the time to post it, though.

The books of the Bible are attributed to many people. The following is a list of authors of specific books. This information was taken directly from my New International Version (NIV) Study Bible.

Romans, 1 Corinthian, 2 Corinthians, Galations, Ephesians, Phillipians, Collossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 1 Timothy, Titus, Philemon- all attribute to (many based on a direct citation at the beginning of the the book itself) to the apostle Paul.
Please don't attack me and say that I can't possibly be right. This isn't my opinion, it comes from my Bible, and you'll have to debate some expert Biblical scholars, not me. I hope this was helpful to the person that started this topic.

your bible isnt being honest with you. or at least it is not making an attempt at honesty by only giving the traditional answers and not the most likely to be true answers.

for example, i looked this up after reading the nazz's post.

from the catholic online bible..

"Paul, who is designated as the sole author at Eph 1:1, is described in almost unparalleled terms with regard to the significant role he has in God's plan for bringing the Gentiles to faith in Christ (Eph 3:1-12). Yet at the time of writing he is clearly in prison (Eph 3:1; 4:1; 6:20), suffering afflictions (Eph 3:13). Traditionally this "Captivity Epistle" has, along with Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon, been dated to an imprisonment in Rome, likely in A.D. 61-63. Others appeal to an earlier imprisonment, perhaps in Caesarea (Acts 23:27-27:2). Since the early nineteenth century, however, much of critical scholarship has considered the letter's style and use of words (especially when compared with Colossians), its concept of the church, and other points of doctrine put forward by the writer as grounds for serious doubt about authorship by Paul. The letter may then be the work of a secretary writing at the apostle's direction or of a later disciple who sought to develop Paul's ideas for a new situation around A.D. 80-100."

This is not the same thing. God told Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree and if they did, they would suffer death. That was not misleading. God allows Satan to have power on the earth to test our faith and make us stronger. God has never said- "I will save you from all temptation." Even Jesus was tempted by Satan for forty days in the desert. The Book of Revelation contains a passage (Chapter 22 verse 18-19) that says: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add him to the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes the words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in his holy city, which are described in this book."

2 Peter 1:20-21-
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but man spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

2 Timothy 3:16-
"All Scripture is God-breathed-"

I always liked that Second Timothy verse. It means the Koran is true, too... and so is the Book of Mormon. An unusually accepting religiou writer, that Timothy.

I didn't say God misled Eve - I said he allowed her to be misled. If Satan lied to Eve, and God allowed it to happen - he allowed Eve to be misled, no?

This is information I already had - and most bible scholars agree that most of this information is either conjecture, or wrong. Thanks for taking the time to post it, though.

If it is wrong, then why is it still being included by Bible scholars in the Bibles that are being produced? Sure, most of it may be guesses, but they are guesses based on textual evidence and historical data, which is better than just assuming that it is wrong.

Why is it so important who wrote what books anyway? Shouldn't we be glad that God gave someone the information to write the Bible, and that we know have it as a testament to the existance and the life of Jesus Christ and a reference on how to live ouyr lives for God?

Oh, absolutely. That's kind of what I'm saying... the people that wrote the scriptures are unlikely to match the names attached to them. Which seems dishonest and deceptive... and suggests (to me) that the source material might not be as reliable as it pretends.

Reliable is a funny word--what is it you're relying on the Bible for, after all? If you're counting on it being historically and scientifically accurate, then it's not reliable in the slightest, especially when it comes to anything before the reign of King Josiah or the census section of Luke's account of the birth of Jesus. If you're counting on it to be "proof" of the divinity of Jesus, it's not reliable either. It's slightly more reliable when it comes to the question of the existence of a man named Jesus, but it's completely unreliable when it comes to the stories surrounding his childhood (sparse though they are) or the miracles he is purported to have done.

But if you look at it as a series of cultural snapshots of an emerging culture, of the way myth and legend is used to create a national identity, and of the way insiders use story to build a religious and political movement, then it can be very enlightening. In short, you can occasionally find truth in there, but you won't find very much fact. The problem is that too many churches conflate the two.

I always liked that Second Timothy verse. It means the Koran is true, too... and so is the Book of Mormon. An unusually accepting religiou writer, that Timothy.

I didn't say God misled Eve - I said he allowed her to be misled. If Satan lied to Eve, and God allowed it to happen - he allowed Eve to be misled, no?

Yes, He allowed Eve to be misled. I believe that is because God doesn't want us all to be robots who have no choice but to follow him. If one has never had the chance to be unfaithful, than he is not faithful at all. God gives a choice to obey him or to obey sin.

Is that verse in the Book of Mormon or the Koran? I don't know much about either relgion, except that the Mormon's followed polygamy at some point, and people from the old Testament also took more than one wife at a certain point. I don't know what the Koran teaches, except that I was told that Islam originated with Esau, a son of Isaac and the brother of Jacob who was hated by the Lord. I also know that the Koran teaches that man and God are seperate, and Christianity teaches that we can have a direct relationship with God.

If it is wrong, then why is it still being included by Bible scholars in the Bibles that are being produced? Sure, most of it may be guesses, but they are guesses based on textual evidence and historical data, which is better than just assuming that it is wrong.
Here we get into the question of exactly who is a Bible scholar. I would suggest that the Bible scholars involved in the printing of Bibles have a bit of an agenda in keeping the stories that have been told for the last 1600-1700 years about the authorship of the Bible intact. Religion can't stand up to doubt, after all.

Why is it so important who wrote what books anyway? Shouldn't we be glad that God gave someone the information to write the Bible, and that we know have it as a testament to the existance and the life of Jesus Christ and a reference on how to live ouyr lives for God?
It doesn't matter to me, but then again, I understand that the Bible isn't inerrant. But if you believe the Bible is without error, then this matters--or it should at least, because it means your belief system is a house of cards.

So - why do we 'believe' we know who wrote the books?
A bunch of dead Jews, but that doesn't really matter since most ancient religious texts are just transcriptions of oral traditions that existed for centuries before. So, while the stories that compose original "Book" of Genesis could have been thought up by Moses, it was written down based on a later person's memory of a story he heard from his master, and that story was based on the story that had been told by another master, and so on.
The other question is - we are also told that God 'inspired' the whole thing - but again, why do we believe this? Isn't it equally likely that the whole history of Christianity has been a trick, and the text was actually dictated by Satan himself?
I don't and you clearly don't, so let's cut this "we" crap. You mean to say "why do they believe this when I, who am so much smarter and prettier, don't?"
The answer is, why does it matter? They were raised in a certain faith, and they've found arguments that are capable of justifying it to them. Maybe Decartes' Third Meditation completely rocked their socks, maybe they can't get enough Thomas Aquinas. In the past 2 millenia, there have been more books, essays and treatises about the existence of God then you could burn in a reasonably size bonfire, and it is only natural that some people will find some of them appealing.

If it is wrong, then why is it still being included by Bible scholars in the Bibles that are being produced? Sure, most of it may be guesses, but they are guesses based on textual evidence and historical data, which is better than just assuming that it is wrong.

Why is it so important who wrote what books anyway? Shouldn't we be glad that God gave someone the information to write the Bible, and that we know have it as a testament to the existance and the life of Jesus Christ and a reference on how to live ouyr lives for God?

well think about it. if the gospels were written by men who had known jesus, who had walked the streets of jerusalem with him, who had personally heard the sermon on the mount, who knew more things about jesus than they could have possibly put into a short "book"...

isnt that very different than if they were written by men 100 years after the facts, who never knew jesus and whose stories about him had been passed from one believer to another for 100-ish years before he heard them and wrote them down? books that have been heavily edited to reflect the theology of the group they were written for? written not with an eye to the facts of jesus' life but with an eye to show that their particular view of jesus -- divine or not divine, only begotten son of god or not, fully human or not--was right?

how does one then say that THESE books and not the dozens of rejected apocryphal books are the true story of jesus' life?

Hm. How about this:

1) In times of yore, from the ancient world, straight through the 18th century, it was common practice for anonymous authors to sign their works with names of obviously dead famous figures of the past or famous characters of legend. So none of the names mentioned as "authors" of the Bible may actually have anything to do with the books themselves.

2) It is even more plausible that the "authors" are merely selected, assigned names, if we consider that the books of the Bible were collected, edited, and codified centuries after the beginning of the Christian religion, by people who not only had no connection to the purported original events but also were on a mission to codify the texts of a new religion and so had zero interest in remaining true to an older one (Judaism). As in all cases of fictitious authorships, it would have been more important that the assigned name have some significance to the content of the book, than that it be realistic at all. But keep in mind that point (1) applies to all religious texts, including any authorships that may be ascribed to the books of the Torah.

3) As to "divine inspiration," ALL religious texts claim divine inspiration. What that actually means is up for debate in every single case. Is the writer just lying? Or was the writer inspired, and if so, by what? I suggest that it does not matter. What matters is, does the text create inspiration in its readers? If it does -- that is, if readers experience something that they would describe as divine inspiration or divine awareness from reading the book -- then they may assign divinity to the authorship of the book after the fact. So, without any idea who wrote the books of the Bible or when, those who read it now say that it must have been inspired by God because they believe they are experiencing something divine by reading it.

4) Anything, by the way, is capable of inspiring an experience that a person might call "divine," so anything can have divine inspiration assigned to it. A person who gains spiritual insight by reading "Moby Dick" might say that Melville was inspired by God to write that story. So what? Who are you or any of us to argue with them about that? Is God going to call us up and clarify that, no, indeed, he had nothing to do with that particular book? Obviously not, but I choose not to cast doubt on the spiritual experiences of people who read the Bible by casting doubt on the claimed authorship of the books.

5) This all reminds me of a snide remark I read once, though I don't remember who said it: "I do not know if Roger Bacon wrote the plays of Shakespeare, but if he didn't, then he missed the opportunity of a lifetime."

What difference does it make who wrote the wretched books, or when, or why?

Since the early nineteenth century, however, much of critical scholarship has considered the letter's style and use of words (especially when compared with Colossians), its concept of the church, and other points of doctrine put forward by the writer as grounds for serious doubt about authorship by Paul. The letter may then be the work of a secretary writing at the apostle's direction or of a later disciple who sought to develop Paul's ideas for a new situation around A.D. 80-100."

Alright, what my Bible actually says is:
"The author identified himself as Paul (1:1, 3:1, 3:7-13, 4:1, 6:19-20). Some have taken the absence of the usual personal greetings and the verbal similarity of many parts of Colossians, among other reasons, as ground for doubting the authorship by the apostle Paul. However, this was probably a circular letter, intended for other churches in addition to the one in Ephesus. Paul may have written it at about the same time as Colossians (A.D. 60) while he was in prison at Rome.

A bunch of Monks and other guys over hundreds of years wrote the Bible. Early Church leaders compiled all christian related works and decided what should go in and what should stay out.

If it is wrong, then why is it still being included by Bible scholars in the Bibles that are being produced?


It isn't in all Bibles, now, is it?

But you touch upon the bone of contention. Most serious bible scholars question the 'traditional' idea of authorship - and yet the 'version' that is 'taught', the version that is 'preached'... is this corrupt history that conflicts all the evidence.

Sure, most of it may be guesses, but they are guesses based on textual evidence and historical data, which is better than just assuming that it is wrong.


In what way are the 'guesses' (and, I think I'm being kind, at that) "based on textual evidence and historical data"? Are you telling me they have found Moses' burial place and carbon-dated his body?


Why is it so important who wrote what books anyway? Shouldn't we be glad that God gave someone the information to write the Bible, and that we know have it as a testament to the existance and the life of Jesus Christ and a reference on how to live ouyr lives for God?

If Satan wrote the books, how reliable is the scripture?

And - how do we know he didn't?

It doesn't matter to me, but then again, I understand that the Bible isn't inerrant. But if you believe the Bible is without error, then this matters--or it should at least, because it means your belief system is a house of cards.

The authors of the Bible (the information I posted earlier) are not included directly in the text. They are a completely seperate section and contained the most widely accepted authors as well as reasons that they are not certain. If it was important for an author of a book to include his name in his writting, he would have done so. Because of the absence, however, I conclude that the name of the author is far less important than the substance of what he wrote. Would the impact of works such as "Julius Ceasar", "Paradise Lost" and the "Illiad and Odessey" be any less if we did not know who wrote them? Does the name of the author or any work, for that matter, change the importance of the message the work contains?

A bunch of Monks and other guys over hundreds of years wrote the Bible. Early Church leaders compiled all christian related works and decided what should go in and what should stay out.

i dont think there were monks back then, were there?

Yes, He allowed Eve to be misled. I believe that is because God doesn't want us all to be robots who have no choice but to follow him. If one has never had the chance to be unfaithful, than he is not faithful at all. God gives a choice to obey him or to obey sin.


And - if God allows one human to be misled, in the single most important decision any mortal will ever have to make... why should we suppose that same god would be averse to allowing people to be historically misled by false scripture(s)?


Is that verse in the Book of Mormon or the Koran? I don't know much about either relgion, except that the Mormon's followed polygamy at some point, and people from the old Testament also took more than one wife at a certain point. I don't know what the Koran teaches, except that I was told that Islam originated with Esau, a son of Isaac and the brother of Jacob who was hated by the Lord. I also know that the Koran teaches that man and God are seperate, and Christianity teaches that we can have a direct relationship with God.

If ""All Scripture is God-breathed", then the Book of Mormon must be true, and the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Discordian Principia... you name it, it's all got to be true. Or god lies.

A bunch of Monks and other guys over hundreds of years wrote the Bible. Early Church leaders compiled all christian related works and decided what should go in and what should stay out.

sorry, but where is the evidence that a "bunch of monks" wrote the Bible? At least in the New Testament books the letters written by Paul include his name.

A bunch of dead Jews, but that doesn't really matter since most ancient religious texts are just transcriptions of oral traditions that existed for centuries before. So, while the stories that compose original "Book" of Genesis could have been thought up by Moses, it was written down based on a later person's memory of a story he heard from his master, and that story was based on the story that had been told by another master, and so on.


It matters if you think about it a certain way. If we are beinf presented with an authentic history - but the historian we are being fed as the 'author' actually isn't the author, you have to question how reliable the source is. You'd certainly want to assess the evidence it presented.

It's even more important in the Greek Scripture, where we are supposed to be reading witness testimony.


I don't and you clearly don't, so let's cut this "we" crap.


The 'we' is a cultural collective 'we'.


You mean to say "why do they believe this when I, who am so much smarter and prettier, don't?"


You think I'm prettier? Why, thank you.

But, you are wrong - the question about who inspired the text has nothing to do with me being clever and pretty, or other people being less so. It is about whether it changes anything, if the (biblical) Satan character is actually the author of the text.

I'll throw in a piece of info here:

Abraham, Jacob and Issac, who are traditionally said to be father, son, and grandson, are now believe to be separate teachers working in different parts of Israel around the same time.

I'll throw in a piece of info here:

Abraham, Jacob and Issac, who are traditionally said to be father, son, and grandson, are now believe to be separate teachers working in different parts of Israel around the same time.

i had never heard that before. what more do you know about it?

The Nazz
In short, you can occasionally find truth in there, but you won't find very much fact. The problem is that too many churches conflate the two.
Quoted for truth.

Here we get into the question of exactly who is a Bible scholar. I would suggest that the Bible scholars involved in the printing of Bibles have a bit of an agenda in keeping the stories that have been told for the last 1600-1700 years about the authorship of the Bible intact. Religion can't stand up to doubt, after all.


It doesn't matter to me, but then again, I understand that the Bible isn't inerrant. But if you believe the Bible is without error, then this matters--or it should at least, because it means your belief system is a house of cards.
I suggest this is only true if one's thinking is remarkably shallow.

What rule exists that says God cannot write fiction or poetry? If the purpose of the Bible is to deliver truth, and if, as the Bible itself points out, that truth is not obvious but available to those who have wisdom to see it, then why should we expect the truth of the Bible to lie on the superficial level of simple historical fact?

Is there no truth at all to be found in art? And is art a literal depiction of reality? Art is about symbols -- symbolic representations of some things through the imaged forms of other things. Even the totally realistic landscapes, portraits and still lifes of older art periods were heavily contexted coded messages composed with symbols, telling elaborate stories and making profound comments about life, society, people, and religion.

I have suggested this to Bible literalists before, and I'll put it out here again: Let us say that not one fact claimed in the Bible is true. Let's even say there was no person named Jesus. How does that prove that there is no God? How does that invalidate the moral precepts of Christianity? If there is no Jesus, if Moses was dead before his first book was written, if the gospels are fiction from beginning to end, how does that change the symbolic meanings of spiritual liberation from the chains of sin and the bondage of death? How does that change the message of love and charity and detachment from limited, worldly cares? How does lack of historical factuality alter the religious message?

Note: I ask these questions as a non-Christian who does not even worship the god of Abraham, so I put it to you that I have no agenda in promoting this religion as true, per se. I am merely challenging the shallow expectations of what "truth" is supposed to look like in regards to religious texts.

At least in the New Testament books the letters written by Paul include his name.

How do you know those books were written by 'Paul'?

i had never heard that before. what more do you know about it?

That's it. It was in a tape I saw in religion class last year.

How do you know those books were written by 'Paul'?
'cause they say so, and... Well, you get the idea. It's a logical black hole, I tells ya!

It isn't in all Bibles, now, is it?
I never said that it was in all Bibles. My particular Bible is a NIV Study Bible published by Zondervan, but whoever decided to include the information (or write it, for that matter) about the authors obviously thought that it was as correct as they could find. Since we have no idea who wrote these books without the imput of historians, how can we dispute them without actually doing the research and piece together dates outselves?



In what way are the 'guesses' (and, I think I'm being kind, at that) "based on textual evidence and historical data"? Are you telling me they have found Moses' burial place and carbon-dated his body?

Umm, no, that's not what I mean. I mean that in many books the writer states his name or used the pronoun 'I'. From the descriptions and accounts within the books, information is revealed about the author and than information can be used to identify a person who may have written the book. As far as the dates, The Bible includes many dates. For instance, 1st Kings tells us that "the fourth year of Solomon's reign" was the same as "the four hundred and eightieth year that the Isrealites came out of Egypt." We know that the fourth year of Solomon's reign was 996 B.C., so we can then (if you know how to subtract) can find that the date that the Isrealites (therefore the time period that Moses lived) was 1406 B.C.



If Satan wrote the books, how reliable is the scripture?

And - how do we know he didn't?

Why would Satan tell people in the Bible to resist him and to hate him and love God instead? If you believe in Satan himself, than you should know that he was an angel who was jealous of God and was eventually thrown out of heaven with his band of other fallen angels (demons). If the Bible were written by Satan wouldn't it make since that he would portray God as a power-hungry dictator who will not share any power? If Satan want's followers, why would he show God in such a good light?

The authors of the Bible (the information I posted earlier) are not included directly in the text. They are a completely seperate section and contained the most widely accepted authors as well as reasons that they are not certain. If it was important for an author of a book to include his name in his writting, he would have done so. Because of the absence, however, I conclude that the name of the author is far less important than the substance of what he wrote. Would the impact of works such as "Julius Ceasar", "Paradise Lost" and the "Illiad and Odessey" be any less if we did not know who wrote them? Does the name of the author or any work, for that matter, change the importance of the message the work contains?
If the message were what was beign focused on, then you might have an argument. But it's the accuracy that is at the heart of most arguments over religion, and that's because most christian religions have at their basis the idea that they have the "one true reading" of scripture. Some churches emphasize that more than others, but I believe that the only major Christian church that doesn't have that as a basis for belief are the UU's.

So if accuracy is at the heart of a church's teaching and dogma, then that stuff matters, because if Moses didn't actually write the Pentateuch or Paul didn't actually write Ephesians of Colossians or Hebrews, then the accuracy of the source text is at question, and if that is at question, then who can legitimately lay claim to having the "one true reading" of scripture?

The advantage for non-believers like me is that we don't have to worry about that side of it, and so we can really appreciate the Bible for what it is--literature.

How do you know those books were written by 'Paul'?

Yeah! Why not George, John or Ringo!?

Well, I can see why it's not Ringo...

And - if God allows one human to be misled, in the single most important decision any mortal will ever have to make... why should we suppose that same god would be averse to allowing people to be historically misled by false scripture(s)?

Because God was there to tell Adan and Eve about the tree, and He isn't here now and it makes since that he would leave turht behind for us to read.



If ""All Scripture is God-breathed", then the Book of Mormon must be true, and the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Discordian Principia... you name it, it's all got to be true. Or god lies.

Not necessarily, All-Scripture may refer to all scripture in the Bible. In fact, the Book of Mormon was written years later than the Bible.

Easy answer: A lot of people wrote the bible, which is a compilation of written and oral traditions, compiled over hundreds, if not thousands, of years, by hundreds of different editors.

Names are assigned as a method to organize and understand the point of view of who wrote and did what in the book, not necessarily with accuracy as to who indeed did the pen-to-paper writing. Like with most things in the Judeo-Christian tradition, literalism is to be immensely frowned upon, rather, the lesson taught is of far greater importance.

Quoted for truth.


I suggest this is only true if one's thinking is remarkably shallow.

What rule exists that says God cannot write fiction or poetry? If the purpose of the Bible is to deliver truth, and if, as the Bible itself points out, that truth is not obvious but available to those who have wisdom to see it, then why should we expect the truth of the Bible to lie on the superficial level of simple historical fact?

