forrestkc Posted February 18, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 18, 2007 Yes! And which of the Gospels were recorded as they happened and went straight to the presses as the events unfolded? It must be quite frustrating not knowing if what you believe in is true or not. t. They were first person accounts though. That is the difference. With the Pentateuch, there is the literalist / fundimentalist view that it was entirely the work of Moses, and their is the Documentary Hypothesis In classical Documentary Hypothesis, as most popularly proposed by Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), the Pentateuch is composed of four separate and identifiable texts, dating roughly from the period of Solomon up until exilic priests and scribes. These various texts were brought together as one document (the Pentateuch, or Torah) by scribes after the exile. The traditional names are: * The Jahwist (or J) - written circa 850 BCE. The southern kingdom's (i.e. Judah) interpretation. It is named according to the prolific use of the name "Yahweh" (or Jaweh, in German, the divine name or Tetragrammaton) in its text. * The Elohist (or E) - written circa 750 BCE. The northern kingdom's (i.e. Israel) interpretation. As above, it is named because of its prefered use of "Elohim" (Generic name for "god" in Hebrew). * The Deuteronomist (or D) - written circa 621 BCE. Dating specifically from the time of King Josiah of Judah and responsible for the book of Deuteronomy as well as Joshua and most of the subsequent books up to 2 Kings. * The Priestly source (or P) - written during or after the exile. So named because of its focus on levitical laws. There is debate amongst scholars as to exactly how many different documents compose the corpus of the Pentateuch, and as to what sections of text are included in the different documents. A number of smaller independent texts have also been identified, including the Song of the Sea and other works, mainly in verse, most of them older than the four main texts. The individual books were edited and combined into their present form by the Redactor, frequently identified with the scribe Ezra, in the post-Babylonian exile period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 forrest, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. what was moral 3000 years ago is still moral today, and what was immoral back then still is. EXCEPT of course to those who don't know God. So it would be moral for us today to slaughter every man woman and child in Iraq, sparing only the virgin girls, who the soldiers could take as spoils of war? if God commanded us to do so, then yes! forrest, you do recall, don't you, that the historical incident you refer to was the ONLY war in which God said to slaughter every man, woman, child, even the livestock, and that the virgin girls were NOT exempt, don't you? and you do recall that God had reason for commanding it.... and do you also recall that God's command on this issue was disobeyed, and that the consequences of that disobedience have been very far reaching, from that day to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Which is my point, why on earth would we use the same moralities of the ancient hebrews today regarding the sanctity of life. I am severely disagreeing with you over the source of the Hebrews' actions. If the Old Testament was all allegorical, why isn't the New Testament allegorical, too? I mean, if the Pentateuch is allegorical, then Abraham never existed. So how can Paul's teaching on Abraham's faith have any validity if none of that actually happened? Abraham probably existed. However, where the New Testament is primarily first hand accounts and letters, the Pentateuch was not recorded as it happened. Do you believe the creation stories in Genesis are literal, historical accounts? Do you believe that the story of Noah's Ark and the worldwide flood is a literal, historical account? i certainly do, are you saying that you don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted February 18, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Well, I don't. I don't believe that you have to read every incident in the Bible as literal - for example, while the Creation story is a beautiful one, the point is THAT the world was created, not exactly how it happened. Unlike a lot of people on this boards (I've had this conversation a lot here), I believe that the Bible is a collection of books that were divinely inspired BUT interpreted through the lens of the men who wrote them. Hence, I don't believe the bible is historically infallible. This also explains the great deal of neglect or rather unfortunate treatment of women in the Bible, etc. Make no mistake - I believe the Bible is the Word of God BUT it is told in the words of MAN. A lot of theologians have explained it in terms of the Incarnation: the miracle of the embodiment of the divine and the human. To call the Bible ONLY divine takes away the human side of things - the miracle seems somewhat lesser if we see it that way, almost. Remember, God doesn't originally need words - we do. Most Christian denominations preach some form of this argument - a relatively small percentage of churches overall actually teach that the Bible is completely infallible. Actually, I'm under the impression that approaching the Bible this way is a relatively recent phenomena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted February 18, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Well, I don't. I don't