Is there no truth at all to be found in art? And is art a literal depiction of reality? Art is about symbols -- symbolic representations of some things through the imaged forms of other things. Even the totally realistic landscapes, portraits and still lifes of older art periods were heavily contexted coded messages composed with symbols, telling elaborate stories and making profound comments about life, society, people, and religion.

I have suggested this to Bible literalists before, and I'll put it out here again: Let us say that not one fact claimed in the Bible is true. Let's even say there was no person named Jesus. How does that prove that there is no God? How does that invalidate the moral precepts of Christianity? If there is no Jesus, if Moses was dead before his first book was written, if the gospels are fiction from beginning to end, how does that change the symbolic meanings of spiritual liberation from the chains of sin and the bondage of death? How does that change the message of love and charity and detachment from limited, worldly cares? How does lack of historical factuality alter the religious message?

Note: I ask these questions as a non-Christian who does not even worship the god of Abraham, so I put it to you that I have no agenda in promoting this religion as true, per se. I am merely challenging the shallow expectations of what "truth" is supposed to look like in regards to religious texts.

We largely agree here. The issue, as I think I made clear, is that churches have long conflated fact with truth, much to the detriment of believers. I think there's truth to be found in the Bible, even though there's precious little fact, and I try to live my life by the basic precepts Jesus taught. That they are very similar to the most basic teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism helps.

But my experience is that churches in general aren't all that interested in philosophical truth. They're interested in control, and they use the Bible as a bludgeon to gain and hold that control, and they point to the supposed accuracy of the Bible as an authority, and then call that "truth." The danger, for them, is that if the accuracy of the Bible can be called into question, then so can the truth according to the church, and then the whole edifice crumbles.

If the message were what was beign focused on, then you might have an argument. But it's the accuracy that is at the heart of most arguments over religion, and that's because most christian religions have at their basis the idea that they have the "one true reading" of scripture. Some churches emphasize that more than others, but I believe that the only major Christian church that doesn't have that as a basis for belief are the UU's.

So if accuracy is at the heart of a church's teaching and dogma, then that stuff matters, because if Moses didn't actually write the Pentateuch or Paul didn't actually write Ephesians of Colossians or Hebrews, then the accuracy of the source text is at question, and if that is at question, then who can legitimately lay claim to having the "one true reading" of scripture?

The advantage for non-believers like me is that we don't have to worry about that side of it, and so we can really appreciate the Bible for what it is--literature.
One of the reasons I rejected Christianity as my personal religion, even though I see value in many of its precepts, is because I am sick and tired of being asked to lower my thinking to the level of literal-minded nincompoops who are incapable of exploring complex concepts on their own. Religion is not the only area of life in which this happens, but at least I have a chance of avoiding it in my religious choices. Not so much in my nation's politics or at the workplace.

Once upon a time, a very honest Bible-literalist told me that he believed that if the Bible were not literally true, and if Jesus had not literally died and risen, and if he could not be assured that he, too, would literally rise from the grave on the day of judgment, then the entire Christian religion would be false and a lie and all Christians would be the most deceived fools who had ever lived.

This personal revelation of his just blew me away. To me, it seemed obvious that a person who thinks this way about their religion does not actually believe in said religion. I thought he would be much better served by looking for a different one, but I didn't say so at the time. I didn't think he'd take it well.

For his part, he told me this as part of his justification for why he was so determined to portray all other religions as not only false but evil. He had to destroy them in order to "prove" the "truth" of Christianity. I think many here will be able to see the flaws in his logic.

He was an extreme and unusually open and honest example of a mindset I see in many religious people of many different religions. So it brings me back to the failings of shallow thinking. For instance, a shallow concept of "accurate" leads people to demand factuality in the Bible and to judge the value of the religion based on that. A deeper notion of "accurate" might focus more on the religion's concept of things like, oh, say, God, than an ultimately inconsequential list of who wrote what about whom when.

Maybe not seniority, but a lot of people who'd put their truck by the literal credibility of the book would say that the fact that God has allowed the book to have such a strong influence over such a long period of time implies that he is at least happy with what it's trying to say and that it must therefore be accurate, since God in his bountiful kindness and love would not allow such a controversial book to deliberately mislead people.

Yes, this ignores a blatent circularity in definition, but the second you convince yourself of a benevolent and omnipotent deity of any sort, this conclusion is easily reached. In other words, it becomes rational after the first time you ignore the fact that it's not. That's why it's impossible to convince a biblical adherent of irrationality; because to them, it's perfectly consistent.

Of course, the Hindu deities aren't necessarily benevolent or omnipotent anyway, which paradoxically denies them the same kind of reasoning. I still prefer them though. :D

Individual aspects of the Hindu deity are not, but we're not talking about that. Hinduism is, after all, monotheistic. And by that token, we've got a couple thousands years on you guys. The Vedas can still be found taught in the original Sanskrit, too. :)

Note: I don't subscribe to the "seniority + influence = evidence" mentality, but if you apply it to Christianity, or Judaism more realistically, then you have to apply it to Hinduism, and Hinduism ends up winning.

Because God was there to tell Adan and Eve about the tree,


Actually, the strong implication is that God was absent then, too. We have a description of Eve and the Serpent, and then she goes and finds Adam - but God (apparently) doesn't witness any of it, and acts surprised when he finds the naked dimwits suddenly clothed.

and He isn't here now


You said a mouthful.

and it makes since that he would leave turht behind for us to read.


Why? Your logic entirely relies on God being the actual originator of the texts. If 'god' is removed from the equation...


Not necessarily, All-Scripture may refer to all scripture in the Bible. In fact, the Book of Mormon was written years later than the Bible.

If it says "all scripture" why should I read it as "only some scripture, actually"...?

Because God was there to tell Adan and Eve about the tree, and He isn't here now and it makes since that he would leave turht behind for us to read.





Not necessarily, All-Scripture may refer to all scripture in the Bible. In fact, the Book of Mormon was written years later than the Bible.
Do you believe that your god stopped speaking to people at some point thousands of years ago?

Not necessarily, All-Scripture may refer to all scripture in the Bible. In fact, the Book of Mormon was written years later than the Bible.

Right, but it's a false dichotomy. You can't just say "Well the Bible must of course be the word of God inspired in its writers" and say "Well the Bhagvad Gita can't be God inspired because it was written at some different point in time."

Literalism, boooooooo!

We largely agree here. The issue, as I think I made clear, is that churches have long conflated fact with truth, much to the detriment of believers. I think there's truth to be found in the Bible, even though there's precious little fact, and I try to live my life by the basic precepts Jesus taught. That they are very similar to the most basic teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism helps.

But my experience is that churches in general aren't all that interested in philosophical truth. They're interested in control, and they use the Bible as a bludgeon to gain and hold that control, and they point to the supposed accuracy of the Bible as an authority, and then call that "truth." The danger, for them, is that if the accuracy of the Bible can be called into question, then so can the truth according to the church, and then the whole edifice crumbles.
This is why I eventually settled on a spiritual belief system that has no written texts. In fact, that lack was one of its major attractions for me -- no crutches for the lazy.

I never said that it was in all Bibles. My particular Bible is a NIV Study Bible published by Zondervan, but whoever decided to include the information (or write it, for that matter) about the authors obviously thought that it was as correct as they could find. Since we have no idea who wrote these books without the imput of historians, how can we dispute them without actually doing the research and piece together dates outselves?


Whoever wrote the information in your NIV had a good reason to include the 'traditions' version, and no incentive to do any research.

As for "how can we dispute them without actually doing the research and piece together dates outselves?" That's the heart of the matter, right there. Have you done the research? Or has the accepted list in the NIV been enough for you?

I've done a little research... and it seems like biblical books written by the people to whom they are attributed... would be very rare.


Umm, no, that's not what I mean. I mean that in many books the writer states his name or used the pronoun 'I'. From the descriptions and accounts within the books, information is revealed about the author and than information can be used to identify a person who may have written the book. As far as the dates, The Bible includes many dates. For instance, 1st Kings tells us that "the fourth year of Solomon's reign" was the same as "the four hundred and eightieth year that the Isrealites came out of Egypt." We know that the fourth year of Solomon's reign was 996 B.C., so we can then (if you know how to subtract) can find that the date that the Isrealites (therefore the time period that Moses lived) was 1406 B.C.


Which is interesting - because Egyptian history singularly fails to even mention Moses, or the horrible afflictions God is supposed to have inflicted upon them. So, maybe the Old Testament chronology is wrong, too.

If we follow the logical path you suggest, and we arrive at 1406 BC as the time Moses lived... how do we correlate that evidence to support it?


Why would Satan tell people in the Bible to resist him and to hate him and love God instead? If you believe in Satan himself, than you should know that he was an angel who was jealous of God and was eventually thrown out of heaven with his band of other fallen angels (demons). If the Bible were written by Satan wouldn't it make since that he would portray God as a power-hungry dictator who will not share any power? If Satan want's followers, why would he show God in such a good light?

You aren't thinking it through, are you... you are assuming that the 'real' Satan would be the one described in the text you hold. But, if the 'real' Satan wrote the book - the character described as 'satan' in the book, wouldn't be Satan, now would it...?

Which is interesting - because Egyptian history singularly fails to even mention Moses, or the horrible afflictions God is supposed to have inflicted upon them. So, maybe the Old Testament chronology is wrong, too.

If we follow the logical path you suggest, and we arrive at 1406 BC as the time Moses lived... how do we correlate that evidence to support it?


I tend to like the theory based around the Hyksos expulsion...it's a nifty one.

I tend to like the theory based around the Hyksos expulsion...it's a nifty one.

It's about the best match of 'evidence' as well. It is just unfortunate for a literal interpretation of 'Exodus' that the evidence suggests the Hebrews were attackers-being-driven-out, rather than poor-slave-victims-fighting-free.

I have suggested this to Bible literalists before, and I'll put it out here again: Let us say that not one fact claimed in the Bible is true. Let's even say there was no person named Jesus. How does that prove that there is no God? How does that invalidate the moral precepts of Christianity? If there is no Jesus, if Moses was dead before his first book was written, if the gospels are fiction from beginning to end, how does that change the symbolic meanings of spiritual liberation from the chains of sin and the bondage of death? How does that change the message of love and charity and detachment from limited, worldly cares? How does lack of historical factuality alter the religious message?


christianity is a revealed religion. god has revealed the truth to us in the form of the holy bible. (at least the truth that he wants us to know.)

for that to be TRUE. the bible has to be true. it cant be true in some places and false in others. we cant pick and choose our truth from the bible. any religious assertion we make has to be backed up by the bible and can only be disproven by a different passage from the bible. if the will of god is important to us, we find that will in the bible and we choose to follow it or not.


so if i say "god hates fags" and insist that no gay people be allowed in church, i quote the passage from leviticus, and from whatever letter of paul he addresses homosexual behavior in. to refute that, you cant just say "you stupid bigoted bitch, gays are people too!" you have to quote... oh ... jesus saying "let whoever of you is without sin cast the first stone"

if your passage from the gospel of john turns out not to be original but was added at some unknown time later (as may well be the case), are you really quoting GOD? is that part of the revelation after all? are you supporting the will of god or are you denying it? if some uninspired editor added the whole stoning story in, why would it be necessarily inspired by god and thus TRUE?

and, if ONE thing from the bible is wrong, what else is wrong? not talking about the obvious metaphor of the garden of eden or the poetry in the psalms but things that need to be TRUE. if, for example, jesus was never crucified where does that leave us theologically? if he all his miracles are cribbed from other sources? if every story about him, every parable, every discussion about the will of god is made up, what do we have?

NOTHING. we are just people following some ideas put together 2000 years ago that we mistook for relgion.

It also depends on which "branch" of Christianity one subscribes to.

In my church, which is Congregational, a sect of Protestantism, we are taught that the Bible is a book written by MEN. My Bible doesn't have "words written in red" which is commonly attributed to the words that Jesus actually spoke.

There is blatant sexism, and homophobia and all those other things, because that was the culture of the TIME. My minister basically says, use the Bible as a guide, not as a road map of living your life.

I think that God allows us to screw up for a lot of reasons. There's the thing about making faith stronger, there is free will. If God didn't allow for free will, then everyone would have the same version of faith.

It IS interesting to note, that most religious texts, no matter what the denomination, has stories about a flood, and I believe also about the plagues (I'd have to ask someone about that) There is historical evidence that a man named Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph of Nazerith (sp) did live.

Another thing my minister has discussed, in regard to feeding the masses with 7 loaves and 3 fishes, (or whatever) was that when Jesus looked out, and saw the millions of people gathered, he sent his apostles out to feed them. Well, people going on a trip like that wouldn't have started it without provisions. So as the apostles went out to feed them, the people gathered may have offered up some of their own. It was more like a huge pot luck, than everyone getting a morsel of bread with a smear of fish on it. Of course, people saw that Jesus sent them out with a few fishes and a loaf or 2 of bread, and then saw them come back with leftovers, and so they said....woah, it's a miracle...that spread, and all of a sudden, Jesus fed a million people with enough food for 9.

I think it's easier to "accept" some of the leaps of faith, when other things are more logical. Much more logical that the people provided a pot luck, than it being an ACTUAL miracle. Makes it easier to accept turning water into wine.

Anyway...I don't believe anyone knows who REALLY wrote the bible. What matters, is that those that believe use it as a guide to living. Those that don't believe, well...to each their own.

christianity is a revealed religion. god has revealed the truth to us in the form of the holy bible. (at least the truth that he wants us to know.)

for that to be TRUE. the bible has to be true. it cant be true in some places and false in others. we cant pick and choose our truth from the bible. any religious assertion we make has to be backed up by the bible and can only be disproven by a different passage from the bible. if the will of god is important to us, we find that will in the bible and we choose to follow it or not.


so if i say "god hates fags" and insist that no gay people be allowed in church, i quote the passage from leviticus, and from whatever letter of paul he addresses homosexual behavior in. to refute that, you cant just say "you stupid bigoted bitch, gays are people too!" you have to quote... oh ... jesus saying "let whoever of you is without sin cast the first stone"

if your passage from the gospel of john turns out not to be original but was added at some unknown time later (as may well be the case), are you really quoting GOD? is that part of the revelation after all? are you supporting the will of god or are you denying it? if some uninspired editor added the whole stoning story in, why would it be necessarily inspired by god and thus TRUE?

and, if ONE thing from the bible is wrong, what else is wrong? not talking about the obvious metaphor of the garden of eden or the poetry in the psalms but things that need to be TRUE. if, for example, jesus was never crucified where does that leave us theologically? if he all his miracles are cribbed from other sources? if every story about him, every parable, every discussion about the will of god is made up, what do we have?

NOTHING. we are just people following some ideas put together 2000 years ago that we mistook for relgion.
Sorry, Ashmoria, but this argument, though logical, still starts from the beginning point of shallow, limited, tunnel-vision type thinking about the Bible.

When people say, for this to be true, the Bible must be true, they are still demanding the kind of factuality that the literalist I talked about demanded.

But I refer you to the question I posed earlier in the post you quoted:

What rule exists that says God cannot write fiction or poetry?

And I'll add the question: What rule exists that says truth cannot be contained in fiction or poetry?

I do not accept that for the stories to be "true" in the sense of religious meaning, that they must also be "true" in the sense of being historically factual.

EDIT: I do agree with you that many Christian denominations or individuals do claim that the Bible is and must be historically factual and that that supports the "truth" of their religion. What I am saying is that maybe we should not be juding the relative worth of the Bible based on their limited and shallow way of thinking about it. If the Bible's truth is "revealed" then it must be revealed to all who read it, so maybe we should not be taking other people's word for what it is about or what it means.

Just a question that has been in my head... we are often told Moses wrote the first five books - but there is no reason to believe he could read OR write, lest of all in Hebrew. Also - the fifth book describes the funeral of... you guessed it... Moses. So - it's unlikely he is the literal author of that scripture.

Much of the Old Testament is very reminiscent of other, earlier, scripture and texts from neighbouring cultures... so we should perhaps suspect some influence.

None of the four Gospel texts have names on the original Greek texts, so - and names attached to them are 'best guesses'.

So - why do we 'believe' we know who wrote the books?


The other question is - we are also told that God 'inspired' the whole thing - but again, why do we believe this? Isn't it equally likely that the whole history of Christianity has been a trick, and the text was actually dictated by Satan himself?

In my New American Standard version of the bible (the bible often used by Catholics in the US) every book has an introduction. In this introduction, very often there is a discussion on who authored the book, or for some of the old testament books, where the story was thought to have originated. They discuss historians' opinions on the subject -- letting the reader know when there is a controversy over the real author. For example, in the intro to Timothy, they discuss how historians used to believe the letter was almost certainly written by Paul, but now there's a number of people who think that the writing style of Timothy is different from the writing style of the other epistles written by Paul. Another example is John. While some people think it was the actual apostle John who the book, most believe it was a friend of John, or somebody from John's community.
Perhaps other Christian denominations are different, but I've never been aware of anybody who thought that just because a book was named Matthew or Luke, or John that that meant that they were necessarily the ones who wrote the book. Or that anybody actually thinks that the names of the books were ever even meant to be an indicator of who wrote them.

Sorry, Ashmoria, but this argument, though logical, still starts from the beginning point of shallow, limited, tunnel-vision type thinking about the Bible.

When people say, for this to be true, the Bible must be true, they are still demanding the kind of factuality that the literalist I talked about demanded.

But I refer you to the question I posed earlier in the post you quoted:

What rule exists that says God cannot write fiction or poetry?

And I'll add the question: What rule exists that says truth cannot be contained in fiction or poetry?

I do not accept that for the stories to be "true" in the sense of religious meaning, that they must also be "true" in the sense of being historically factual.

EDIT: I do agree with you that many Christian denominations or individuals do claim that the Bible is and must be historically factual and that that supports the "truth" of their religion. What I am saying is that maybe we should not be juding the relative worth of the Bible based on their limited and shallow way of thinking about it. If the Bible's truth is "revealed" then it must be revealed to all who read it, so maybe we should not be taking other people's word for what it is about or what it means.

part of "the trick" (which isnt a trick) is to understand when its not meant to be taken literally. there IS poetry in the bible, there IS metaphor. the book of job isnt meant to be taken as the story of a guy tortured by satan because of a bet he made with god, for example.

there is no reason to take the book of genesis as literal fact. the moral lessons taught are the important thing, not the obviously incorect cosmology.

BUT, those moral lessons have the quality of law (maybe that is overstating it) because it comes from god himself. if you wish to be a good christian in the eyes of GOD you have to use the bible as a moral guide. yeah thats pretty difficult (or easy) because of the many internal contradictions in the bible but its still necessary.

remember that the question was "why is it important to know who wrote the bible?"

if i am to be bound by the words in a book, i need to know that those are the words of GOD not some itinerant street preacher from 30 ad. why should i be bound by HIS rules rather than ...buddha's or laotsu's?

IF we take it on faith that jesus is god, then as christians we are bound by his teachings. we know that the gospels werent written by jesus. well OK but if they were written by men who knew jesus, heard his words and jotted them down, thats pretty close. they would have tried their best to be accurate.

hmmmm they werent written by apostles.... then who wrote them? when? WHY? did they have an ax to grind? did they have an eye to a particular theology instead of the bare truth? did they KNOW anything about the life of jesus? did they just make it all up whole cloth out of bits and pieces of the stories of greek and roman heros and gods?

if i am to be bound by the words in the bible, i need to know the answers to those questions.

I tend to like the theory based around the Hyksos expulsion...it's a nifty one.Which theory? About the Hyksos being the Hebrews? But Hebrews never ruled in Egypt, and Hyksos were for the most part (and especially the later part) not Semites. The only period in which a considerable number of Hebrews lived in Egypt were the 12th and 13th Dynasties, when especially in the Eastern Delta the asiatics made up half of the population and more than half of the work force.

If it says "all scripture" why should I read it as "only some scripture, actually"...?

Ok, now you're just being silly...

Not necessarily, All-Scripture may refer to all scripture in the Bible. In fact, the Book of Mormon was written years later than the Bible.Does all trash-fiction count as "scripture" ?

Indeed - it is practically certain that three of the four gospels share a common origin... they call the suspected 'original' source the 'Q' scripture.

If anyone has the opportunity to take a theology or mythology class in college, you will learn about the "J" (Judaic) and "P" (Priestly) source. Regardless of who wrote the bible, it becomes important to ask who assembled the books which are in it today.

That said, if you look in the bible, you will see several inconsistencies regarding the flood (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jp-flood.html)as well as the creation of the universe.

Regardless of where the stories came from, it is each individuals right to believe in the Bible or not. However, it has to be taken into consideration that this was in fact written by men, and by Christian ideology itself, men who are imperfect.

Does all trash-fiction count as "scripture" ?
Only if it's scripted. Improv is blasphemous.

Only if it's scripted. Improv is blasphemous.pardon?

pardon?

A joke that went sufficiently far over your head, m8.

Ok, now you're just being silly...

Care to explain how? Perhaps something...I dunno, what's the word...substantive?

A joke that went sufficiently far over your head, m8.wait until i have looked up the words

part of "the trick" (which isnt a trick) is to understand when its not meant to be taken literally. there IS poetry in the bible, there IS metaphor. the book of job isnt meant to be taken as the story of a guy tortured by satan because of a bet he made with god, for example.

there is no reason to take the book of genesis as literal fact. the moral lessons taught are the important thing, not the obviously incorect cosmology.

BUT, those moral lessons have the quality of law (maybe that is overstating it) because it comes from god himself. if you wish to be a good christian in the eyes of GOD you have to use the bible as a moral guide. yeah thats pretty difficult (or easy) because of the many internal contradictions in the bible but its still necessary.
Yes, but my point is that, from the point of view of religious understanding, NONE of the stories needs to be literally true. None of them. It does not matter which stories were meant to be read literally by their authors and which were not. ALL of them work symbolically. So, we do not need to concern ourselves with whether they are factually true or not.

So, for instance, the parting of the Red Sea was not the point of the story of Exodus, but it is an instrumental symbol in visualizing the power of God protecting those who believe in him. In fact, I think that relationship IS the point of the story, which is why it does not matter whether any of the events in Exodus really occurred or not. Because we presume that the relationship really exists and is ongoing (if we are worshippers of that god, that is).

Genesis does not need to be literal fact for it to be symbolically true in describing a particular, mystical conception of the divine spirit transforming itself into the world we inhabit. God made the world by his word, by the puff of his breath, as it were (he breathed upon the waters, in one version that I've read). I see two implications: (1) that all of existence is but the breath of God; and (2) that all the other details of the six days and whatnot are mere narrative drama meant to flesh out the story for the entertainment of the audience.

So the "trick" as you describe is not to differentiate which stories are "true" or "poetical." The trick rather is to see the truth through the poetry and not care so much about the form of the stories but more about the meanings beyond the forms.

This is applicable even to stories that might plausibly be proven to be absolutely true. For instance, does anyone really care which Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal his slave? So, if it can be proven that such a thing did happen, why would we care? The story, as a parable of how faith is supposed to work, stands whether the events were true or not. Likewise with the Old Testament stories of the wars against the Canaanites. Do we really think that a historical account of war is why that tale was chosen for preservation in a core religious text? I suggest it was because the telling of it -- the way it is told -- contains symbolical examples of God's relationship with his followers that is instructive for present day religious practice. The facts or lack thereof about any of the battles are immaterial.

I guess, for me, the real "trick" of reading the Bible is to ask oneself, "What is this story really about?" Only then can you begin to judge its relative truthfulness or meaning.

remember that the question was "why is it important to know who wrote the bible?"

if i am to be bound by the words in a book, i need to know that those are the words of GOD not some itinerant street preacher from 30 ad. why should i be bound by HIS rules rather than ...buddha's or laotsu's?
Why, indeed? Or why not be bound by the words of L. Ron Hubbard? Or even the words of Herman Melville?

I mean that seriously -- why not?

If you find divine inspiration in a story, what does it matter to you who wrote it? If you find the divine in it, then God is speaking to you through it. Who cares how this tool of divine communication came into being then?

IF we take it on faith that jesus is god, then as christians we are bound by his teachings. we know that the gospels werent written by jesus. well OK but if they were written by men who knew jesus, heard his words and jotted them down, thats pretty close. they would have tried their best to be accurate.
Pardon a non-Christian's ignorance, but that sounds like you would be worshipping Jesus more than God. I mean, unless "Jesus" is the name of the Christian god, then surely, regardless of the debates about the trinity or the divinity of Christ, there must still be some distinction between Jesus and God. So who is the Christian god, then? Jesus or the God of Abraham?

By the way, not all Christians automatically assume that Jesus IS God, so to make that a condition of understanding and judging the truthfulness of the Bible and assigning importance to its authorship is, in my opinion, narrowing the criteria too much.

But nevertheless, even if there is no Jesus, don't the precepts promulgated under his name still have value?

hmmmm they werent written by apostles.... then who wrote them? when? WHY? did they have an ax to grind? did they have an eye to a particular theology instead of the bare truth? did they KNOW anything about the life of jesus? did they just make it all up whole cloth out of bits and pieces of the stories of greek and roman heros and gods?

if i am to be bound by the words in the bible, i need to know the answers to those questions.
I still don't get why. Why can't the value of the Bible stories be judged by the stories' own merits, regardless of whatever claims to historicity or authorship may be made about them?

I realize that what I am talking about here is a way of thinking that is unusual for Christians/Jews/Muslims. But it is not unheard of. I have learned most of these points from Christians of many sects and from Jews debating this very issue. It is not at all set in stone that the Bible is fact. Not at all, and the question of whether that matters or not is a lively one in churchly and scholarly circles.

However, as a non-Christian, I suppose I should explain myself, in the interest of full disclosure. In my animistic spiritual worldview, everything -- and I mean everything -- is embued with spirit and, thus, is inherently touched by divinity. So the divine may speak to me through just about anything I may see or read or experience or interact with, at any time. This is why I cannot understand why authorship of the Bible stories matters. If the divine can speak to me through a sunset, why should it not also be able to speak to me through a fictional tale?

I really do not understand why the spiritual experience of the writers of the Bible should matter more to me than my own spiritual experience in reading it.

*snip*The parting of Yam Suf (the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea) was indeed not the point of the story of Exodus. The point of the story of Exodus was - of course - the Exodus, the forming of alleged "nationhood" of a bunch of Hebrews, namely the Israelites, leaving Egypt. And I really don't see why that should be interpreted symbolically.

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1967/easternniledeltazh2.th.gif (http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1967/easternniledeltazh2.gif)

Only if it's scripted. Improv is blasphemous.

Winnar!

The parting of Yam Suf (the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea) was indeed not the point of the story of Exodus. The point of the story of Exodus was - of course - the Exodus, the forming of alleged "nationhood" of a bunch of Hebrews, namely the Israelites, leaving Egypt. And I really don't see why that should be interpreted symbolically.

You don't see the symbolism in the unification of a bunch of disparate tribes under a single national banner?

The parting of Yam Suf (the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea) was indeed not the point of the story of Exodus. The point of the story of Exodus was - of course - the Exodus, the forming of alleged "nationhood" of a bunch of Hebrews, namely the Israelites, leaving Egypt. And I really don't see why that should be interpreted symbolically.
I really don't see why it should be interpreted in any other way. Who cares if it really happened or not? What possible relevance could such an event have to people today? What could even modern Jews learn from it beyond a simple historical fact (assuming for the moment that it is a fact) akin to "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue"? Big honking whoop. Any why should such a story have any relevance at all to anyone who is not a Jew?

But if it is to be a religious text, don't you think it should have some religious and/or spiritual significance? I don't think a simple retelling of an incident of some people wading across a pond will serve to teach anyone anything about a god, unless it does have some symbolism in it.

You don't see the symbolism in the unification of a bunch of disparate tribes under a single national banner?

Or how about the symbolism of a story in which a god who promises to deliver and protect his worshippers stepping up to the plate and actually doing so?

You don't see the symbolism in the unification of a bunch of disparate tribes under a single national banner?what do you mean? the israelites remained a tribal confederacy throughout the judges era. and non-israelites had a different view an all this anyways. they didn't even bother to distinguish between hebrews and israelites, as the israelites themselves supposedly did.

Yes, but my point is that, from the point of view of religious understanding, NONE of the stories needs to be literally true. None of them. It does not matter which stories were meant to be read literally by their authors and which were not. ALL of them work symbolically. So, we do not need to concern ourselves with whether they are factually true or not.

So, for instance, the parting of the Red Sea was not the point of the story of Exodus, but it is an instrumental symbol in visualizing the power of God protecting those who believe in him. In fact, I think that relationship IS the point of the story, which is why it does not matter whether any of the events in Exodus really occurred or not. Because we presume that the relationship really exists and is ongoing (if we are worshippers of that god, that is).

Genesis does not need to be literal fact for it to be symbolically true in describing a particular, mystical conception of the divine spirit transforming itself into the world we inhabit. God made the world by his word, by the puff of his breath, as it were (he breathed upon the waters, in one version that I've read). I see two implications: (1) that all of existence is but the breath of God; and (2) that all the other details of the six days and whatnot are mere narrative drama meant to flesh out the story for the entertainment of the audience.

So the "trick" as you describe is not to differentiate which stories are "true" or "poetical." The trick rather is to see the truth through the poetry and not care so much about the form of the stories but more about the meanings beyond the forms.

This is applicable even to stories that might plausibly be proven to be absolutely true. For instance, does anyone really care which Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal his slave? So, if it can be proven that such a thing did happen, why would we care? The story, as a parable of how faith is supposed to work, stands whether the events were true or not. Likewise with the Old Testament stories of the wars against the Canaanites. Do we really think that a historical account of war is why that tale was chosen for preservation in a core religious text? I suggest it was because the telling of it -- the way it is told -- contains symbolical examples of God's relationship with his followers that is instructive for present day religious practice. The facts or lack thereof about any of the battles are immaterial.

I guess, for me, the real "trick" of reading the Bible is to ask oneself, "What is this story really about?" Only then can you begin to judge its relative truthfulness or meaning.


Why, indeed? Or why not be bound by the words of L. Ron Hubbard? Or even the words of Herman Melville?

I mean that seriously -- why not?

If you find divine inspiration in a story, what does it matter to you who wrote it? If you find the divine in it, then God is speaking to you through it. Who cares how this tool of divine communication came into being then?


Pardon a non-Christian's ignorance, but that sounds like you would be worshipping Jesus more than God. I mean, unless "Jesus" is the name of the Christian god, then surely, regardless of the debates about the trinity or the divinity of Christ, there must still be some distinction between Jesus and God. So who is the Christian god, then? Jesus or the God of Abraham?

By the way, not all Christians automatically assume that Jesus IS God, so to make that a condition of understanding and judging the truthfulness of the Bible and assigning importance to its authorship is, in my opinion, narrowing the criteria too much.

But nevertheless, even if there is no Jesus, don't the precepts promulgated under his name still have value?


I still don't get why. Why can't the value of the Bible stories be judged by the stories' own merits, regardless of whatever claims to historicity or authorship may be made about them?

I realize that what I am talking about here is a way of thinking that is unusual for Christians/Jews/Muslims. But it is not unheard of. I have learned most of these points from Christians of many sects and from Jews debating this very issue. It is not at all set in stone that the Bible is fact. Not at all, and the question of whether that matters or not is a lively one in churchly and scholarly circles.

However, as a non-Christian, I suppose I should explain myself, in the interest of full disclosure. In my animistic spiritual worldview, everything -- and I mean everything -- is embued with spirit and, thus, is inherently touched by divinity. So the divine may speak to me through just about anything I may see or read or experience or interact with, at any time. This is why I cannot understand why authorship of the Bible stories matters. If the divine can speak to me through a sunset, why should it not also be able to speak to me through a fictional tale?

I really do not understand why the spiritual experience of the writers of the Bible should matter more to me than my own spiritual experience in reading it.

let me single this out for a moment..

"Why, indeed? Or why not be bound by the words of L. Ron Hubbard? Or even the words of Herman Melville?

I mean that seriously -- why not?

If you find divine inspiration in a story, what does it matter to you who wrote it? If you find the divine in it, then God is speaking to you through it. Who cares how this tool of divine communication came into being then?"

now dont bother me with a response if you just want to argue that its a stupid belief. all im doing is explaining what you claim not to understand.

the bible is the revealed word of god. melville is not. that is a matter of faith. christians believe that the bible is the word of god whether inerrant or inspired. it tells us what god wants us to do, how he wants us to behave and what our moral code is.

i can find inspiration in the stories of the buddha but i a not bound by them. i can find inspiration in lron hubbard but he is not god. his opinion is just that, opinion. i can find it interesting but i have no reason to study it, preach it or obey it.

when god tells me to turn the other cheek, i better turn the other cheek. (yes jesus is god) when god tells me to help the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, thats what i need to do. its not opinion, its the word of god.

when i read a story in john--not a parable but an action of jesus--where he ends up telling a crowd of angry people who a ready to stone an adultress to death that they better have a clean slate themselves before they pick up that first rock, he's talking to ME. he is telling ME that he expects the same behavior out of me. thats not opinion, thats not inspiration, that the word of god.

my eternal life depends on my obeying the word of god. if i treat his commands as suggestions, i might find myself left out of eternal bliss with him in heaven. and, as a child of god, my great happiness is to please him with the way i live my life. i know if i please him because the bible tells me how to do so.

IF it turns out that that story from the book of john above does not belong in the bible at all because it was added in by some smartass editor somewhere along the way, maybe jesus DOESNT expect me to walk away from a sinner like that. maybe by suspending my wrath against blatant sin im actually offending god. this would be a bad thing. my best understanding of how to please god would be wrong.

because the bible is the revealed word of god, it is essential that it be right. it need not be factual in every area. it can be metaphor, poetry, "gods best advice" (proverbs), historical examples of how god deals with his people, whatever, but it cant lead me in the wrong direction.

i have to run into town for an hour or so, if i need to address the rest of the post ill get back to it then. if there is something you dont understand here, ask me and ill try again. im not asking you to agree with it, just understand it. then we can go from there.

It was written by a local simpleton, after he was bought crayons for his birthday.

I really don't see why it should be interpreted in any other way. Who cares if it really happened or not? What possible relevance could such an event have to people today? What could even modern Jews learn from it beyond a simple historical fact (assuming for the moment that it is a fact) akin to "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue"? Big honking whoop. Any why should such a story have any relevance at all to anyone who is not a Jew?

But if it is to be a religious text, don't you think it should have some religious and/or spiritual significance? I don't think a simple retelling of an incident of some people wading across a pond will serve to teach anyone anything about a god, unless it does have some symbolism in it.the bible is not just a religious text. it also is a history of the jews. one that explains the legitimacy of why and how Yehuda was to supplant Israel.

let me single this out for a moment..

"Why, indeed? Or why not be bound by the words of L. Ron Hubbard? Or even the words of Herman Melville?

I mean that seriously -- why not?

If you find divine inspiration in a story, what does it matter to you who wrote it? If you find the divine in it, then God is speaking to you through it. Who cares how this tool of divine communication came into being then?"

now dont bother me with a response if you just want to argue that its a stupid belief. all im doing is explaining what you claim not to understand.
And let me preface my response by asking you not to get snippy with me. If you had read any of my previous posts, you would have seen that I have several times talked about the possibility of people finding divine inspiration in any kind of art, and using Melville as an example. If you had read those posts you would have known that I was not being sarcastic at all.

Also, accusing me of dismissing other people's beliefs as "stupid" is insulting to me. Of all the posters on this forum, I think I am one of the ones who shown again and again that I would never do that. Rather, I typically argue against those who do, even in defense of religions that oppose my own religion. So don't try to start this kind of an accusatory argument with me, Ashmoria.

Or if you want to pick a fight with me, then you can start by showing where I ever used the word "stupid" or implied that a belief I don't understand is "stupid."

the bible is the revealed word of god. melville is not. that is a matter of faith. christians believe that the bible is the word of god whether inerrant or inspired. it tells us what god wants us to do, how he wants us to behave and what our moral code is.
The OP question is "Who wrote the Bible?"

It is not "What do Christians believe and why should they believe it?"

So pardon me if I chose not to confine my discussion of the Bible to only a Christian view of it -- and a subset of Christian views, at that. I was under the impression that this discussion was about the Bible, not necessarily about Christianity. I'm sorry if my attempt to broaden the discussion by bringing in an outsider's viewpoint offended you so horribly. I didn't realize this was a private party for Christians only.

i can find inspiration in the stories of the buddha but i a not bound by them. i can find inspiration in lron hubbard but he is not god. his opinion is just that, opinion. i can find it interesting but i have no reason to study it, preach it or obey it.
So the principles of understanding/relating to religious texts apply to only one religion and cannot be used to discuss others? The criteria by which one judges the Bible cannot be the same as the criteria used to judge the scriptures of Buddhism? Sorry, I disagree. I say that the reasons a person might believe in the Bible are the same as the reasons a person might believe in Buddhist scriptures and, therefore, in discussing them, it is perfectly acceptable to use cross-examples. You may not be bound by Buddhist scripture, but a Buddhist is and faces the same questions about authentic authorship and whether it matters or not.

when god tells me to turn the other cheek, i better turn the other cheek. (yes jesus is god) when god tells me to help the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, thats what i need to do. its not opinion, its the word of god.
I see. So if it turns out that someone else, who was not a god, said that your god wanted you to do those things, you would immediately abandon those principles and instead turn to attacking your enemies and spitting on the poor and suffering?

when i read a story in john--not a parable but an action of jesus--where he ends up telling a crowd of angry people who a ready to stone an adultress to death that they better have a clean slate themselves before they pick up that first rock, he's talking to ME. he is telling ME that he expects the same behavior out of me. thats not opinion, thats not inspiration, that the word of god.

my eternal life depends on my obeying the word of god. if i treat his commands as suggestions, i might find myself left out of eternal bliss with him in heaven. and, as a child of god, my great happiness is to please him with the way i live my life. i know if i please him because the bible tells me how to do so.
Right. And? You do not answer my question about why your god cannot be telling you a story to illustrate how he wants you to live. Why does it have to be a factual account of an event rather than just a story told by God?

IF it turns out that that story from the book of john above does not belong in the bible at all because it was added in by some smartass editor somewhere along the way, maybe jesus DOESNT expect me to walk away from a sinner like that. maybe by suspending my wrath against blatant sin im actually offending god. this would be a bad thing. my best understanding of how to please god would be wrong.
See my question above. Is it really so difficult for you to believe that God might want you to be nice and charitable and peaceable that you cannot bring yourself to live that way for his sake, UNLESS the stories suggesting it came directly from his own mouth? Is "be excellent to each other" such a burdensome notion that you cannot go along with it unless a god orders you to on pain of damnation, and even then only if you're really really sure it was really really THE god saying it?

because the bible is the revealed word of god, it is essential that it be right. it need not be factual in every area. it can be metaphor, poetry, "gods best advice" (proverbs), historical examples of how god deals with his people, whatever, but it cant lead me in the wrong direction.
Where did I ever suggest that it is not right, or that it might lead you in the wrong direction? In fact, this paragraph of yours is merely a restating of what I have been saying all along. If you're upset by that suggestion that Satan might have written the book, take that up with whoever posted it. It wasn't me.

i have to run into town for an hour or so, if i need to address the rest of the post ill get back to it then. if there is something you dont understand here, ask me and ill try again. im not asking you to agree with it, just understand it. then we can go from there.
I'll just wait and hope that a dose of fresh air will clear your head enough to stop seeing attacks or sarcasm where there are none.

EDIT: I should point out that it does not matter to me whether the Bible is literaly true or not, nor whether Christians or Jews think it is or not. But I cannot help wondering how much time some people spend wondering whether they should believe it or not, instead of thinking about their relationship with their god. It is merely an idle wondering.

the bible is not just a religious text. it also is a history of the jews. one that explains the legitimacy of why and how Yehuda was to supplant Israel.
Sorry, I don't get the Yehuda reference, but are you claiming that the story of Exodus has nothing spiritual in it at all? I would dispute that. Also, my point was that the historicity of the story does not matter MORE than its religious significance, which is not dependent upon its historicity.

Really? How odd - the first one that leaps instantly to my mind is the book of Ephesians, which claims Paul as author as it's very first statement.
You didn't bring up Paul, you brought up the first 5 books of the OT and the Gospel. Stop moving your goal posts.

I can certainly see you making leaps of faith on this subject. With little evidence, I feel.

You make the assertion that all humans must operate on this system of beliefs, and your evidence of it is - you believe it to be so. And, when something is suggested which conflicts with your assertion, you assert that the conflicitng source must be erroneous because (and here's the circular bit)... it doesn't match your assertion.
Ok, what are your plans for tomorrow?

...It is merely an idol, wandering.
Fixed.

Originally Posted by Muravyets
...It is merely an idol, wandering.
Fixed.
Um.... ????

Um.... ????
The Bible as treated in the way you suggested has become an idolatrous item that seems to spread uncontrollably in its distraction from any God that may or may not exist. That's not quite what you meant, but I felt it an appropriate respelling. *Shrug*

Ok, now you're just being silly...

That doesn't answer the question, now, does it?

You didn't bring up Paul, you brought up the first 5 books of the OT and the Gospel. Stop moving your goal posts.


I don't see how you get there. The original post centred on Gospels and the Petatauch, but does finish by asking about the authorship of the "whole thing". Your own question asked about "any" of the books, unless I misread you.

I'd already mentioned 'John' texts that are not 'the gospel according to...' so I'm not sure why you'd claim moved goalposts.


Ok, what are your plans for tomorrow?

Are you asking me out!? :o

I don't know. Probably a lot of looking after the kids. Why?

I don't see how you get there. The original post centred on Gospels and the Petatauch, but does finish by asking about the authorship of the "whole thing". Your own question asked about "any" of the books, unless I misread you.

I'd already mentioned 'John' texts that are not 'the gospel according to...' so I'm not sure why you'd claim moved goalposts.
Because we are talking about stated authors of Moses and the like, the point being that very few of the books of the Bible make any claim on authorship, it's all done by tradition.

Are you asking me out!? :o

I don't know. Probably a lot of looking after the kids. Why?
Not at all, but aren't you taking it on faith that the world will exist tomorrow?

I really don't see why it should be interpreted in any other way. Who cares if it really happened or not? What possible relevance could such an event have to people today? What could even modern Jews learn from it beyond a simple historical fact (assuming for the moment that it is a fact) akin to "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue"? Big honking whoop. Any why should such a story have any relevance at all to anyone who is not a Jew?

But if it is to be a religious text, don't you think it should have some religious and/or spiritual significance? I don't think a simple retelling of an incident of some people wading across a pond will serve to teach anyone anything about a god, unless it does have some symbolism in it.What makes you think that the Bible is supposed to serve to teach anyone anything about a god? When the Bible was first started to be assembled it was done so because a Makedonian pharaoh wanted to know about the Jews and their history, including but not necessarily focusing on their religious pursuits. And the involvement of deity in the Biblical stories is indeed somewhat more than in other texts from the period, but not in a way that it would fully hide the underlying events that are narrated. And the significance in these stories is the forging of nationhood for the Jews, so they might be respected by the other nations as such and not as a loose gathering of clans as they must have appeared to others throughout most of history. So the purpose seems rather the achievement of territorial independence or at least autonomy, and throwing in divine will makes it all the more impressive to a reader, especially a non-Jewish, Hellenistic-minded reader.
It seems you see symbolism in biblical text because you choose to, and because otherwise you would run into trouble in dealing with the text's actual content.

Because we are talking about stated authors of Moses and the like...


I focused on Mosaic texts and Gospels, but I never limited the scope of my question to just those texts... indeed, as I've shown, I did quite the opposite.


...the point being that very few of the books of the Bible make any claim on authorship, it's all done by tradition.


Like the Pauline texts I just presented?


Not at all, but aren't you taking it on faith that the world will exist tomorrow?

No. I think probability favours it, but I really have no 'belief' about it either way. Of course, if it's not here tomorrow, I doubt I'll know, right?

the bible is the revealed word of god. melville is not. that is a matter of faith. christians believe that the bible is the word of god whether inerrant or inspired. it tells us what god wants us to do, how he wants us to behave and what our moral code is.

i can find inspiration in the stories of the buddha but i a not bound by them. i can find inspiration in lron hubbard but he is not god. his opinion is just that, opinion. i can find it interesting but i have no reason to study it, preach it or obey it.

Look at it this way. Who are we to say what written works are "the revealed word of God" and what isn't? Some Christians believe 'god' is revealed in the Bible, and some Christians believe 'god' revealed the Bible, and whcih of those two are idolatrizing God by giving it a recognizable characteristic (authorship) and hence a name (author)?

my eternal life depends on my obeying the word of god. if i treat his commands as suggestions, i might find myself left out of eternal bliss with him in heaven. and, as a child of god, my great happiness is to please him with the way i live my life. i know if i please him because the bible tells me how to do so.

Non-literal interpretation is not about "suggestion," but about understanding. For instance, if we understand that Noah's salvation was his belief in God, although that is not literally stated in the Bible, then we have accomplished something real in reading the story. Otherwise, it's just a dull narrative.

Non-literal interpretation is not about "suggestion," but about understanding. For instance, if we understand that Noah's salvation was his belief in God, although that is not literally stated in the Bible, then we have accomplished something real in reading the story. Otherwise, it's just a dull narrative.

Or a much corrupted version of a real event - one of those 'urban legend' out-of-control stories that grows and changes with the retelling.

I have no difficulties believing a river once flooded, and a guy had a boat on that river with a cow and a donkey on board. And, if you retell that story often enough...

You can read it as a metaphor... and it might be, or it could be a metaphorical retelling of a true event. I just have to doubt it is either 1) totally baseless or 2) totally literal. Both seem like extremely unlikely options.

Or a much corrupted version of a real event - one of those 'urban legend' out-of-control stories that grows and changes with the retelling.

I have no difficulties believing a river once flooded, and a guy had a boat on that river with a cow and a donkey on board. And, if you retell that story often enough...

You can read it as a metaphor... and it might be, or it could be a metaphorical retelling of a true event. I just have to doubt it is either 1) totally baseless or 2) totally literal. Both seem like extremely unlikely options.What about a real flood sweeping over the Mesopotamian lowland, where that dude lived (maybe in a bad el-Niño-year, like 3114/13 BCE) ? And what about that dude being warned beforehand, so he could save himself and his animals? Why would this be a metaphor? For what? After all, this is not originally a biblical tale, but a much older Mesopotamian one.

Or a much corrupted version of a real event - one of those 'urban legend' out-of-control stories that grows and changes with the retelling.

I have no difficulties believing a river once flooded, and a guy had a boat on that river with a cow and a donkey on board. And, if you retell that story often enough...

You can read it as a metaphor... and it might be, or it could be a metaphorical retelling of a true event. I just have to doubt it is either 1) totally baseless or 2) totally literal. Both seem like extremely unlikely options.

I believe there is nothing literal in the story of Noah, but maybe that's just me.
:D

EDIT: Are you suggesting that "metaphorical" equates to "totally baseless"?

I can't and don't want to debate it. I do sometimes like watching shows with them debating it tho.

I believe there is nothing literal in the story of Noah, but maybe that's just me. Would you take it as literal if the part of divine interference were missing?

I believe there is nothing literal in the story of Noah, but maybe that's just me.
:D

EDIT: Are you suggesting that "metaphorical" equates to "totally baseless"?

No - I'm not suggesting that metaphor and 'base' must be incompatible - I'm suggesting that a story that serves a metaphorical purpose need not be based on recording facts. Aesopian fable makes a point, with little necessity for 'realism'.

There could be a 'real' event behind the Noah story. It could be a complete fabrication to act as a morality play. More likely, it stems from real events, culled and edited until a morality play can be derived from the pieces.

Perhaps there is nothing real in the Noah story. Earlier Mesopotamian versions of the same story are more limited in scope, and more 'realistic' - describing a curve that suggests if you go back far enough, you'll find a real story.

No - I'm not suggesting that metaphor and 'base' must be incompatible - I'm suggesting that a story that serves a metaphorical purpose need not be based on recording facts. Aesopian fable makes a point, with little necessity for 'realism'.

There could be a 'real' event behind the Noah story. It could be a complete fabrication to act as a morality play. More likely, it stems from real events, culled and edited until a morality play can be derived from the pieces.

Perhaps there is nothing real in the Noah story. Earlier Mesopotamian versions of the same story are more limited in scope, and more 'realistic' - describing a curve that suggests if you go back far enough, you'll find a real story.

Thanks for clarifying that. Personally, I think it unlikely to be based on a real event, though that certainly doesn't preclude Noah from actually existing, and in fact it would be much more meaningful if he did. The flood in the story is not a generic event, but a very specific event enacted by the character of 'God' for a specific purpose in the context of the plot. That ("God did it") places it metaphorically as a metaphysical event.

The OP question is "Who wrote the Bible?"

It is not "What do Christians believe and why should they believe it?"

yes but i was answering YOUR question of "why is it important to know who wrote the bible?"


So pardon me if I chose not to confine my discussion of the Bible to only a Christian view of it -- and a subset of Christian views, at that. I was under the impression that this discussion was about the Bible, not necessarily about Christianity. I'm sorry if my attempt to broaden the discussion by bringing in an outsider's viewpoint offended you so horribly. I didn't realize this was a private party for Christians only.

why would anything you wrote offend me? you indicated that you didnt understand the role of the bible in christianity. i am endeavoring to explain it.



So the principles of understanding/relating to religious texts apply to only one religion and cannot be used to discuss others? The criteria by which one judges the Bible cannot be the same as the criteria used to judge the scriptures of Buddhism? Sorry, I disagree. I say that the reasons a person might believe in the Bible are the same as the reasons a person might believe in Buddhist scriptures and, therefore, in discussing them, it is perfectly acceptable to use cross-examples. You may not be bound by Buddhist scripture, but a Buddhist is and faces the same questions about authentic authorship and whether it matters or not.


there are different approaches to scriptures in different religions. some believe that their scriptures are "revealed" meaning that they come in some way straight from "god" (in whatever form god might take). some feel that these messages straight from god form commandments that must be followed. other religions have different attitudes toward their scriptures. some have no scriptures at all.


I see. So if it turns out that someone else, who was not a god, said that your god wanted you to do those things, you would immediately abandon those principles and instead turn to attacking your enemies and spitting on the poor and suffering?


in a nutshell, YES. there are many different possible moral codes in the world. many many people would prefer to hate their enemies and do evil to them. many many people would prefer to see suffering as "bad karma" and leave the suffering to their fate. many people would be FINE with punishing people for "sins" that arent against the law.

there is nothing so natural about christian morality that everyone immediately uses it as their own--not even christians. if not commanded to it by god, one might use any number of perfectly reasonable substitues.


Right. And? You do not answer my question about why your god cannot be telling you a story to illustrate how he wants you to live. Why does it have to be a factual account of an event rather than just a story told by God?


i have said a number of times that he did.


See my question above. Is it really so difficult for you to believe that God might want you to be nice and charitable and peaceable that you cannot bring yourself to live that way for his sake, UNLESS the stories suggesting it came directly from his own mouth? Is "be excellent to each other" such a burdensome notion that you cannot go along with it unless a god orders you to on pain of damnation, and even then only if you're really really sure it was really really THE god saying it?

there are many many christian theologians who have come up with ideas over the centuries. (to use examples of ideas from people who are solidily christian in their outlook) from st augustine to st tomas aquinas to the current pope. they are just men. when society changes and attitudes change, we move away from using their ideas about god and onto a newer view. it doesnt matter, they are just men. its just an interpretation. but when we change our ideas (like the fairly recent dropping of the idea of limbo) it still has to agree with the bible. when we take up a new idea (that unbaptised babies go to heaven) it cant violate scriptures.

anything can be an inspiration. new ideas come up all the time. if they are going to fit with ones christian ideals --which should be most important if you are a christian--they cant go against scriptures.

so, to take a saying from the 60s, "make love not war". very popular phrase from that time. i cant quote the bible but ill tell you that the "make love" part is NOT good christianity (if its talking about sex outside the bonds of holy matrimony) and the "not war" part IS. so no matter how appealing "make love not war" is as an idea, it must be rejected by a christian as immoral.

a christian cant just latch onto whatever new idea comes down the pike. it has to fit with christian morality as outlined in the bible.


Where did I ever suggest that it is not right, or that it might lead you in the wrong direction? In fact, this paragraph of yours is merely a restating of what I have been saying all along. If you're upset by that suggestion that Satan might have written the book, take that up with whoever posted it. It wasn't me.

i wasnt saying that you had ever made that suggestion nor did i say anything about satan.




perhaps i set you up to take my post the wrong way by suggesting that you would take it the wrong way. i apologize for that.

let me remind you that this is what i was responding to...

I have suggested this to Bible literalists before, and I'll put it out here again: Let us say that not one fact claimed in the Bible is true. Let's even say there was no person named Jesus. How does that prove that there is no God? How does that invalidate the moral precepts of Christianity? If there is no Jesus, if Moses was dead before his first book was written, if the gospels are fiction from beginning to end, how does that change the symbolic meanings of spiritual liberation from the chains of sin and the bondage of death? How does that change the message of love and charity and detachment from limited, worldly cares? How does lack of historical factuality alter the religious message?

my post wasnt a debate. it wasnt an attack of you or your beliefs. it was an attempt to explain the christian attitude toward the bible and why it is very important to know that the word of god has not been corrupted.

all i want to know is whether or not you UNDERSTAND what i wrote. i didnt expect you to agree with it. if you understand, we can go from there. if you dont understand, i guess it must be impossible for me to answer you question.

What about a real flood sweeping over the Mesopotamian lowland, where that dude lived (maybe in a bad el-Niño-year, like 3114/13 BCE) ? And what about that dude being warned beforehand, so he could save himself and his animals? Why would this be a metaphor? For what? After all, this is not originally a biblical tale, but a much older Mesopotamian one.

Preaching to the choir, my friend. I'm not unfamiliar with earlier Mesopotamian versions of the same story. I've even sat down and done the phrasing comparisons that suggest 'Noah' is not only inspired by, but actually largely stolen directly from, earlier Mesopotamian stories.

If you allow for the 'supernatural' elements being the kind of literary embroidery that happens to all stories, especially when 'history' is largely the province of a dedicate priestly caste, you arrive at a story where you have a (probably wealthy) man with a boat and some animals - not likely to be many.

ANd, when you look at that story, it is easy to see how accidental or deliberate exaggerations turn the 'lucky guy who managed to save his sheep by not having gotten off the boat yet' into a morality play about how only those that serve a/the god/gods are spared.

Thanks for clarifying that. Personally, I think it unlikely to be based on a real event, though that certainly doesn't preclude Noah from actually existing, and in fact it would be much more meaningful if he did. The flood in the story is not a generic event, but a very specific event enacted by the character of 'God' for a specific purpose in the context of the plot. That ("God did it") places it metaphorically as a metaphysical event.

Personally, I very much doubt the existence of a real 'Noah'. And, given the fact that the Hebrew version of the story actually lifts lines phrase for phrase from earlier Mesopotamian stories, it seems it is unlikely that the 'Noah' story was conconcted by Hebrew priests to serve any purpose of metaphor or ministry... since it is unlikely they wrote the story at all.

Look at it this way. Who are we to say what written works are "the revealed word of God" and what isn't? Some Christians believe 'god' is revealed in the Bible, and some Christians believe 'god' revealed the Bible, and whcih of those two are idolatrizing God by giving it a recognizable characteristic (authorship) and hence a name (author)?


there's the rub eh? who ARE we to say? who were the members of the first (or second?) nicaean council to say? its taken on faith. i dont see how it can be any other way. there is no objective test.


Non-literal interpretation is not about "suggestion," but about understanding. For instance, if we understand that Noah's salvation was his belief in God, although that is not literally stated in the Bible, then we have accomplished something real in reading the story. Otherwise, it's just a dull narrative.

no no, im not saying that the bible needs to be interpreted as the literal, inerrant word of god. thats kinda nutz in my opinion. its extremely obvious that the bible, especially the book of genesis, is not literally true.

what isnt a "suggestion" is the rules that god sets down for us. its not a suggestion that you honor your father and mother, for example.

The other question is - we are also told that God 'inspired' the whole thing - but again, why do we believe this? Isn't it equally likely that the whole history of Christianity has been a trick, and the text was actually dictated by Satan himself?

No. The whole thing is made up.

Personally, I very much doubt the existence of a real 'Noah'. And, given the fact that the Hebrew version of the story actually lifts lines phrase for phrase from earlier Mesopotamian stories, it seems it is unlikely that the 'Noah' story was conconcted by Hebrew priests to serve any purpose of metaphor or ministry... since it is unlikely they wrote the story at all.

That elements are shared actually supports the idea of a common metaphysics being expressed by the different cultures in their unique mythologies. I agree that is it unlikely that it was an original story by the Hebrews, and it's entirely possible it is not an original story for the Babylonians or the Assyrians.

there's the rub eh? who ARE we to say? who were the members of the first (or second?) nicaean council to say? its taken on faith. i dont see how it can be any other way. there is no objective test.

The 'objective test' in my opinion is the recognition of essential mythological elements in a story. I don't know what method was used at Nicea.

no no, im not saying that the bible needs to be interpreted as the literal, inerrant word of god. thats kinda nutz in my opinion. its extremely obvious that the bible, especially the book of genesis, is not literally true.

what isnt a "suggestion" is the rules that god sets down for us. its not a suggestion that you honor your father and mother, for example.

You set up a contradiction, then. If there's no need for literal authorship by God, then why is it essential for certain ideas to be followed to the letter? Who authored those ideas?

That elements are shared actually supports the idea of a common metaphysics being expressed by the different cultures in their unique mythologies.

Or the idea that early civilisations liked to build near bodies of water ;)

Personally, I very much doubt the existence of a real 'Noah'. And, given the fact that the Hebrew version of the story actually lifts lines phrase for phrase from earlier Mesopotamian stories, it seems it is unlikely that the 'Noah' story was conconcted by Hebrew priests to serve any purpose of metaphor or ministry... since it is unlikely they wrote the story at all.So the story is only included as a historical anecdote, deriving from much more ancient sources? However, the story is not only about Noah and his floating menagerie, but it is also the anchor point for the much more important work about the Table of Nations, which directly follows the Noah story. All in all the bible is the story of the Jews. It narrates how the tribe of Yehuda is the direct offspring of Adam himself, through the Admites, the Shemites, the Hebrews, the Israelites, which in the end all are supplanted by the Jews, as a 'nation' as well as in the favor of 'god'.

Or the idea that early civilisations liked to build near bodies of water ;)

Or that. :D

That elements are shared actually supports the idea of a common metaphysics being expressed by the different cultures in their unique mythologies. I agree that is it unlikely that it was an original story by the Hebrews, and it's entirely possible it is not an original story for the Babylonians or the Assyrians.

The origin is probably Sumerian. It is likely it refers to a literal figure, although any metaphysical elements of the story are debatable.

I'm not saying ALL flood myths, everywhere, stem from one real story - quite the opposite - I believe there are often floods in various parts of the world, and those 'cataclysmic' events become centres for legends. However, I am saying that, it is most likely that Persian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Akkadian, Hebrew... Assyrian... versions of the story are all refering to one original story... and I think evidence suggests this was a story based on a real original event. (Not a miraculous one - just a flood... and not one that drowned 'the world').

"The rain that washes away sin" is a mythological motif that expresses a metaphysical concept of the necessity to do away with "earthly" desires (another motif (no, nothing to do with sex)) before spiritual understanding can be found. In the Dhammapada, for instance, it appears as so:
They who imagine truth in untruth, and see untruth in truth, never arrive at truth, but follow vain desires.

They who know truth in truth, and untruth in untruth, arrive at truth, and follow true desires.

As rain breaks through a well-thatched house, passion will not break through a well-reflecting mind.

As rain does not break through a well-thatched house, passion will not break through a well-reflecting mind.

The evil-doer mourns in this world, and he mourns in the next; he mourns in both. He mourns and suffers when he sees the evil (result) of his own work.

The virtuous man delights in this world, and he delights in the next; he delights in both. He delights and rejoices, when he sees the purity of his own work.

The evil-doer suffers in this world, and he suffers in the next; he suffers in both. He suffers when he thinks of the evil he has done; he suffers when going on the evil path.

The virtuous man is happy in this world, and he is happy in the next; he is happy in both. He is happy when he thinks of the good he has done; he is still more happy when going on the good path.

... and not one that drowned 'the world')....but the mesopotamian basin. which is sufficiently flat that a few meters of water could cover the entire area, and someone on a boat would see water from horizon to horizon...
what is striking are the similarities of all the flood stories in the region, even down to the color of the ship

...we are often told Moses wrote the first five books...

So - why do we 'believe' we know who wrote the books?

The other question is - we are also told that God 'inspired' the whole thing - but again, why do we believe this?

Uhm...? Who has told you this? Try ask a studied and certified theologist and/or historian about these matters, not a lay priest. ;)

Isn't it equally likely that the whole history of Christianity has been a trick, and the text was actually dictated by Satan himself?

If you doubt the veracy of the Scriptures, why believe in Satan? :)

The 'objective test' in my opinion is the recognition of essential mythological elements in a story. I don't know what method was used at Nicea.

im pretty sure it wasnt for the essential mytological elements.



You set up a contradiction, then. If there's no need for literal authorship by God, then why is it essential for certain ideas to be followed to the letter? Who authored those ideas?

*frown* you are shifting my use of the word literal.

god didnt write anything any more than jesus did. god inspired the writers of the bible to write his truths. that is christian belief. otherwise one might quite rightly ask "so what, why should i follow these ideas?"

after all, there are dozens of perfectly good moral codes. they operate all over the world and have done so for millennia. why be bound by the words of jesus rather than the words of confucius?

the only reason that i would follow is because its GODS word and as a child of god i am bound by them. if one is not a christian, there is no reason to follow them except that they appeal to you. and even then, if its inconvenient to follow them, if youre not a christian, why bother?

The origin is probably Sumerian. It is likely it refers to a literal figure, although any metaphysical elements of the story are debatable.

I'm not saying ALL flood myths, everywhere, stem from one real story - quite the opposite - I believe there are often floods in various parts of the world, and those 'cataclysmic' events become centres for legends. However, I am saying that, it is most likely that Persian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Akkadian, Hebrew... Assyrian... versions of the story are all refering to one original story... and I think evidence suggests this was a story based on a real original event. (Not a miraculous one - just a flood... and not one that drowned 'the world').

It is probably Indus in origin, from the Aryans who migrated across the Himalayas from the Indus Valley, but that's neither here nor there. An original story-teller, though, is rather a necessity. ;)

I think that those generic "floods in various parts of the world" become mythological motif because they are useful images to express an essential idea that is not a part of the material world and so has no associated language element with which to express it.

So the story is only included as a historical anecdote, deriving from much more ancient sources?


No. The priestly elements of Mesopotamian societies had already made the 'historical anecdote' into a religious-tinged myth, before the Hebrew priestly caste took up the tale.

The apocalyptic nature of the story, as told in the Hebrew version, is not there for the 'historical' curiousity, but as an example of the majesty and puissance of the godhood. At that point, and for that purpose, it doesn't matter what the Noah story is based on.


However, the story is not only about Noah and his floating menagerie, but it is also the anchor point for the much more important work about the Table of Nations, which directly follows the Noah story.

The story was never about Noah or his animals. They are flavour, not the meat of the myth. The myth is about God's absolute dominion, and his apocalyptic interventionism.

...the only reason that i would follow is because its GODS word and as a child of god i am bound by them. if one is not a christian, there is no reason to follow them except that they appeal to you. and even then, if its inconvenient to follow them, if youre not a christian, why bother?and if you are a christian? why bother then?

...but the mesopotamian basin. which is sufficiently flat that a few meters of water could cover the entire area, and someone on a boat would see water from horizon to horizon...
what is striking are the similarities of all the flood stories in the region, even down to the color of the ship

That isn't unlikely - those aren't 'similarities' at all. You can do textual analysis and view phrase-by-phrase appropriation of the tale. It's like me copying your homework, and then suggesting the two are 'similar'.

Yes, the geography of the Sumerian tale would perfectly accomodate the original story - and, in THAT geography, it would make sense. There is archeological evidence to show that that area did flood, fairly violently at times, at a number of points over a two-thousand year arc - from about 4000 BC to about 2000 BC. The original Mesopotamian versions only really detail a city being flooded - it isn't until the Hebrew re-telling that those careful (and logical, for the 'other' geography) phrases become claims of an event of apocalyptic scale.

god didnt write anything any more than jesus did. god inspired the writers of the bible to write his truths. that is christian belief. otherwise one might quite rightly ask "so what, why should i follow these ideas?"

after all, there are dozens of perfectly good moral codes. they operate all over the world and have done so for millennia. why be bound by the words of jesus rather than the words of confucius?

the only reason that i would follow is because its GODS word and as a child of god i am bound by them. if one is not a christian, there is no reason to follow them except that they appeal to you. and even then, if its inconvenient to follow them, if youre not a christian, why bother?

If the ideas are God's, no matter who put them to paper, then God is the author. Why be bound to the words of Jesus in exclusion of Confucious or any other great teacher? Their words do not conflict: Love others as you would yourself. Through me, find God.

and if you are a christian? why bother then?

if i am a christian, it is my duty and my joy to follow the word of god.

If you doubt the veracy of the Scriptures, why believe in Satan? :)

I don't believe in 'Satan'. But, if you DO believe in 'Satan', you only really know him from one source, and it is the same source that gives you all your information for 'God'... so - how do you KNOW that that source was created by the party claimed?

If the ideas are God's, no matter who put them to paper, then God is the author. Why be bound to the words of Jesus in exclusion of Confucious or any other great teacher? Their words do not conflict: Love others as you would yourself. Through me, find God.

because christians dont believe that the analects of confucius are the revealed word of god. they are interesting but nothing more than that.

The story was never about Noah or his animals. They are flavour, not the meat of the myth. The myth is about God's absolute dominion, and his apocalyptic interventionism.I disagree. What effect would the display of god's absolute dominion have on subsequent generations? I would rather view as the core point of the story the one about Noah's kids resettling the earth.

If the ideas are God's, no matter who put them to paper, then God is the author. Why be bound to the words of Jesus in exclusion of Confucious or any other great teacher? Their words do not conflict: Love others as you would yourself. Through me, find God.

But, that only works if you don't take the scripture at face value. If you actually read the Christian scripture, it says that you must 'be bound to the words of Jesus in exclusion of Confucious or any other great teacher'. And... that's the problem, no?

The story was never about Noah or his animals. They are flavour, not the meat of the myth. The myth is about God's absolute dominion, and his apocalyptic interventionism.

God is incidental to the story, literally --a character acting upon events. It is a story about Noah. What happens to Noah is analogized in the events of the story.

It is probably Indus in origin, from the Aryans who migrated across the Himalayas from the Indus Valley, but that's neither here nor there. An original story-teller, though, is rather a necessity. ;)


No, I don't think so. I'm not saying such stories aren't carried in such manner, even in that particular area - but that area is floodplains, and the Sumerian people leave evidence they were (likely) a religious people. Two things they didn't need to import, were stories about flooding, and priestly mentality.


I think that those generic "floods in various parts of the world" become mythological motif because they are useful images to express an essential idea that is not a part of the material world and so has no associated language with which to express it.

Again, I don't think I agree. I think floods are one of the class of disasters that are beyond our capacity to conceive in toto, and that are sufficiently destructive, and arbitrary appearing, as to suggest vengeful spirits/gods.

Thus, just about any culture that is based near a river, lake or coast is going to have 'flood' stories, and most are likely to have a specific bias to those stories, so as to be explained in terms of vengeful spirits or punitive gods.

But, that only works if you don't take the scripture at face value. If you actually read the Christian scripture, it says that you must 'be bound to the words of Jesus in exclusion of Confucious or any other great teacher'. And... that's the problem, no?

i dont see the problem.

after all, it was hard enough to mix new testament ideas with the old testament ideas. so hard that they had to end up tossing out massive amounts of rules that came directly from god.

if christians were required to consider the rules of other religions, it would be even harder to figure out what is important and what isnt.

But, that only works if you don't take the scripture at face value. If you actually read the Christian scripture, it says that you must 'be bound to the words of Jesus in exclusion of Confucious or any other great teacher'. And... that's the problem, no?

Yes, taking it literally is the problem.

I disagree. What effect would the display of god's absolute dominion have on subsequent generations? I would rather view as the core point of the story the one about Noah's kids resettling the earth.

You can read it that way, if you'd 'rather'. On the other hand, the Pentatauch (at least) is basically a linear remonstration by God, punctuated with apocalyptically violent demonstrations of his 'majesty'.

Anything else is filling space between the spankings.

God is incidental to the story, literally --a character acting upon events. It is a story about Noah. What happens to Noah is analogized in the events of the story.

On the contrary, Noah is a device. If he serves a purpose in the Hebrew accounts, it is to be the human foil to God in Heaven, as Paul portrays himself as human foil to God on Earth.

Noah is just the 'human face' on the story - the important part of the story isn't whether or not Noah was a drunk (which, you would assume, conflicted with the alleged purity that saved him), but whether or not someone (anyone) served and/or was saved by 'god'.

No, I don't think so. I'm not saying such stories aren't carried in such manner, even in that particular area - but that area is floodplains, and the Sumerian people leave evidence they were (likely) a religious people. Two things they didn't need to import, were stories about flooding, and priestly mentality.

That would make it a particularly significant mythological image to draw on to express an essential idea to the locals.

Again, I don't think I agree. I think floods are one of the class of disasters that are beyond our capacity to conceive in toto, and that are sufficiently destructive, and arbitrary appearing, as to suggest vengeful spirits/gods.

Thus, just about any culture that is based near a river, lake or coast is going to have 'flood' stories, and most are likely to have a specific bias to those stories, so as to be explained in terms of vengeful spirits or punitive gods.

But the destruction caused by the flood was not arbitrary: it targeted specifically sinners, more specifically a world of sinners. The animals brought onto the Ark were "saved" from destruction, but not in the same way Noah was. Through his understanding of the metaphor inherent in the story elements, Noah and any other reader gain salvation through the destruction of their own sin.

i dont see the problem.

after all, it was hard enough to mix new testament ideas with the old testament ideas. so hard that they had to end up tossing out massive amounts of rules that came directly from god.


The ideas don't mix. Viewed objectively, Christianity is entirely incompatible with the Hebrew scriptures and traditions.

You can read it that way, if you'd 'rather'. On the other hand, the Pentatauch (at least) is basically a linear remonstration by God, punctuated with apocalyptically violent demonstrations of his 'majesty'.

Anything else is filling space between the spankings.Well, that's only true if you view the bible as a book about god. But what if it's one about Jews? Where do all the displays of god's majesty lead to? To a justification of Jews as a 'people' faced with Persians, Macedonians/Greeks/Egyptians, Romans.

The ideas don't mix. Viewed objectively, Christianity is entirely incompatible with the Hebrew scriptures and traditions.

viewed objectively, for sure.

christians have worked for close to 2000 years to make the religion somewhat compatible with the old testament. it required tossing out most jewish rules and traditions. leaving a redefined shell consisting of...the history of the world (including the patriarchs), reinterpretations of most of the prophets, and the 10 commandments?

That would make it a particularly significant mythological image to draw on to express an essential idea to the locals.


Perhaps - although the same logic suggests we could make big profits selling oil to Saudi Arabia.


But the destruction caused by the flood was not arbitrary: it targeted specifically sinners, more specifically a world of sinners. The animals brought onto the Ark were "saved" from destruction, but not in the same way Noah was. Through his understanding of the metaphor inherent in the story elements, Noah and any other reader gain salvation through the destruction of their own sin.

How can you argue "the destruction caused by the flood was not arbitrary"? According to the biblical account, it almost definitively was. Indeed, the only way to survive it... was to not be there. And thus, since he has to repopulate the world, God grabs a herd of the best available breeding stock of every species (including humans), and lifts them out of the flood.

One does wonder why he didn't just do the 'blowing in to a clay doll' trick, again.

On the contrary, Noah is a device. If he serves a purpose in the Hebrew accounts, it is to be the human foil to God in Heaven, as Paul portrays himself as human foil to God on Earth.

Noah is just the 'human face' on the story - the important part of the story isn't whether or not Noah was a drunk (which, you would assume, conflicted with the alleged purity that saved him), but whether or not someone (anyone) served and/or was saved by 'god'.

Yes, Noah is a story device --he is the "subject" of the story, just as we are all the "subject" of our versions of the world around us, our stories. He serves the purpose of being someone for the reader to identify with.

What do you mean by "human foil"?

How can you argue "the destruction caused by the flood was not arbitrary"? According to the biblical account, it almost definitively was. Indeed, the only way to survive it... was to not be there.

Or you could jump onboard with the metaphor. The Ark one.

And thus, since he has to repopulate the world, God grabs a herd of the best available breeding stock of every species (including humans), and lifts them out of the flood.

One does wonder why he didn't just do the 'blowing in to a clay doll' trick, again.

The purpose for building the Ark was stated in the first part of the story.

Well, that's only true if you view the bible as a book about god. But what if it's one about Jews? Where do all the displays of god's majesty lead to? To a justification of Jews as a 'people' faced with Persians, Macedonians/Greeks/Egyptians, Romans.

It is a book about 'god'. God trains 'his chosen people'... but he also trains everyone else (examples: Babel and Exodus). And it is stated that the 'chosen people' are the tribal equivalent to the world, that Levites are to the Hebrews... once God's people are trained, they will be priests to the world. The Hebrews are in the stry, but 'god' is the story.

What do you mean by "human foil"?

The ministry of Jesus is too hard and uncompromising. Paul makes it human and comfortable.

Or you could jump onboard with the metaphor. The Ark one.


The 'ark' is a way of describing 'not being there'.

If you are in the boat, you are not in the flood.

The 'ark' is a way of describing 'not being there'.

If you are in the boat, you are not in the flood.

Actually, mythologically speaking, the "flood" is the analogy for "not being there." If you are in the boat, you are saved.

It is a book about 'god'. God trains 'his chosen people'... but he also trains everyone else (examples: Babel and Exodus). And it is stated that the 'chosen people' are the tribal equivalent to the world, that Levites are to the Hebrews... once God's people are trained, they will be priests to the world. The Hebrews are in the stry, but 'god' is the story.That's how the bible is interpreted and used today. But what was it written for originally? Or rather, what were the texts assembled and streamlined for originally? To justify the ownership of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea. After all, the first full assembly of biblical texts was put together for non-Jews to read. When the Ptolemies wanted the Jewish scholars of Alexandria to assemble a history of the Jews for them, which resulted in the Septuagint, the authors had not the primary interest of demonstrating their god to their new Greek overlords, but to show why the Jews had legitimate claim to the land they currently inhabited, after having been tossed around by almost every regional power in the thousand years before. In that time the Levant was still fought over by the two rival Macedonian-founded empires, the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties.

Actually, mythologically speaking, the "flood" is the analogy for "not being there." If you are in the boat, you are saved.

No - I don't thnk so (again). I think you are applying post-Christian ideas of 'salvation' to a text written in a time when men AND gods lived on Earth, and after this there is nothing.

I wrote the Bible because I had to write a story for my thesis in scribe school in ancient Ur.

The Bible as treated in the way you suggested has become an idolatrous item that seems to spread uncontrollably in its distraction from any God that may or may not exist. That's not quite what you meant, but I felt it an appropriate respelling. *Shrug*

Oh, I see. Yes, I guess my questions about this topic are kind of focussed on whether some people are treating the Bible as an idol, an object of worship in and of itself. Though I don't actually think that is what is happening - at least not in the way that it happens, perhaps, in Hinduism or my own type of polytheism, which consciously makes use of idols. It just seems to me that it appears as if some people do that, and I guess I wonder if they realize it or not and what they think of it?

I have no idea whether such a thing should be considered a bad thing or not for any of the religions that use the Bible.

Just a question that has been in my head... we are often told Moses wrote the first five books - but there is no reason to believe he could read OR write, lest of all in Hebrew. Also - the fifth book describes the funeral of... you guessed it... Moses. So - it's unlikely he is the literal author of that scripture.

Much of the Old Testament is very reminiscent of other, earlier, scripture and texts from neighbouring cultures... so we should perhaps suspect some influence.

None of the four Gospel texts have names on the original Greek texts, so - and names attached to them are 'best guesses'.

So - why do we 'believe' we know who wrote the books?


The other question is - we are also told that God 'inspired' the whole thing - but again, why do we believe this? Isn't it equally likely that the whole history of Christianity has been a trick, and the text was actually dictated by Satan himself?

Oh, for shame... it was ghost-written by the Amazing Kreskin.

http://www.thebrownhornets.com/images/kreskin.jpg

What makes you think that the Bible is supposed to serve to teach anyone anything about a god? When the Bible was first started to be assembled it was done so because a Makedonian pharaoh wanted to know about the Jews and their history, including but not necessarily focusing on their religious pursuits. And the involvement of deity in the Biblical stories is indeed somewhat more than in other texts from the period, but not in a way that it would fully hide the underlying events that are narrated. And the significance in these stories is the forging of nationhood for the Jews, so they might be respected by the other nations as such and not as a loose gathering of clans as they must have appeared to others throughout most of history. So the purpose seems rather the achievement of territorial independence or at least autonomy, and throwing in divine will makes it all the more impressive to a reader, especially a non-Jewish, Hellenistic-minded reader.
It seems you see symbolism in biblical text because you choose to, and because otherwise you would run into trouble in dealing with the text's actual content.
And it seems as if you do not see symbolism in it because you choose not to. Your assumption that "throwing in divine will" was designed to make the story more impressive to a non-Jewish audience seems a pretty uncomfortable stretch.

First, why would the ancient Jews care about impressing a Hellenistic audience with stories about Jews?

Second, what evidence do we have that the Old Testament was ever marketed to non-Jewish readers as a history of the Jews?

Third, what other contemporary histories of that periods contained such dramatic details? Not the Roman political or military histories, certainly. The audiences for religion, entertainment, and history/current events was just as segmented then as now. We can see that easily by reading their books. There is not much mention of gods or souls or the after life or moral precepts in The Punic Wars, for instance.

Fourth, if you wish to imply that later Christians added those details in order to win over a Hellenistic readership to their own religion, why would they have used a social/military/political history of the Jews to carry their message about their god at all?

No, your assertion that there is no symbolism in those stories and was never meant to be just doesn't hold water, because if there is no symbolism then there is no reason for them to still be included in a text that is used for religion in later-to-modern times. They would have been edited down or out when the modern Bible was codified, as were many other books that were deemed inappropriate or irrelevant.

What about a real flood sweeping over the Mesopotamian lowland, where that dude lived (maybe in a bad el-Niño-year, like 3114/13 BCE) ? And what about that dude being warned beforehand, so he could save himself and his animals? Why would this be a metaphor? For what? After all, this is not originally a biblical tale, but a much older Mesopotamian one.
The metaphor is in the details of saying that the warning came directly from God and that afterwards God made a promise of peace and protection to the people. It is also in the explanation of the story as being about God deciding to cleanse the world of sin and, essentially, start over with a clean slate. That makes it a story, not about a flood, but about the relationship of this god and his worshippers.

Now, you can argue that those are fictional additions to a story of a mundane event, but my argument is that doesn't matter. The meaning and value of the story is in those details, whether they "really happened" or not.

No - I don't thnk so (again). I think you are applying post-Christian ideas of 'salvation' to a text written in a time when men AND gods lived on Earth, and after this there is nothing.

The uniformity of symbolism both within the context of Judaic mythology and in comparison with other mythologies, both earlier and later, suggests otherwise.

yes but i was answering YOUR question of "why is it important to know who wrote the bible?"


why would anything you wrote offend me? you indicated that you didnt understand the role of the bible in christianity. i am endeavoring to explain it.




there are different approaches to scriptures in different religions. some believe that their scriptures are "revealed" meaning that they come in some way straight from "god" (in whatever form god might take). some feel that these messages straight from god form commandments that must be followed. other religions have different attitudes toward their scriptures. some have no scriptures at all.
Noted.

in a nutshell, YES. there are many different possible moral codes in the world. many many people would prefer to hate their enemies and do evil to them. many many people would prefer to see suffering as "bad karma" and leave the suffering to their fate. many people would be FINE with punishing people for "sins" that arent against the law.

there is nothing so natural about christian morality that everyone immediately uses it as their own--not even christians. if not commanded to it by god, one might use any number of perfectly reasonable substitues.
I disagree. "Christian" morality is repeated in lots of non-Christian religions and lots of secular philosophies and in lots of writings that predate Christianity altogether, precluding a Christian influence upon them. How could so many different systems of thought produce similar ideas if the ideas themselves are not common among human beings?

Basically, I simply do not believe that all of humanity are grubbing, desperate, back-stabbing savages dependent upon stern orders from an overwhelming authority to keep them on the "straight and narrow," and that any doubt about the power of that particular authority will automatically be taken as a kind of permission for us to all go about killing and exploiting each other.

I did not need a religion to make me think this way about people, nor did I need a religion to teach me that it is bad to hurt others or to make me care about other people. I do not personally know anyone who does think so negatively about people, nor anyone who behaves in such a negative way, even though the people I've known in my life have come from many different belief systems, including atheism.

I do believe that there are people who do hold those negative views and who do behave so negatively, though I haven't personally met them. I believe they exist because I've seen them on tv, in programs like Forensic Files, Cold Case, and American Justice. They have all been infamous criminals.

I have on three occasions (I think) met people who claim to hold these negative views of humanity, but when I compare their claimed philosophy to their actual behavior, I tend to doubt the sincerity of their claims.

i have said a number of times that he did.
If you say so, but then I wonder why you are taking issue with the points I made about the value of those stories.

there are many many christian theologians who have come up with ideas over the centuries. (to use examples of ideas from people who are solidily christian in their outlook) from st augustine to st tomas aquinas to the current pope. they are just men. when society changes and attitudes change, we move away from using their ideas about god and onto a newer view. it doesnt matter, they are just men. its just an interpretation. but when we change our ideas (like the fairly recent dropping of the idea of limbo) it still has to agree with the bible. when we take up a new idea (that unbaptised babies go to heaven) it cant violate scriptures.

anything can be an inspiration. new ideas come up all the time. if they are going to fit with ones christian ideals --which should be most important if you are a christian--they cant go against scriptures.
When did I ever say otherwise?

so, to take a saying from the 60s, "make love not war". very popular phrase from that time. i cant quote the bible but ill tell you that the "make love" part is NOT good christianity (if its talking about sex outside the bonds of holy matrimony) and the "not war" part IS. so no matter how appealing "make love not war" is as an idea, it must be rejected by a christian as immoral.
Again, if you say so, but from a basic level of logical argument, that seems silly to me for a few reasons, as follows:

1) When was "make love, not war" ever claimed to be in keeping with Christian scripture?

2) IF "love" in the phrase is interpreted to mean "sex," then, perhaps, yes, it would be rejected as a specifically Christian claim. But what about the Christian claim (not Biblical, but definitely stated by Christian churches) that "God is love"? So why do you assume that the "love" in "make love, not war" is not the love of God?

3) If a Christian does read "make love, not war" as referring to the love of God, why should he not adopt it as a principle?

4) If a Christian chooses to reject the phrase "make love, not war" as a principle, are you suggesting that it would then be more in keeping with Christian morals for Christians to make war? So, should all good Christians then immediately start shooting their enemies? What happened to "turn the other cheek"? What happened to "love thy neighbor as thyself"? What happened to "blessed are the peacemakers"? Even if the specific phrase cannot be adopted, that does not mean that the general principle is out of keeping with Christian morality.

a christian cant just latch onto whatever new idea comes down the pike. it has to fit with christian morality as outlined in the bible.
You have not shown me that "make love, not war" does not fit with Christian morality as outlined in the Bible because you have not persuaded me that the reference to "love" is out of keeping with Christian morality.

i wasnt saying that you had ever made that suggestion nor did i say anything about satan.
GnI did, and I only brought it up because it is really the only remark about Bible authorship in this thread so far that strikes me as at all controversial, and I was trying to figure out what seemed to upset you so much.“

perhaps i set you up to take my post the wrong way by suggesting that you would take it the wrong way. i apologize for that.
Very well. Peace reestablished.

let me remind you that this is what i was responding to...



my post wasnt a debate. it wasnt an attack of you or your beliefs. it was an attempt to explain the christian attitude toward the bible and why it is very important to know that the word of god has not been corrupted.

all i want to know is whether or not you UNDERSTAND what i wrote. i didnt expect you to agree with it. if you understand, we can go from there. if you dont understand, i guess it must be impossible for me to answer you question.
Yes, I understand what you wrote, but I think it does not really answer my question. Or perhaps it does answer it, but in a way that I really did not expect, so I have to think about it before responding further.

Yes, I understand what you wrote, but I think it does not really answer my question. Or perhaps it does answer it, but in a way that I really did not expect, so I have to think about it before responding further.

well, now that i know we are both on the same page, what is your question?

The metaphor is in the details of saying that the warning came directly from God and that afterwards God made a promise of peace and protection to the people. It is also in the explanation of the story as being about God deciding to cleanse the world of sin and, essentially, start over with a clean slate. That makes it a story, not about a flood, but about the relationship of this god and his worshippers.

Now, you can argue that those are fictional additions to a story of a mundane event, but my argument is that doesn't matter. The meaning and value of the story is in those details, whether they "really happened" or not.If it did not really happen, the entire story is completely pointless and whatever it may say about any relationship between this god and his worshipers becomes irrelevant. If I were to invent a story about a devout man in 2007 being saved by a god from a flood that covered the entire planet, the impression on any reader with the knowledge that there was no such flood would be zero, no matter what the rest of the story were. Any intended symbolism rests entirely on the acceptance of the flood story as historical fact.
The flood story, however, was pretty well known all around the Middle East, and is most likely based on a real event. This story is not a specifically Jewish thing. Only the addition of a Jewish perspective and god makes it Jewish, and the lineage that Jews claim to exist from the flood hero's son and heir all the way down down to themselves, then being the heirs of god's favor, i.e. being the 'chosen people', makes it specifically Jewish. And this creation of chosenness deriving from circumstances out of a well-known tradition must have had an impression on Jews as well as their Hellenistic overlords, who btw may not have been well acquainted with other, older versions of the flood story.
Same with the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan, the judges era and the kingdom period. If that background were made up, nobody would care about the theology that was transported with the biblical narratives.

i dont see the problem.

after all, it was hard enough to mix new testament ideas with the old testament ideas. so hard that they had to end up tossing out massive amounts of rules that came directly from god.

if christians were required to consider the rules of other religions, it would be even harder to figure out what is important and what isnt.
Hm. That is interesting.

If you believe that the rejected books came directly from God, and you are bound by and to God, shouldn't you be reading and following those books, which contain his word? Why would you put the limited judgment of humans who presumed to edit God above the words of God himself in deciding what rules you follow?

Or do you suggest that God edited himself through the Council of Nicea? And if God is capable of going back and editing his own earlier words, then why should he not continue to have done so since then, using other "editors"?

No - I don't thnk so (again). I think you are applying post-Christian ideas of 'salvation' to a text written in a time when men AND gods lived on Earth, and after this there is nothing.

Um, I think the ancient Hebrews did have a concept of an afterlife, with heaven and hell and all that. And I think the ancient Hebrews did actually spend time thinking about their relationship to their God and trying to figure out what he wanted from them and how to stay in good with him and benefit from his blessings and protection, not just during their physical lives but forever. Your remark implies that they did not.

Also, as to the Noah story -- its mythical motifs are fairly common. It fits in with a subset of world cleansing/starting over stories which are not actually apocalyptic. Apocalyptic start-over stories have the god(s) wiping out all creation and starting over with totally new people. Sometimes these are moralistic, sometimes they express a cyclical world-renewal concept instead. The Noah-style subset is more of a moralistic "second chance for humanity" story. Rather than just start over totally fresh with a new design, the moralistic creator god harshly "schools" his created people with vast destruction of the "ruined" world and a challenge/instruction for the chosen survivors to do better next time or else.

well, now that i know we are both on the same page, what is your question?
I am still thinking about your response to see whether it answers my question or not. If not, then I have to rephrase my question in relation to what you have said. Give me a little time. :)

Does anybody care who wrote the bible? Can anybody even prove who wrote the bible? Does anybody even actually read the bible?

THe Illiad is a much better old book imo.

If it did not really happen, the entire story is completely pointless and whatever it may say about any relationship between this god and his worshipers becomes irrelevant. If I were to invent a story about a devout man in 2007 being saved by a god from a flood that covered the entire planet, the impression on any reader with the knowledge that there was no such flood would be zero, no matter what the rest of the story were. Any intended symbolism rests entirely on the acceptance of the flood story as historical fact.
The flood story, however, was pretty well known all around the Middle East, and is most likely based on a real event. This story is not a specifically Jewish thing. Only the addition of a Jewish perspective and god makes it Jewish, and the lineage that Jews claim to exist from the flood hero's son and heir all the way down down to themselves, then being the heirs of god's favor, i.e. being the 'chosen people', makes it specifically Jewish. And this creation of chosenness deriving from circumstances out of a well-known tradition must have had an impression on Jews as well as their Hellenistic overlords, who btw may not have been well acquainted with other, older versions of the flood story.
Same with the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan, the judges era and the kingdom period. If that background were made up, nobody would care about the theology that was transported with the biblical narratives.
Talk about literal-mindedness! Are you suggesting that there is no validity or meaning in fiction of any kind whatsoever?

So, since the characters and personal events of The Red Badge of Courage were not actually real, that story is completely pointless because its messages about war are -- what? not important? nonexistant?

Or perhaps, we have nothing to learn about human relationships from the plays of Shakespeare because the people in them never really existed? Or maybe you mean that, if stories about jealousy, love, ambition, greed, etc, are fictional that means that there is no such thing as jealousy, love, ambition or greed?

Or perhaps, nobody should have bothered to take up the causes of debt reform, labor laws, or child labor laws based on things they learned via the novels of Charles Dickens because the specific characters and events in his stories were fictional.

Maybe nobody should have been fool enough to join the abolition movement in the US because Uncle Tom's Cabin was a fictional story, so obviously, if a particular slave named Uncle Tom did not exist, that meant there was no issue of slavery in the country.

This is the logical extension of your assertion that, if the stories in the Bible are fiction, then they are pointless.

Oh, and by the way, your other assertion that acceptance of symbolism is dependent upon the existence of fact is nonsense. Are you sure you know what "symbolism" is? How about this example:

Does the fact that "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is totally fictional and reflects nothing that really happened ever in the world, negate its value as cold war propaganda? Or how about the fact that the conspiracy in The Manchurian Candidate never actually happened? Does that make it pointless as a critique of McCarthyism?

I sugest that all of you read the book, God wrote a book by James Macdonald. It will answer a lot of your questions on the bible.

I sugest that all of you read the book, God wrote a book by James Macdonald. It will answer a lot of your questions on the bible.

Could you give us a quick summary please?

Talk about literal-mindedness! Are you suggesting that there is no validity or meaning in fiction of any kind whatsoever?

So, since the characters and personal events of The Red Badge of Courage were not actually real, that story is completely pointless because its messages about war are -- what? not important? nonexistant?

Or perhaps, we have nothing to learn about human relationships from the plays of Shakespeare because the people in them never really existed? Or maybe you mean that, if stories about jealousy, love, ambition, greed, etc, are fictional that means that there is no such thing as jealousy, love, ambition or greed?

Or perhaps, nobody should have bothered to take up the causes of debt reform, labor laws, or child labor laws based on things they learned via the novels of Charles Dickens because the specific characters and events in his stories were fictional.

Maybe nobody should have been fool enough to join the abolition movement in the US because Uncle Tom's Cabin was a fictional story, so obviously, if a particular slave named Uncle Tom did not exist, that meant there was no issue of slavery in the country.

This is the logical extension of your assertion that, if the stories in the Bible are fiction, then they are pointless.

Oh, and by the way, your other assertion that acceptance of symbolism is dependent upon the existence of fact is nonsense. Are you sure you know what "symbolism" is? How about this example:

Does the fact that "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is totally fictional and reflects nothing that really happened ever in the world, negate its value as cold war propaganda? Or how about the fact that the conspiracy in The Manchurian Candidate never actually happened? Does that make it pointless as a critique of McCarthyism?So if the flood story is fictional, and Noah is fictional, how on earth would anyone subsequently assume that the god at issue is not fictional as well? If those stories were all just symbolic, that symbolism would also include god, right? It's all hypothetical then. In the examples you mentioned, some circumstances of the respective stories are non-fictional or rooted in circumstances in the real world. If biblical stories were entirely symbolic, then no part of the story would have any connexion with the real world, least of all the parts were god interferes. And really, who cares what a god would hypothetically do?

Hm. That is interesting.

If you believe that the rejected books came directly from God, and you are bound by and to God, shouldn't you be reading and following those books, which contain his word? Why would you put the limited judgment of humans who presumed to edit God above the words of God himself in deciding what rules you follow?

Or do you suggest that God edited himself through the Council of Nicea? And if God is capable of going back and editing his own earlier words, then why should he not continue to have done so since then, using other "editors"?

youd think. and some few christian sects DO follow the laws in leviticus, hold sabbath on saturday, circumsize their boys, etc.

but the vast majority of christian sects decided that those rules in the OT dont apply to non-jews, and that christians are NOT jews. problematical? yes. i guess they find out when they get to heaven and face judgement.

the council of nicaea choosing the books of the bible is also problematical. it held that "pauline" christianity was the correct understanding of jesus, his relationship to god, his humanity/divinity and which writings are scripture and which writings are not. we are asked to believe that the victory of this christianity over the rest is divine providence and that god did indeed inspire these men to choose correctly. again, no way to know for sure until you die and face judgement.

since then, except for the catholic church's asssertion that the errors of st jerome in translating from greek to latin were also inspired, every effort has been made to keep the scriptures in tact, to make no copying errors, to make translations as accurate as possible, to periodically update translations to reflect shifts in word meanings (particularly important when dealing with the king james version since the meanings of words have changed over time) so that we can be as certain as possible in our reading of the scriptures.

how it might be changed by god at this point, i dont know. it would have to be something extraordinar to be accepted by the majority of christian sects.

The uniformity of symbolism both within the context of Judaic mythology and in comparison with other mythologies, both earlier and later, suggests otherwise.

Myhtology is symbolism. It is recognisable as having a number of parallels, because we are predisposed to end up with the same symbols, in the big picture.

We might end up with very different symbols for the small stuff - the intricacy - but broad general strokes are poetic and (so) fairly easily recognisable across borders.

I'm not sure I see any reason to accept your assertions about "both within the context of Judaic mythology and in comparison with other mythologies..." Are you trying to suggests that all religions have always been divided into heaven/hell arrangements?

Um, I think the ancient Hebrews did have a concept of an afterlife, with heaven and hell and all that. And I think the ancient Hebrews did actually spend time thinking about their relationship to their God and trying to figure out what he wanted from them and how to stay in good with him and benefit from his blessings and protection, not just during their physical lives but forever. Your remark implies that they did not.


I'm not convinced. Post-Christian thinking often suggests that there has always been a theological 'soul' portion of the body that is immortal, and that is capable of continuing on to another existence after 'this'... but that vision of the 'soul' isn't in the opening books of Genesis. Indeed, the 'soul' is basically the hunger of the flesh, the fire in the blood. There is no suggestion of something more long-lasting than the meat. Similarly, the term we might translate as an afterlife: 'sheol' is the grave. At least, in the earliest texts. When someone moves on to sheol, they haven't entered another life, they've been stuck in the ground.

This may change in latter Hebrew thinking, and is almost entirely absent in the Greek scriptures - but it is flawed to assume that constructs like 'salvation', 'the soul', and 'afterlife' remained consistent throughout the entire history of Judeo-Christian traditions.


Also, as to the Noah story -- its mythical motifs are fairly common. It fits in with a subset of world cleansing/starting over stories which are not actually apocalyptic. Apocalyptic start-over stories have the god(s) wiping out all creation and starting over with totally new people. Sometimes these are moralistic, sometimes they express a cyclical world-renewal concept instead. The Noah-style subset is more of a moralistic "second chance for humanity" story. Rather than just start over totally fresh with a new design, the moralistic creator god harshly "schools" his created people with vast destruction of the "ruined" world and a challenge/instruction for the chosen survivors to do better next time or else.

I don't agree. Most of these 'flood/destruction/start over' stories seem to favour the reseeding of the world from a handful, rather than a complete tabula rasa. At least - that's the way it appears from all those I've read.

*apologies to Grave for not catching whole thread yet*

New at bookstand - Gospel of Judas for purchase.

Also caught glimpse of Gnostic Gospels of St. Thomas, also for purchase.

*will be back*

Does anybody care who wrote the bible? Can anybody even prove who wrote the bible? Does anybody even actually read the bible?

THe Illiad is a much better old book imo.

I'm more a fan of Alice Through The Looking Glass. :)

So if the flood story is fictional, and Noah is fictional, how on earth would anyone subsequently assume that the god at issue is not fictional as well?

The "fiction" represents something else. It's metaphor.

Myhtology is symbolism. It is recognisable as having a number of parallels, because we are predisposed to end up with the same symbols, in the big picture.

We might end up with very different symbols for the small stuff - the intricacy - but broad general strokes are poetic and (so) fairly easily recognisable across borders.

I'm not sure I see any reason to accept your assertions about "both within the context of Judaic mythology and in comparison with other mythologies..." Are you trying to suggests that all religions have always been divided into heaven/hell arrangements?

Mythology is metaphor. The symbols are similar because of their universal appropriateness to express what is being symbolized.

"Heaven" and "hell" are symbols. "God" is a symbol. "Washing away" is a symbol. "Man" is a symbol. I would hestitate to make any claims on behalf of ALL religions; I merely noted that a similarity of symbolism is employed.

Mythology is metaphor. The symbols are similar because of their universal appropriateness to express what is being symbolized.

"Heaven" and "hell" are symbols. "God" is a symbol. "Washing away" is a symbol. "Man" is a symbol. I would hestitate to make any claims on behalf of ALL religions; I merely noted that a similarity of symbolism is employed.

But the 'metaphors' of Heaven and Hell are not common to all religious views - even now. And they haven't ever been common to ALL religious views (as far as the evidence we can have, suggests). They haven't even always been common to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

So if the flood story is fictional, and Noah is fictional, how on earth would anyone subsequently assume that the god at issue is not fictional as well? If those stories were all just symbolic, that symbolism would also include god, right? It's all hypothetical then. In the examples you mentioned, some circumstances of the respective stories are non-fictional or rooted in circumstances in the real world. If biblical stories were entirely symbolic, then no part of the story would have any connexion with the real world, least of all the parts were god interferes. And really, who cares what a god would hypothetically do?
OK, now I'm annoyed.

Perhaps your problem with understanding the concepts of fiction and symbolism is that you lack reading comprehension? Because the only way for you to post this argument would be for you to either be completely incapable of following the point I made and the examples I listed, or else, you are just ignoring everything I said in order to push forward a bullshit assertion.

What you are saying here is that, in fact, you do not believe that there is any such thing as symbolism (or else you don't know what the word means), and that, in fact, you do not believe that fiction has any meaning or validity at all.

Why? Because:

1) Your argument requires "symbolism/symbolic" to mean "not real." That is not what the word means. Just in case you really don't know what it means, here is the standard American definition:

from Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: sym·bol·ism
Pronunciation: 'sim-b&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the art or practice of using symbols especially by investing things with a symbolic meaning or by expressing the invisible or intangible by means of visible or sensuous representations: as a : artistic imitation or invention that is a method of revealing or suggesting immaterial, ideal, or otherwise intangible truth or states b : the use of conventional or traditional signs in the representation of divine beings and spirits
2 : a system of symbols or representations
from Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: sym·bol·ic
Pronunciation: sim-'bä-lik
Variant(s): also sym·bol·i·cal /-li-k&l/
Function: adjective
1 a : using, employing, or exhibiting a symbol b : consisting of or proceeding by means of symbols
2 : of, relating to, or constituting a symbol
3 : characterized by or terminating in symbols <symbolic thinking>
4 : characterized by symbolism <a symbolic dance>
- sym·bol·i·cal·ly /-li-k(&-)lE/ adverb
from Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: 1sym·bol
Pronunciation: 'sim-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: in sense 1, from Late Latin symbolum, from Late Greek symbolon, from Greek, token, sign; in other senses from Latin symbolum token, sign, symbol, from Greek symbolon, literally, token of identity verified by comparing its other half, from symballein to throw together, compare, from syn- + ballein to throw -- more at DEVIL
1 : an authoritative summary of faith or doctrine : CREED
2 : something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible <the lion is a symbol of courage>
3 : an arbitrary or conventional sign used in writing or printing relating to a particular field to represent operations, quantities, elements, relations, or qualities
4 : an object or act representing something in the unconscious mind that has been repressed <phallic symbols>
5 : an act, sound, or object having cultural significance and the capacity to excite or objectify a response
Nothing in any of those definitions requires the object reprensented by the symbol to be fake.

2) If you do really think that, in all cases, a fictional story cannot be ABOUT anything real, then do you deny that there was slavery in the United States because fictional stories were written about it? Do you deny that soldiers sometimes experience such debilitating fear in combat that it leads them to acts of cowardice and that they sometimes feel a moral imperative to try to overcome those fears for the sake of their fellow soldiers and their personal self-respect, and do you base such a denial on the fact that The Red Badge of Courage is fiction?

If those things are real, despite the fictionality of the stories about them, then that is proof that FICTION/SYMBOL =/= FALSE, and therefore, you cannot use the fictionality of the stories in the Bible to claim that there is no such thing as god and thus that stories about god are pointless. As usual with you, you have picked the weakest possible means of trying to push an already fatally weak argument.

3) And another thing: You apparently don't know what "hypothesis" means, either, or else you would not be equating the idea of "hypothetical" with your notions of meaningless or pointless or false. If there is no point in writing about a hypothesis, then why would there be any such thing as a science journal in the world, because what the hell do you think they are talking about, except theories and hypotheses? If there was no point in discussing hypothetical situations, then why would there be any such thing as war games or advisory councils in politics? Honestly, UB, you put on a good show in your presentation of arguments, but, really, I have seen more convincing puppet theater.

youd think. and some few christian sects DO follow the laws in leviticus, hold sabbath on saturday, circumsize their boys, etc.

but the vast majority of christian sects decided that those rules in the OT dont apply to non-jews, and that christians are NOT jews. problematical? yes. i guess they find out when they get to heaven and face judgement.

the council of nicaea choosing the books of the bible is also problematical. it held that "pauline" christianity was the correct understanding of jesus, his relationship to god, his humanity/divinity and which writings are scripture and which writings are not. we are asked to believe that the victory of this christianity over the rest is divine providence and that god did indeed inspire these men to choose correctly. again, no way to know for sure until you die and face judgement.

since then, except for the catholic church's asssertion that the errors of st jerome in translating from greek to latin were also inspired, every effort has been made to keep the scriptures in tact, to make no copying errors, to make translations as accurate as possible, to periodically update translations to reflect shifts in word meanings (particularly important when dealing with the king james version since the meanings of words have changed over time) so that we can be as certain as possible in our reading of the scriptures.
Well, then, it sounds to me that all these Christians who are so concerned with whether God is the author of the Bible or not are content to merely take another human being's word for it, yea or nay. And the humans who have claimed the authority to make such distinctions seem to have had a hard time agreeing with each other about it at all, which makes me think that their decisions were possibly not guided by a god letting them know true from false scripture. And finally, it seems as if not all Christians are actually willing to take those others' word for such things, and I'm sorry, but while in practice it is convenient to let the majority define the general group, the minority cannot simply be discounted as if they don't exist. Their existence casts doubt upon the certainty of the majority. Remember, once upon a time, only a minority of people believed that the world was a sphere, but they were eventually proved right and now their view is the majority view. Throughout the history of Christianity, there have been minorities who have claimed that ALL the divine books are the word of God and must be followed, and other minorities who have claimed that NONE of the books are the word of God, but rather the words of men, and must be treated as such. The fact that leaders of the majority might dismiss both those dissents as heretical or unimportant, does not erase the doubts they both cast on the certainty of the majority view.

how it might be changed by god at this point, i dont know. it would have to be something extraordinar to be accepted by the majority of christian sects.
Define "extraordinary." How extraordinary was the Council of Nicea? Could not something like another council be enough to do it, since it was enough last time? A modern one might have to be more ecumenical than the last, but how extraordinary would that be? Ecumenical councils convene frequently, on many subjects.

But the 'metaphors' of Heaven and Hell are not common to all religious views - even now. And they haven't ever been common to ALL religious views (as far as the evidence we can have, suggests). They haven't even always been common to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

And that's absolutely true, and beside the point. The point was that similarity of symbolism between religions can point to one interpretation as being correct. The metaphor is not the symbol, but what the symbol represents.

And that's absolutely true, and beside the point. The point was that similarity of symbolism between religions can point to one interpretation as being correct. The metaphor is not the symbol, but what the symbol represents.

It isn't beside the point if you were arguing that the symbolic meaning was a 'salvation' image. If the Hebrews weren't dealing in images of 'salvation' and 'damnation', then any salvation symbolism you perceive in their stories, is written behind the eyes.

Does the concept of a flood have to have been imported to Mesopotamia? No - they already had that phenomena. So - what purpose would the importation of the story served? As a 'salvation' metaphor? 'Salvation' metaphors are only helpful when there is a 'salvation' concept.

I'm not convinced. Post-Christian thinking often suggests that there has always been a theological 'soul' portion of the body that is immortal, and that is capable of continuing on to another existence after 'this'... but that vision of the 'soul' isn't in the opening books of Genesis. Indeed, the 'soul' is basically the hunger of the flesh, the fire in the blood. There is no suggestion of something more long-lasting than the meat. Similarly, the term we might translate as an afterlife: 'sheol' is the grave. At least, in the earliest texts. When someone moves on to sheol, they haven't entered another life, they've been stuck in the ground.

This may change in latter Hebrew thinking, and is almost entirely absent in the Greek scriptures - but it is flawed to assume that constructs like 'salvation', 'the soul', and 'afterlife' remained consistent throughout the entire history of Judeo-Christian traditions.
Well, a lack of being convinced should not be the same as certainty, in my opinion. I looked it up quickly, and indeed, the Torah does not deal with afterlife at all, and there is relatively little discussion in formal Jewish teachings about it, but that does not mean there is none. The sources I scanned quickly seem to agree that there is a general assumption among orthodox Judaism that there is an afterlife, regardless of what it might be like. The existence of such a concept suggests the existence also of concepts of a soul or other thing that survives death. So despite the lack of doctrine on the matter, I do not think you can say that there is no such concept in Jewish belief.

Traditions among Jews of what the afterlife might be like are plentiful, although not part of official doctrine. They seem to me to reflect (a) cultures in which Jews settled, and/or (b) gentle satire on Jewish life and attitudes. But this seems more a function of not having a vision of what it might really be like rather than a function of not having the concept of afterlife at all. They are merely deliberately convenient choices for describing something that their official teachings choose not to describe, but that does not necessarily mean that the entire concept is foreign.

I'd like to point out that the sources I looked at do talk about the fact that Judaism is more concerned with the here and now than with any potential afterlife and a little about the why of that, but I would like to point out that many non-Abrahamic religions are likewise oriented. My own animist beliefs are completely and exclusively concerned with my dealings in this life and this world, yet they still hold that the soul exists and is immortal and will continue to live after my body dies. However, such a future is considered irrelevant because I am not there yet and I cannot know what I will encounter when I do get to it, so there is no point in worrying about it now. The only preparation I can possibly make is to live well now, on merely the assumption that my choices today might have an effect on my choices then. But that is the least of my concerns when making choices today. Ancient Judaism seems not much different. God runs the universe, his believers cannot know how it is organized or how it works or anything of that sort of thing, so even though they may believe that their soul will continue, they have no way of knowing how or in what manner. Yet even the Jewish writings that predate the dualistic afterlife views of the Greeks stiill show a belief in certain punitive things happening to evil people after they die.

Here are a few of the sources I checked:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/afterlife.html
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=282508
http://www.learnkabbalah.com/afterlife_and_reincarnation/
http://www.deathreference.com/Gi-Ho/Heaven.html
-- scroll down to the paragraph starting "Judaism".

I don't agree. Most of these 'flood/destruction/start over' stories seem to favour the reseeding of the world from a handful, rather than a complete tabula rasa. At least - that's the way it appears from all those I've read.
This is not the case in world flood/destruction motif stories in the Americas and the Arctic regions, for instance. In those cultures' mythologies, the entire world is remade periodically and all the beings that existed in the old world are destroyed as well and totally new races/classes of beings come into existence in the new world. In some of these story groups, but not all, one or a few survivors of the old world emerge into the new world, sometimes via a means of floating on the flooding seas, or sometimes via a vagina-like or belly-button-like opening in the earth that then closes after them or is otherwise lost forever. Even then, those survivors must still deal with the new beings that are created along with the new world. They do not bring any other animals with them from the old world. But in other story groups, the destruction and renewal are total.

It isn't beside the point if you were arguing that the symbolic meaning was a 'salvation' image. If the Hebrews weren't dealing in images of 'salvation' and 'damnation', then any salvation symbolism you perceive in their stories, is written behind the eyes.

Does the concept of a flood have to have been imported to Mesopotamia? No - they already had that phenomena. So - what purpose would the importation of the story served? As a 'salvation' metaphor? 'Salvation' metaphors are only helpful when there is a 'salvation' concept.

That depends entirely on what you are being 'saved' from. There are "enlightened" Christians who look to "save" themselves in a metaphorical sense from the very same thing enlightened Buddhists achieving Nirvana are saved from, Hindus going to Maksha are saved from, Zoroastrians achieving Paradise are saved from, and yes, Orthodox Jews going to Heaven are saved from. The unenlightened person is the one who requires himself to be "saved" from the image.

The concept of "flood" is not the symbol of "flood", nor the meaning of "flood", nor the metaphor of "flood". Whether or not it was imported isn't significant; what is significant is how it was used in the context of the analogy.

That depends entirely on what you are being 'saved' from. There are "enlightened" Christians who look to "save" themselves in a metaphorical sense from the very same thing enlightened Buddhists achieving Nirvana are saved from, Hindus going to Maksha are saved from, Zoroastrians achieving Paradise are saved from, and yes, Orthodox Jews going to Heaven are saved from. The unenlightened person is the one who requires himself to be "saved" from the image.


And, what is it you think all these people are being 'saved' from?

(Bear in mind, the post-Christian Orthodox Jew doesn't necessarily believe the same thing that a 'Mosaic' era Hebrew would).

And, what is it you think all these people are being 'saved' from?

(Bear in mind, the post-Christian Orthodox Jew doesn't necessarily believe the same thing that a 'Mosaic' era Hebrew would).

The illusion of "life".

Well, a lack of being convinced should not be the same as certainty, in my opinion. I looked it up quickly, and indeed, the Torah does not deal with afterlife at all, and there is relatively little discussion in formal Jewish teachings about it, but that does not mean there is none. The sources I scanned quickly seem to agree that there is a general assumption among orthodox Judaism that there is an afterlife, regardless of what it might be like. The existence of such a concept suggests the existence also of concepts of a soul or other thing that survives death. So despite the lack of doctrine on the matter, I do not think you can say that there is no such concept in Jewish belief.

Traditions among Jews of what the afterlife might be like are plentiful, although not part of official doctrine. They seem to me to reflect (a) cultures in which Jews settled, and/or (b) gentle satire on Jewish life and attitudes. But this seems more a function of not having a vision of what it might really be like rather than a function of not having the concept of afterlife at all. They are merely deliberately convenient choices for describing something that their official teachings choose not to describe, but that does not necessarily mean that the entire concept is foreign.

I'd like to point out that the sources I looked at do talk about the fact that Judaism is more concerned with the here and now than with any potential afterlife and a little about the why of that, but I would like to point out that many non-Abrahamic religions are likewise oriented. My own animist beliefs are completely and exclusively concerned with my dealings in this life and this world, yet they still hold that the soul exists and is immortal and will continue to live after my body dies. However, such a future is considered irrelevant because I am not there yet and I cannot know what I will encounter when I do get to it, so there is no point in worrying about it now. The only preparation I can possibly make is to live well now, on merely the assumption that my choices today might have an effect on my choices then. But that is the least of my concerns when making choices today. Ancient Judaism seems not much different. God runs the universe, his believers cannot know how it is organized or how it works or anything of that sort of thing, so even though they may believe that their soul will continue, they have no way of knowing how or in what manner. Yet even the Jewish writings that predate the dualistic afterlife views of the Greeks stiill show a belief in certain punitive things happening to evil people after they die.

Here are a few of the sources I checked:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/afterlife.html
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=282508
http://www.learnkabbalah.com/afterlife_and_reincarnation/
http://www.deathreference.com/Gi-Ho/Heaven.html
-- scroll down to the paragraph starting "Judaism".


I have to point something out - at least two of your sources are focusing on what Judaism claims as it's belief today, and the other two sources aren't necessarily representing the historical facts uncoloured.

If you read through Torah, the concept of 'soul' is present (much more often in the Hebrew than it get's translated into English, actually) - but it is not some spirit passenger. Reading what it 'does', the original conception of the soul is as part of the living body - which is divided into three: 1) The flesh, 2) The 'soul' - which is the hungers, and the fire... and 3) The 'spirit' - which is the actual animating force.

It is worth noting - we don't 'have' a spirit, according to the original texts - we just 'borrow' that gift. It is the 'breath of life' that was first breathed into Adam, and which we all receive at birth.

Bear in mind - this is what was in the text - this was the 'old' religion. Modern Judaism is no longer the same.

The Hebrew concept of 'Sheol' did not originally have any of the symbolic nature that one of your sources suggests... it isn't some 'shadowy underworld like the Greek Hades'. 'Sheol' was nothing. It was death. It was being in the ground. If you look through the Hebrew scripture - everyone dies except a very small handful that are taken to be with Jehovah. Torah contained no implications of eternal damnation... we all just die, except a chosen one or two that will become 'like' god.

I have to point out also - one of your sources similarly seems to misrepresent the Greek idea of the Elysian Fields. Latter Greek thought said that some could win or fight their way into Elysian Fields... you could earn your way into a sort of paradise... but the earlier Greek thought was that Elysian Fields was very much a member's only club, for the Gods and, maybe, some of the demigods.

You have to allow that people are looking at earlier thoughts through certain perspectives. The modern Jew who tends to believe that abortion is bad, is going to lean one way - where historical thought might have suggested there is no life until the first breath is taken.

The illusion of "life".

I admit it, you lost me. Dudes wandered over the mountains, to bring to the floodplain dwellers the gift of salvation from life. In boats and deep water.

I admit it, you lost me. Dudes wandered over the mountains, to bring to the floodplain dwellers the gift of salvation from life. In boats and deep water.

The story's not about them, it's about you.
:)

And, what is it you think all these people are being 'saved' from?

(Bear in mind, the post-Christian Orthodox Jew doesn't necessarily believe the same thing that a 'Mosaic' era Hebrew would).Of course not. A 'Mosaic' era Hebrew was not even an Israelite necessarily, and Hebrews as well as Israelites were no Jews, nor Jew-ish.

Well, then, it sounds to me that all these Christians who are so concerned with whether God is the author of the Bible or not are content to merely take another human being's word for it, yea or nay. And the humans who have claimed the authority to make such distinctions seem to have had a hard time agreeing with each other about it at all, which makes me think that their decisions were possibly not guided by a god letting them know true from false scripture. And finally, it seems as if not all Christians are actually willing to take those others' word for such things, and I'm sorry, but while in practice it is convenient to let the majority define the general group, the minority cannot simply be discounted as if they don't exist. Their existence casts doubt upon the certainty of the majority. Remember, once upon a time, only a minority of people believed that the world was a sphere, but they were eventually proved right and now their view is the majority view. Throughout the history of Christianity, there have been minorities who have claimed that ALL the divine books are the word of God and must be followed, and other minorities who have claimed that NONE of the books are the word of God, but rather the words of men, and must be treated as such. The fact that leaders of the majority might dismiss both those dissents as heretical or unimportant, does not erase the doubts they both cast on the certainty of the majority view.

yeah its a bit of a problem. most people just take it on faith that the bible is the inspired word of god and they take that word as law. the reality is that its a very fuzzy justification. i can see no real reason to take the bible as being not just the inspired word of god but the ONLY inspired word of god.

it seems that 2000ish years ago, god was finished with dealing with people on a personal basis. no more messiahs, no more prophets, no more revelations.

maybe he's taking another day off.


Define "extraordinary." How extraordinary was the Council of Nicea? Could not something like another council be enough to do it, since it was enough last time? A modern one might have to be more ecumenical than the last, but how extraordinary would that be? Ecumenical councils convene frequently, on many subjects.

no, extraordinary would be on the level of joseph smith finding another testament of god written on golden plates and buried in the ground near palmyra new york.

I have to point something out - at least two of your sources are focusing on what Judaism claims as it's belief today, and the other two sources aren't necessarily representing the historical facts uncoloured.
Perhaps I should have pulled quotes, but I was in a bit of a hurry. I realize that the listed sources are not the ideal ones, but they gave the most accessible overviews. However, this means they are broader than the designation of pre-Christian or Mosaic-era Judaism. I would hope that a person as well versed in the topic as you would be able to pick out from the sources the relevant information referring to specific references in Torah and Talmud independent of modern interpretations of the same, and references to the ancient belief system. The specific references are small but definitely in there, which is why I posted those particular sources.

Also, your objection that the other sources aren't "necessarily" "uncoloured" does not imply that they are necessarily colored, either. You are familiar with the subject and are an experienced researcher -- on a topic (religion) in which I challenge you to find many "uncoloured" sources. Read the articles, separate fact from opinion and ancient from modern references within them, and judge for yourself whether their information seems sound, regardless of what you think of their interpretations.

If you read through Torah, the concept of 'soul' is present (much more often in the Hebrew than it get's translated into English, actually) - but it is not some spirit passenger. Reading what it 'does', the original conception of the soul is as part of the living body - which is divided into three: 1) The flesh, 2) The 'soul' - which is the hungers, and the fire... and 3) The 'spirit' - which is the actual animating force.
Well, what does this have to do with the question of whether there was an ancient Jewish concept of an afterlife, i.e. (in its most basic sense) a continuation of life after the occurence of physical death? The Jews are by no means unique in this multi-part concept of the human soul. It in no way precludes afterlife beliefs.

It is worth noting - we don't 'have' a spirit, according to the original texts - we just 'borrow' that gift. It is the 'breath of life' that was first breathed into Adam, and which we all receive at birth.
And which part of the multi-part soul do you think this refers to? The 'soul' which is the hungers and the fire, or the 'spirit' which is the actual animating force? And again, what does that have to do with the concept of afterlife?

Bear in mind - this is what was in the text - this was the 'old' religion. Modern Judaism is no longer the same.
Which text? Torah? Are you suggesting that Torah is no longer the guiding text of Judaism? Or are you suggesting a new one was written at some time? No, GnI, the text remains the same. It is the interpretation that has changed over time. If you doubt the interpretation, then go back to the text itself. It seems to me that it contains references that suggest a belief that death is not the end of life -- again, the most basic concept of "afterlife" -- even though it gives no clue as to what or how that might be or work.

The Hebrew concept of 'Sheol' did not originally have any of the symbolic nature that one of your sources suggests... it isn't some 'shadowy underworld like the Greek Hades'. 'Sheol' was nothing. It was death. It was being in the ground. If you look through the Hebrew scripture - everyone dies except a very small handful that are taken to be with Jehovah. Torah contained no implications of eternal damnation... we all just die, except a chosen one or two that will become 'like' god.
And yet you are the one extrapolating from that a whole slew of cultural meanings for a culture that you, yourself, also insist no longer exists, at least not in its original form. Even as you insist that modern Judaism thinks differently from ancient Judaism due to the influence of Greek and Christian culture, you nevertheless go on to tell us what symbolic meaning "nothing" and "the grave" had for those ancient people. Yet you offer us no sources, no translations of sufficiently ancient writings to indicate that you are not merely assigning a modern interpretation to ancient texts yourself. And which culture are you a product of? Oh, right, the same one you say makes modern Judaism useless as an example of ancient Judaism.

I have to point out also - one of your sources similarly seems to misrepresent the Greek idea of the Elysian Fields. Latter Greek thought said that some could win or fight their way into Elysian Fields... you could earn your way into a sort of paradise... but the earlier Greek thought was that Elysian Fields was very much a member's only club, for the Gods and, maybe, some of the demigods.
I disagree with you on that the same way you disagreed with me about flood myth motifs. I have not seen any ancient Greek writings within the myths themselves that reflect your remarks. First of all, when you say "later Greek thinking" you have to be specific. Are you talking about the myths, or are you talking about critiques of the myths by philosophers? Because if it is the latter, we must remember that the Greeks invented philosophy and so there was a whole social class that was pretty much like NSG -- everybody with an opinion about everything or something, and not all those opinions necessarily reflective of the thinking of society. What do the myths say on the matter? Nothing that a student of mythology would be surprised at. Every society depicts itself as a weakened, less worthy version of a much better elder society that is long gone. "Golden Age" syndrome it might be called. I don't know of any myths about the Elysian Fields, from any period of Greek history, that do not imply that the heroes who went there "long ago" were not somehow better than the heroes who went there more recently (recent meaning contemporary to the story). Once upon a time people were so wonderful that just about anybody could get into the Elysian Fields, but people nowadays are so weak and corrupt and degenerate that only the best get picked by the gods for paradise. That kind of thing.

You have to allow that people are looking at earlier thoughts through certain perspectives. The modern Jew who tends to believe that abortion is bad, is going to lean one way - where historical thought might have suggested there is no life until the first breath is taken.
You must also make the same allowance, including for your own interpretations.

There's a medical saying: "If you hear hoof beats, your first thought should be horse, not zebra." Meaning that the most common explanation is the most likely and, thus, should be checked for before going on to more exotic possibilities.

Strip away ALL interpretations and go back to the texts themselves. You will see that they contain forms that are comparable to similar forms in other belief systems. Yes, they COULD mean something totally different, but the chances are greater that they mean something similar. Then look at ALL the interpretations that you can find and critique them by their cultural/social contexts. Make sure that you look at sources from as many different periods of history as possible. Use this method to try to identify (1) effects of foreign influences and (2) persistent and consistent strains of thought, regardless of time, place or cultural context. Yes, those consistent strains of thought COULD be foreign contaminations dating from two weeks after the first Greek wandered into Jerusalem, but the chances are greater that they reflect a strain of thinking similar to the original Judaic concepts.

Obviously, it would be unfeasible to try to do all this in the context of an NSG debate thread, but I have done some of it during my 25+ years readings in comparative religions, mysticism/esotericism, and mythography, and I think you should have come across some of it in your studies of Biblical texts as well.

So I put it to you:

1) Ancient Judaism was likely similar to other ancient religions and to modern Judaism in emphasizing this life over the next.

2) Lack of emphasis of a thing is not proof that a people do not believe in a thing. Thus, lack of concern over an afterlife cannot be taken as proof that ancient Judaism contained no belief in an afterlife. It only indicates that it was either not considered important or considered so far out of human control as to not be worth dealing with. In this, too, ancient Judaism would not be dissimilar from some other ancient religions and from modern Orthodox Judaism.

3) The original texts do contain some mention of things associated with afterlife concepts. Likewise, very very old writings by Jewish scholars, teachers, mystics and esotericists do contain critiques of those small mentions that further indicate a Jewish theological belief in the continued existence of the soul after physical death. These beliefs, which are ancillary to concepts of the nature of the soul, are not to be confused with folk culture notions of afterlife, many of which are indeed foreign imports, and many much more recent than Greek influence.

4) Ergo, in my opinion, it is reasonable to conclude, based on the texts and the oldest and most consistent strains of critique within Judaism, that ancient Judaic thinking most likely did include some notions of afterlife, albeit extremely different ones than those modern western culture has inherited from the Greeks. I will go further and say that, if one is going to dispute that, one should beware that one does not argue that they did not have an afterlife belief because they did not have the same one the Greeks had.

yeah its a bit of a problem. most people just take it on faith that the bible is the inspired word of god and they take that word as law. the reality is that its a very fuzzy justification. i can see no real reason to take the bible as being not just the inspired word of god but the ONLY inspired word of god.

it seems that 2000ish years ago, god was finished with dealing with people on a personal basis. no more messiahs, no more prophets, no more revelations.

maybe he's taking another day off.
That's kind of a weak finish, don't you think?

no, extraordinary would be on the level of joseph smith finding another testament of god written on golden plates and buried in the ground near palmyra new york.
Why would it have to be? That's not how the Bible was codified back in the day. If a council of bishops working their asses off day and night and resorting to fistfights at times was good enough to satisfy Christians back then, why do you need miracles and revelations now?

It seems to me that the Bible, just like any other thing, must be one thing or another. It must be either natural or supernatural (if one believes in such a dichotomy). It must be either the work of men's hands or of a god's. If the Bible as we know it today was compiled from older books by men working from their own understanding of their religion, and if that was good enough to result in a book which others believe to be divinely inspired, why should that no longer be enough to produce a newer version? Conversely, if a newer version could only be acceptable if its origin is miraculous, then why have so many believed so fervently in the current Bible, which was compiled by men working in a very ordinary fashion?

By "ordinary fashion" I mean if you do not accept that the editing and codifying of the texts was itself miraculous.

Max wrote the Bible.

That's kind of a weak finish, don't you think?


i suppose so.


Why would it have to be? That's not how the Bible was codified back in the day. If a council of bishops working their asses off day and night and resorting to fistfights at times was good enough to satisfy Christians back then, why do you need miracles and revelations now?

because they fought it out then and we take it on faith NOW, we dont need to hash it out again. it is what it is and only a miracle can add to it. or a bigass schism. every sect of christianity is its own authority for the bible and its interpretation.


It seems to me that the Bible, just like any other thing, must be one thing or another. It must be either natural or supernatural (if one believes in such a dichotomy). It must be either the work of men's hands or of a god's. If the Bible as we know it today was compiled from older books by men working from their own understanding of their religion, and if that was good enough to result in a book which others believe to be divinely inspired, why should that no longer be enough to produce a newer version? Conversely, if a newer version could only be acceptable if its origin is miraculous, then why have so many believed so fervently in the current Bible, which was compiled by men working in a very ordinary fashion?

By "ordinary fashion" I mean if you do not accept that the editing and codifying of the texts was itself miraculous.

it depends on what you mean by a newer version. if it means wholly new material, it would take something along the lines of the miracle that occurred when the ancient councils decided on the bible and got it right.

where would this new stuff come from and why would we think it was the inspired word of god? it would require a very strict test--the kind of test that the book of mormon fails for all but mormon christians.

there can be new translations of the bible. as you know, there are many different translations in english alone. there was also an altering of the books of the bible by protestants at some point in time, making the catholic and protestant bibles different. <avoids saying something disparaging about protestants>.

but those are refinements on our understanding of the word of god. if he's not going to send us a new testament written in english, we have to do our best with what we have.

in the end, i believe that it is declared a matter of faith that must be accepted as true because it would be just too hard to go over and over and over the various possible christian texts and beliefs every generation. it was a viscious fight that no one wants to go through again.

Perhaps I should have pulled quotes, but I was in a bit of a hurry. I realize that the listed sources are not the ideal ones, but they gave the most accessible overviews. However, this means they are broader than the designation of pre-Christian or Mosaic-era Judaism. I would hope that a person as well versed in the topic as you would be able to pick out from the sources the relevant information referring to specific references in Torah and Talmud independent of modern interpretations of the same, and references to the ancient belief system. The specific references are small but definitely in there, which is why I posted those particular sources.

Also, your objection that the other sources aren't "necessarily" "uncoloured" does not imply that they are necessarily colored, either. You are familiar with the subject and are an experienced researcher -- on a topic (religion) in which I challenge you to find many "uncoloured" sources. Read the articles, separate fact from opinion and ancient from modern references within them, and judge for yourself whether their information seems sound, regardless of what you think of their interpretations.


Well, what does this have to do with the question of whether there was an ancient Jewish concept of an afterlife, i.e. (in its most basic sense) a continuation of life after the occurence of physical death? The Jews are by no means unique in this multi-part concept of the human soul. It in no way precludes afterlife beliefs.


And which part of the multi-part soul do you think this refers to? The 'soul' which is the hungers and the fire, or the 'spirit' which is the actual animating force? And again, what does that have to do with the concept of afterlife?


Which text? Torah? Are you suggesting that Torah is no longer the guiding text of Judaism? Or are you suggesting a new one was written at some time? No, GnI, the text remains the same. It is the interpretation that has changed over time. If you doubt the interpretation, then go back to the text itself. It seems to me that it contains references that suggest a belief that death is not the end of life -- again, the most basic concept of "afterlife" -- even though it gives no clue as to what or how that might be or work.


And yet you are the one extrapolating from that a whole slew of cultural meanings for a culture that you, yourself, also insist no longer exists, at least not in its original form. Even as you insist that modern Judaism thinks differently from ancient Judaism due to the influence of Greek and Christian culture, you nevertheless go on to tell us what symbolic meaning "nothing" and "the grave" had for those ancient people. Yet you offer us no sources, no translations of sufficiently ancient writings to indicate that you are not merely assigning a modern interpretation to ancient texts yourself. And which culture are you a product of? Oh, right, the same one you say makes modern Judaism useless as an example of ancient Judaism.


I disagree with you on that the same way you disagreed with me about flood myth motifs. I have not seen any ancient Greek writings within the myths themselves that reflect your remarks. First of all, when you say "later Greek thinking" you have to be specific. Are you talking about the myths, or are you talking about critiques of the myths by philosophers? Because if it is the latter, we must remember that the Greeks invented philosophy and so there was a whole social class that was pretty much like NSG -- everybody with an opinion about everything or something, and not all those opinions necessarily reflective of the thinking of society. What do the myths say on the matter? Nothing that a student of mythology would be surprised at. Every society depicts itself as a weakened, less worthy version of a much better elder society that is long gone. "Golden Age" syndrome it might be called. I don't know of any myths about the Elysian Fields, from any period of Greek history, that do not imply that the heroes who went there "long ago" were not somehow better than the heroes who went there more recently (recent meaning contemporary to the story). Once upon a time people were so wonderful that just about anybody could get into the Elysian Fields, but people nowadays are so weak and corrupt and degenerate that only the best get picked by the gods for paradise. That kind of thing.


You must also make the same allowance, including for your own interpretations.

There's a medical saying: "If you hear hoof beats, your first thought should be horse, not zebra." Meaning that the most common explanation is the most likely and, thus, should be checked for before going on to more exotic possibilities.

Strip away ALL interpretations and go back to the texts themselves. You will see that they contain forms that are comparable to similar forms in other belief systems. Yes, they COULD mean something totally different, but the chances are greater that they mean something similar. Then look at ALL the interpretations that you can find and critique them by their cultural/social contexts. Make sure that you look at sources from as many different periods of history as possible. Use this method to try to identify (1) effects of foreign influences and (2) persistent and consistent strains of thought, regardless of time, place or cultural context. Yes, those consistent strains of thought COULD be foreign contaminations dating from two weeks after the first Greek wandered into Jerusalem, but the chances are greater that they reflect a strain of thinking similar to the original Judaic concepts.

Obviously, it would be unfeasible to try to do all this in the context of an NSG debate thread, but I have done some of it during my 25+ years readings in comparative religions, mysticism/esotericism, and mythography, and I think you should have come across some of it in your studies of Biblical texts as well.

So I put it to you:

1) Ancient Judaism was likely similar to other ancient religions and to modern Judaism in emphasizing this life over the next.

2) Lack of emphasis of a thing is not proof that a people do not believe in a thing. Thus, lack of concern over an afterlife cannot be taken as proof that ancient Judaism contained no belief in an afterlife. It only indicates that it was either not considered important or considered so far out of human control as to not be worth dealing with. In this, too, ancient Judaism would not be dissimilar from some other ancient religions and from modern Orthodox Judaism.

3) The original texts do contain some mention of things associated with afterlife concepts. Likewise, very very old writings by Jewish scholars, teachers, mystics and esotericists do contain critiques of those small mentions that further indicate a Jewish theological belief in the continued existence of the soul after physical death. These beliefs, which are ancillary to concepts of the nature of the soul, are not to be confused with folk culture notions of afterlife, many of which are indeed foreign imports, and many much more recent than Greek influence.

4) Ergo, in my opinion, it is reasonable to conclude, based on the texts and the oldest and most consistent strains of critique within Judaism, that ancient Judaic thinking most likely did include some notions of afterlife, albeit extremely different ones than those modern western culture has inherited from the Greeks. I will go further and say that, if one is going to dispute that, one should beware that one does not argue that they did not have an afterlife belief because they did not have the same one the Greeks had.

My source is Torah, if I am talking about the oldest incarnation of Hebrew faith - because that is where most of the evidence is going to remain - what is left of it. I could look to the whole Tanakh, and do - if I am not specifically looking for information about the earliest period.

But, from reading the text, you can see that - whether or not the story is real (and thus, really chronological) there is a chronology to the writing of Torah texts. Genesis is obviously the text which had most of it written first, the early chapters of Genesis written before the later chapters, the first book before the second.

So - if I want to know what the belief was of the first Hebrew priesthood, most of my evidence is going to have to come from the very opening of Torah, and get progressively less and less 'weighted' as I read.

I'm not looking at interpretations - I am looking at the 'pure' text, such as it is.

And the oldest texts talk about human life as being three things - body, spirit and soul - none of which are suggested as lasting any longer than the life of the person. The only way one can live longer, is apotheosis - which (one assumes) returns us to the original Adamic state, and makes us 'like' God. We can't progress of survive past death - we can only have our life extended.

So - when we look at Sheol - why should we add to what is there? The raw meaning is the grave. Where would I borrow extra imagery from? It isn't a matter of adding my own interpretations - it is a matter of seeing what is there... a finite soul, a finite spirit, a finite flesh. In that context, 'the grave' probably means 'the grave'.

(By the way, the 'culture' which I am a product of is an accumulation for Christian traditions on top of somewhat lapsed Judaism... my mother is C of E, but her father was Jewish.)

I could look for reasons to assume that early Hebrew religion DID have an afterlife... but there is nothing in the pure text to support it. If one looks at Christianity, an example of a religion which plays a strong 'afterlife' suit... there is a lot of repetition of the specifics of the afterlife - how to get there, how this life effecs it, what happens if you are bad. On the contrary, Torah shows a very direct approach - no explanations of how to 'get there', nothing about what we can do to affect it.

If one looks at the laws, the laws affect human existence, and are punished within the scope of human existence. Where a 'crime' is greater than one life is worth, there is no mention of eternal damnation - instead, the punishment continues on to the next generation. It is hard to read Torah as a text that allows for afterlife.

And, I'll admit - there seems to be a tendency to read these old texts that way - but I think that is because the whole Tanakh is considered, rather than looking at Torah in isolation, as a window to the earliest, purest form.

My source is Torah, if I am talking about the oldest incarnation of Hebrew faith - because that is where most of the evidence is going to remain - what is left of it. I could look to the whole Tanakh, and do - if I am not specifically looking for information about the earliest period.

But, from reading the text, you can see that - whether or not the story is real (and thus, really chronological) there is a chronology to the writing of Torah texts. Genesis is obviously the text which had most of it written first, the early chapters of Genesis written before the later chapters, the first book before the second.Are you implying that the parts of the Torah were written in the sequence they appear in the Torah? That is definitely not so.

Are you implying that the parts of the Torah were written in the sequence they appear in the Torah? That is definitely not so.

I'm not implying that you can read the entirety of the Torah scripture, and get a continued progression from start to finish, in the order in which you read it, to match the order in which the text was laid down.

But - there is a general trend of sorts. The oldest text is the original genesis account, and the next few genesis chapters follow on. A few more books in, and things get somewhat shuffled.

And, of course, the entire text was edited for later convenience... so, it is entirely possible that genesis 1:1 could contain the last 'word' ever commited to Torah.

Is it possible to suggest (without incurring the wrath of every Christian who can't stand to see their faith questioned by other people in case they ask some uncomfortable questions), that the Bible, or at least the first book/gospel/partchment/scribblings on a napkin, was written to make money?

Surely someone must have thought - How can I write a bestseller in Whatever Century BC? I know, religion sure is popular, if I write about God, people might be intrigued to buy a copy (either for themsleves, or as a christmas present for others).

Its the same today, people like cooking - lots of cookery books get written. People like Paris Hilton - STD pamphlets are mass produced, etc.

Is this too blaspehmous to post?

P.S. - Could the replys please stick to my question - not rant on about how i'm going to hell and don't know what i'm on about. You'd be supprised how boring that becomes!

Am I the only one who reads The Straight Dope?

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html

That is the first in a series of five online articles, with links, discussing the authorship of the Bible:

Dear Straight Dope:

Who wrote the Bible? I hear the Catholics did some pretty heavy editorializing back in 300 A.D. or so. But where does the original text trace its origins to? --Concerned Pagan

SDSTAFF Dex and SDSTAFF Eutychus reply:

The answer is neither simple nor straightforward--just the way we at the Straight Dope like it. But this subject is complicated even for us. Rather than try to pack the answer into one article, we've decided to split it into sections and give a detailed account, to be presented over several days.

Part 1 - Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the first five books of the Bible, called the Torah or Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses?

Part 2 - Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the various histories in the Old Testament (such as Judges, Kings, etc.)? (This section will also include a brief essay on the problems inherent in dating ancient events.)

Part 3 - Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the various prophetic books (Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) and the wisdom literature (Psalms, Proverbs, etc.) in the Old Testament?

Part 4 - Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the various New Testament Books?

Part 5 - Who decided which books should be included and which excluded from the Bible(s)? Why are there differences in the Bibles for Catholics, Protestants, and Jews?

These reports were written by SDSTAFF Eutychus and SDSTAFF Dex, with valuable assistance from Straight Dope Message Board contributors tomndebb and CMKeller, and also from Dex's friend Pastor Allan, who has a Ph.D. in early Christian writings. Volumes have been written about this topic--the Cambridge History of the Bible alone is three large books. The answers are seldom clear cut. The best we could do is summarize and condense. We hope you enjoy.

It draws a lot on Friedman, but also discusses other approaches to Biblical authorship, including the orthodox one.

Is it possible to suggest (without incurring the wrath of every Christian who can't stand to see their faith questioned by other people in case they ask some uncomfortable questions), that the Bible, or at least the first book/gospel/partchment/scribblings on a napkin, was written to make money?

Surely someone must have thought - How can I write a bestseller in Whatever Century BC? I know, religion sure is popular, if I write about God, people might be intrigued to buy a copy (either for themsleves, or as a christmas present for others).

Its the same today, people like cooking - lots of cookery books get written. People like Paris Hilton - STD pamphlets are mass produced, etc.

Is this too blaspehmous to post?

P.S. - Could the replys please stick to my question - not rant on about how i'm going to hell and don't know what i'm on about. You'd be supprised how boring that becomes!What are you suggesting? That someone in ancient times could get rich by writing or publishing books? Answer is no. There was no mass production available.

I'm not implying that you can read the entirety of the Torah scripture, and get a continued progression from start to finish, in the order in which you read it, to match the order in which the text was laid down.

But - there is a general trend of sorts. The oldest text is the original genesis account, and the next few genesis chapters follow on. A few more books in, and things get somewhat shuffled.

And, of course, the entire text was edited for later convenience... so, it is entirely possible that genesis 1:1 could contain the last 'word' ever commited to Torah.
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3176/hebrewbiblebookstimelinss2.th.gif (http://threetwoone.org/diagrams/hebrew-bible-books-timeline.gif)

That the Word comes from God, and that God would not allow the wrong words to flourish as they have.

Lawl, end of thread right here within the first ten posts of the damn thing.

I'm surprised you guys missed it.



"God wouldn't allow..." - But! God WOULD entirely allow genocide, hate, demonic possession, demonic temptation, etc, etc.

He would allow ALL these things that torture and tear apart his precious creations, and you're fine with that - you accept that. But when it comes to his book - his bible - the ink on paper which is, apparently, so much more treasured than his most precious creations on earth, it MUST be protected! God would simply NOT allow anything to be wrong with the bible.

I call bullshit!

What are you suggesting? That someone in ancient times could get rich by writing or publishing books? Answer is no. There was no mass production available.

You can get rich, however, by gaining power through telling people that god told them to do something.

I'm surprised you guys missed it.
I didn't, as you'll see if you keep reading. ;)

It's a logical black hole. Not that it's necessarily wrong (I do disagree with it, having said that), but that it's impossible to escape from once you're in there because it's a self-justifying supposition.

He would allow ALL these things that torture and tear apart his precious creations, and you're fine with that - you accept that. But when it comes to his book - his bible - the ink on paper which is, apparently, so much more treasured than his most precious creations on earth, it MUST be protected! God would simply NOT allow anything to be wrong with the bible.

Which is of course also why about 70% of the worlds population adheres to a belief system other than Christianity, and why the 30% that do consider the Bible to be the prime book cannot agree on what it says.

But hey - lets not let facts stand in the way of belief. Belief after all is meant to tell us how things should be, not how they actually are.

...Belief after all is meant to tell us how things should be, not how they actually are.wtf?

I didn't, as you'll see if you keep reading. ;)

It's a logical black hole. Not that it's necessarily wrong (I do disagree with it, having said that), but that it's impossible to escape from once you're in there because it's a self-justifying supposition.

Reading to what!? There's 16 pages now of this thing.

wtf?

Oh come on. There should be a brilliant artist responsible for all of life. There should be a perfect aesthetically pleasing order to the universe. There should be good in every human being, happiness should be achievable by all and so on.
That none of these things seems to be actually true is but a detail. It is how it should be. So speaks the man in his ivory tower.

Which is of course also why about 70% of the worlds population adheres to a belief system other than Christianity, and why the 30% that do consider the Bible to be the prime book cannot agree on what it says.

But hey - lets not let facts stand in the way of belief. Belief after all is meant to tell us how things should be, not how they actually are.

Torah?... THIS! IS! BIBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLE! *kicks Alma through a manhole*


:D

wtf?
I think he's along the right lines, if somewhat confused in terminology.

The recent emergence of postmodernism in religion has essentially revived the notion of a living myth. Stories told once as history by churches and organisations have not stood the test of a surge of skepticism in history itself, but they have survived as allegorical creations put in place not to be literal truth but to be picked apart as though they were works of pure fiction (cleverly blurring the lines as to whether or not they were ever actually anything other than such, but that's just my own skepticism talking).

And it's actually quite a neat idea. Opening scripture up as allegory, as the ideal and as parable leaves it open to a much broader interpretation of meaning (that, to the believer, will be just as valid, since God's hand can be seen at work in whole new ways). It also stands some chance at breaking through the black hole of reasoning of "God says I'm right, so I'm right when I say God says I'm right", since it actively engages the reader in finding understanding of the issues, and finally does away with the notion that there can only be one specific set of beliefs that anyone who calls themself religious must adhere to.

Hopefully it'll catch on.

I think he's along the right lines, if somewhat confused in terminology.

It was actually a paraphrased quote ;)

What does that have to do with belief?

It is what most religions tell us is the truth.

Oh come on. There should be a brilliant artist responsible for all of life. There should be a perfect aesthetically pleasing order to the universe. There should be good in every human being, happiness should be achievable by all and so on.
That none of these things seems to be actually true is but a detail. It is how it should be. So speaks the man in his ivory tower.What does that have to do with belief?

I think he's along the right lines, if somewhat confused in terminology.

The recent emergence of postmodernism in religion has essentially revived the notion of a living myth. Stories told once as history by churches and organisations have not stood the test of a surge of skepticism in history itself, but they have survived as allegorical creations put in place not to be literal truth but to be picked apart as though they were works of pure fiction (cleverly blurring the lines as to whether or not they were ever actually anything other than such, but that's just my own skepticism talking).

And it's actually quite a neat idea. Opening scripture up as allegory, as the ideal and as parable leaves it open to a much broader interpretation of meaning (that, to the believer, will be just as valid, since God's hand can be seen at work in whole new ways). It also stands some chance at breaking through the black hole of reasoning of "God says I'm right, so I'm right when I say God says I'm right", since it actively engages the reader in finding understanding of the issues, and finally does away with the notion that there can only be one specific set of beliefs that anyone who calls themself religious must adhere to.

Hopefully it'll catch on.Well, if scripture is allegorical then it's far worse than it is as religiously (re-)interpreted history. Because then the slaughter of 'infidels' is no longer the deed of individuals, but the way it should be. What allegorical meaning does the killing of 450 non-Yhvh priests on Elijah's order have?

Surely someone must have thought - How can I write a bestseller in Whatever Century BC? I know, religion sure is popular, if I write about God, people might be intrigued to buy a copy (either for themsleves, or as a christmas present for others).

Its the same today, people like cooking - lots of cookery books get written. People like Paris Hilton -

Ahhh that explains it, The Bible was written by the Father, the Son and the holy ghost-writer........


about that going to hell bit - should I book a room in advance of can I just show up

It is what most religions tell us is the truth.And 'we' take it as truth?

Well, if scripture is allegorical then it's far worse than it is as religiously (re-)interpreted history. Because then the slaughter of 'infidels' is no longer the deed of individuals, but the way it should be. What allegorical meaning does the killing of 450 non-Yhvh priests on Elijah's order have?
Not necessarily the way it should be. As I said, Alma's quote was along the right lines rather than perfectly explaining the result.

The idea is that it's to be treated as a work of literature (albeit by divine inspiration). The story is, on one hand, just that, regardless of whatever else it might be. The main characters are not always heroes, nor are the losers always villians. Sometimes well-intentioned individuals get things horribly wrong, and sometimes the most foul people manage to cause a lot of good. But there's always a story to be told with lessons to be learned, even where the stories themselves can be thought of as fiction. Of course, they may not be, but to all intents and purposes, this need not necessarily matter.

Essentially, the Bible, like the personal faith of modern Christians, is being viewed by this "allegorical orthodoxy" as written both as a result of and to describe the many responses of people to the God therein rather than as a definitive account of any such individual. The Psalms, to many, embody the spirit of the text, and it is no surprise that they occur right in the centre of the narrative. In a world where Religious Experience is commonplace, such a story can speak to people on so many levels.

(Personal interpretative example time - You can stop reading if you don't want to see one such idea)

For the Old Testament, this seems obvious. Check it out; so many different attempts to understand this figure that, at first, appears to be so obviously defined in the history of the Jewish people (within the story). And yet none of them seem satisfactory, as even the most casual reader will notice.

A formal challenge to these approaches is found in the New Testiment and its build up with the supposition of the incarnate God. Jesus as a character responds to God in a way that on one hand makes sense to us from an ethical perspective and also moves the story along by consciously undermining the established doctrine of the temples. It leaves their notions exposed and humiliated, and a new kind of response to this redefined God appears as a result of the work of Paul and his followers; a response that is not itself without criticism, given the reluctant to drop the old ways of law and custom, and the frustration and dischord among the disciples of Jesus in deciding what to do can be seen throughout the Acts regardless of how they see themselves.

But Jesus as a character strikes a chord; we, too, begin to see precisely where things are going wrong, and as Jesus is brutally savaged, we get a rare glimpse into just how much pain it must cause this person to understand that the very thing he wanted to teach them in the first place has become their bitter enemy. Of course, his divine powers serve as a useful literary device in ensuring that he gets the last laugh and that, in the process of his own rebirth, he gives his wishes for the world a second chance.

Again, it does not need to be actually true in reality in order for this challenge to be appropriate within its own scope. This is a story about peoples' attempt to understand and relate to a proposed divine being. It has morals to tell about how easy it is to get things wrong, it gets us thinking about what we think the laws and moral codes of our society really are, but it's ultimately a powerful story about firstly a figure in a position of great power and responsibility and secondly about how the subjects and servents of this figure relate to it. We can learn much from it, even if we don't believe a word of it.