believe that you have to read every incident in the Bible as literal - for example, while the Creation story is a beautiful one, the point is THAT the world was created, not exactly how it happened. Unlike a lot of people on this boards (I've had this conversation a lot here), I believe that the Bible is a collection of books that were divinely inspired BUT interpreted through the lens of the men who wrote them. Hence, I don't believe the bible is historically infallible. This also explains the great deal of neglect or rather unfortunate treatment of women in the Bible, etc. Make no mistake - I believe the Bible is the Word of God BUT it is told in the words of MAN. A lot of theologians have explained it in terms of the Incarnation: the miracle of the embodiment of the divine and the human. To call the Bible ONLY divine takes away the human side of things - the miracle seems somewhat lesser if we see it that way, almost. Remember, God doesn't originally need words - we do. Most Christian denominations preach some form of this argument - a relatively small percentage of churches overall actually teach that the Bible is completely infallible. Actually, I'm under the impression that approaching the Bible this way is a relatively recent phenomena. You pretty much nailed down my beliefs exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted February 18, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 18, 2007 Most Christian denominations preach some form of this argument - a relatively small percentage of churches overall actually teach that the Bible is completely infallible. Actually, I'm under the impression that approaching the Bible this way is a relatively recent phenomena. The problem, you see, is that Jesus and the NT authors wrote and spoke as if they believed in the innerrancy and infallability of the OT. Jesus believed Adam was a real man, so did Paul. Were they duped as I am? Am I more enlightened than the Son of G-d? You are quite wrong about our "approach" being recent. It is as recent as the Pauline and Petrine epistles, and also the the book of Acts. The PC(USA), my former denomination, came out with the statement that they no longer believed in the innerrancy of Scripture. And that is yet another reason why we left and countless other churches are bailing. I mean, how dumb do denominations think believers are? I wont debate the issue with you; your stand is quite clear, but I put this out for the benefit of those whose faith might be shaken by your errant views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted February 18, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted February 18, 2007 I'm not "attacking" the bible, I'm just saying that there are some things in the bible that were meant as a way to explain things that were in existance. Today there are many things about our world and universe that are known and explained, while those same things couldn't be explained thousands of years ago. If God would have told men and women of early times that they were living on a round surface that orbited a gaseous burning star in a solar system and universe that streched to infinity, their brains would have exploded! Instead God helped show them a good way to look at how things were as they were in a way that they could understand. Thus, the creation story was written, and many other old-testament writings were created. The message of them is the same, and gives us a general look at how things should be viewed today, but I am very skeptical that the garden of eden was truly how men came into existance. It is very likely that there are many true historical accuracies in the Bible, but to suggest all of it is historically infailible is stretching it for me. And yes, I was raised Catholic. Are Catholics not Christians in your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 are catholics christians? some are. some aren't. the same can be said of "baptists", "pentacostals", "lutherans", etc. but you already know that. not everyone who calls God "God" will enter into the kingdom of heaven. or do you believe that is a Biblical fallacy too? in any case, those who think of the Bible as just some general reference guide might want to tell God on judgement day that next time He'd better have a better plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted February 18, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted February 18, 2007 All I can say at this point is for people to have fun trying to figure out which parts of the Bible are true, and which are not. I may have to re-look, but I can't remember any of the NT writers doubting anything within the OT writings when they referenced the them. Why do we do it today? Call me a thumper, but I believe every word! t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetycakes Posted February 18, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 162 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,869 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 2,122 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/23/1964 Share Posted February 18, 2007 All I can say at this point is for people to have fun trying to figure out which parts of the Bible are true, and which are not. I may have to re-look, but I can't remember any of the NT writers doubting anything within the OT writings when they referenced the them. Why do we do it today? Call me a thumper, but I believe every word! t. I second that emotion, Ted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts