The formation of the bible?

[Smalcald]

But there is scholarly agreement (not just Christian scholars but secular scholars) on the fact that most of the individual New Testament letters and epistles have not been edited to a great degree from their original tests and that they are really very close. The authors are who they claim that they are in most cases and these we know are real people with who really existed in history. There has been some editing over the centuries no doubt about that, but not much in fact compared to other historical documents the Bible is remarkably intact.

I have no problem taking the word of those first Christians who both new Christ and those first Christian who lived in the first several hundred years after Christ raised from the dead and knew those who knew Christ. It comes down to who we believe.

It is very hard because there is a whole secular cult now dedicated to trying to tear down the bible, and of course this is where we get all of these pop culture ideas about the bible being basically made up and massively edited etc, about the "secret" gospels, and on and on. These things sell books and they also let unbelievers feel better about their lack of faith, Satan is working very hard in this cottage industry.

But there is something very basic we must also keep in mind, the words of the bible ring true in our hearts, not because of the historical development of those texts, but because the Gospel itself which those words make up, have a true spiritual power, they have a supernatural power given to them and in them through the Holy Spirit to convert people to faith in Christ. This is something to be both understood AND experienced through reading the bible.

I would not personally care if the bible we have today was written in 1995, the words it contains and its message to me could have only come from the Holy Spirit and that is confirmed in our heart by the indwelling of that Spirit which comes through reading and believing the Word of God contained only in this bible we have today.

[forrestkc]

[

Actually, its a pretty broad range. The Pentateuch was recorded much after the fact between the 10th and 5th centuries BC.

How do you define "after the fact"? Most of the OT proports to have occured in the 6000 years before Christ?

I am saying that the accounts of creation, Abraham, Noah, and Moses and the Jewish Exodus were handed down largely in a tribal generational fashion until being actually recorded between the 10th and 5th centuries BC. This is in sharp contrast with the accounts of the New Testament, and for that matter the Apocrypha.

Actually Moses wrote the pentateuch.

Yet few Biblical Archeologists or Theologians hold that belief. There have been at least 4 different literary strands documented in the Pentateuch.

[EricH]

Yet few Biblical Archeologists or Theologians hold that belief. There have been at least 4 different literary strands documented in the Pentateuch.

This is not a true statment. The JEDP theory is held predominantly by "liberal theologians" of a certain school. Their numbers do not exceed those of the schools in Judaism and Christianity that hold for Mosaic authorship.

There is not hard historical evidence for JEDP. It is based on so-called "literary styles" within the petateuch. There is absolutely know "text critical evidence" for JEDP

Besides, arguments from numbers are logically fallacious (especially when you can find experts on both sides of the argument)

[forrestkc]

Yet few Biblical Archeologists or Theologians hold that belief. There have been at least 4 different literary strands documented in the Pentateuch.

This is not a true statment. The JEDP theory is held predominantly by "liberal theologians" of a certain school. Their numbers do not exceed those of the schools in Judaism and Christianity that hold for Mosaic authorship.

There is not hard historical evidence for JEDP. It is based on so-called "literary styles" within the petateuch. There is absolutely know "text critical evidence" for JEDP

Besides, arguments from numbers are logically fallacious (especially when you can find experts on both sides of the argument)

I am going by the Preface to the Pentateuch in the Catholic Bible:

The Pentateuch, which consists of the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), enjoys particular prestige among the Jews as the "Law," or "Torah," the concrete expression of God's will in their regard. It is more than a body of legal doctrine, even though such material occupies many chapters, for it contains the story of the formation of the People of God: Abraham and the Patriarchs, Moses and the oppressed Hebrews in Egypt, the birth of Israel in the Sinai covenant, the journey to the threshold of the Promised Land, and the "discourses" of Moses.

The grandeur of this historic sweep is the result of a careful and complex joining of several historic traditions, or sources. These are primarily four: the so-called Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomic strands that run through the Pentateuch. (They are conveniently abbreviated as J, E, P and D.) Each brings to the Torah its own characteristics, its own theological viewpoint--a rich variety of interpretation that the sensitive reader will take pains to appreciate. A superficial difference between two of these sources is responsible for their names: the Yahwist prefers the name Yahweh (represented in translation as Lord) by which God revealed himself to Israel; the Elohist prefers the generic name for God, Elohim. The Yahwist is concrete, imaginative, using many anthropomorphisms in its theological approach, as seen, e.g., in the narrative of creation in Genesis 2, compared with the Priestly version in Genesis 1. The Elohist is more sober, moralistic. The Priestly strand, which emphasizes genealogies, is more severely theological in tone. The Deuteronomic approach is characterized by the intense hortatory style of Deuteronomy 5-11, and by certain principles from which it works, such as the centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple.

However, even this analysis of the Pentateuch is an over-simplification , for it is not always possible to distinguish with certainty among the various sources. The fact is that each of these individual traditions incorporates much older material. The Yahwist was himself a collector and adapter. His narrative is made up of many disparate stories that have been reoriented, and given a meaning within the context in which they now stand; e.g., the story of Abraham and Isaac in Gen 22. Within the J and P traditions one has to reckon with many individual units; these had their own history and life-setting before they were brought together into the present more or less connected narrative.

This is not to deny the role of Moses in the development of the Pentateuch. It is true we do not conceive of him as the author of the books in the modern sense. But there is no reason to doubt that, in the events described in these traditions, he had a uniquely important role, especially as lawgiver. Even the later laws which have been added in P and D are presented as a Mosaic heritage. Moses is the lawgiver par excellence, and all later legislation is conceived in his spirit, and therefore attributed to him. Hence, the reader is not held to undeviating literalness in interpreting the words, "the LORD said to Moses." One must keep in mind that the Pentateuch is the crystallization of Israel's age-old relationship with God.

[Guest Biblicist]

All right I have sort of intresting little problem. I tried to bring my friend to christ but the problem is...well many things, most of the issues he has I can eliminate but there is one thing I can't cause im not even sure how to answer. While were supposed to have faith in christ and to trust in the bible in leading people to christ however we also must have the answers that non christan bring up. It's sort of like being a lawyer, a lawyer never ask a question he doesn't all ready know the answer to. Same thing (well sort of) if I can't answer a question then it hurts my ability to lead people to christ, and more importantly it makes me look like fool, I should at least know the answers (with in reason).

Which leads me to my problem. See my friend doesn't believe in the bible, thinks it was made up by man. He told me that the bible has been rewriten so many times and more to the point that it has been rewriten to further Certain peoples agendas, people like King James. He says that we call christ Jesus yet christ was Jewish and there is no J in Jewish language, so in short were calling the lord by a name that isn't even his. This is what he has thrown in my face, problem is I have no idea how to answer that.

I know that Religious Scholars and priest and what not came together and decided what Books would go in to the formation of what we call the bible. Yet beyond that I have no idea about were they got these books, I though it was from dead sea scrolls, how do I show that the bible hasn't been rewriten that the bible is same text as they were created by the authors. How do I explain Jesus name being Jesus when there is no J in the Hebrew languge. Now this is more then just me going to relate this back to my friend, but I to would like the answers to these questions, that way if it ever comes up I can explain it and show the person what im talking about.

Are there any good books that go in to this subject that I could pick up, especially books that have cross references to other books that are more historical and less Religious in nature. Any way and help you guys can give would be great.

I found the video Faith Under Fire by Lee Strobel very informative on how we got the Bible.

It answered a great many other questions as well.

[EricH]

Yet few Biblical Archeologists or Theologians hold that belief. There have been at least 4 different literary strands documented in the Pentateuch.

This is not a true statment. The JEDP theory is held predominantly by "liberal theologians" of a certain school. Their numbers do not exceed those of the schools in Judaism and Christianity that hold for Mosaic authorship.

There is not hard historical evidence for JEDP. It is based on so-called "literary styles" within the petateuch. There is absolutely know "text critical evidence" for JEDP

Besides, arguments from numbers are logically fallacious (especially when you can find experts on both sides of the argument)

I am going by the Preface to the Pentateuch in the Catholic Bible:

The Pentateuch, which consists of the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), enjoys particular prestige among the Jews as the "Law," or "Torah," the concrete expression of God's will in their regard. It is more than a body of legal doctrine, even though such material occupies many chapters, for it contains the story of the formation of the People of God: Abraham and the Patriarchs, Moses and the oppressed Hebrews in Egypt, the birth of Israel in the Sinai covenant, the journey to the threshold of the Promised Land, and the "discourses" of Moses.

The grandeur of this historic sweep is the result of a careful and complex joining of several historic traditions, or sources. These are primarily four: the so-called Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomic strands that run through the Pentateuch. (They are conveniently abbreviated as J, E, P and D.) Each brings to the Torah its own characteristics, its own theological viewpoint--a rich variety of interpretation that the sensitive reader will take pains to appreciate. A superficial difference between two of these sources is responsible for their names: the Yahwist prefers the name Yahweh (represented in translation as Lord) by which God revealed himself to Israel; the Elohist prefers the generic name for God, Elohim. The Yahwist is concrete, imaginative, using many anthropomorphisms in its theological approach, as seen, e.g., in the narrative of creation in Genesis 2, compared with the Priestly version in Genesis 1. The Elohist is more sober, moralistic. The Priestly strand, which emphasizes genealogies, is more severely theological in tone. The Deuteronomic approach is characterized by the intense hortatory style of Deuteronomy 5-11, and by certain principles from which it works, such as the centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple.

However, even this analysis of the Pentateuch is an over-simplification , for it is not always possible to distinguish with certainty among the various sources. The fact is that each of these individual traditions incorporates much older material. The Yahwist was himself a collector and adapter. His narrative is made up of many disparate stories that have been reoriented, and given a meaning within the context in which they now stand; e.g., the story of Abraham and Isaac in Gen 22. Within the J and P traditions one has to reckon with many individual units; these had their own history and life-setting before they were brought together into the present more or less connected narrative.

This is not to deny the role of Moses in the development of the Pentateuch. It is true we do not conceive of him as the author of the books in the modern sense. But there is no reason to doubt that, in the events described in these traditions, he had a uniquely important role, especially as lawgiver. Even the later laws which have been added in P and D are presented as a Mosaic heritage. Moses is the lawgiver par excellence, and all later legislation is conceived in his spirit, and therefore attributed to him. Hence, the reader is not held to undeviating literalness in interpreting the words, "the LORD said to Moses." One must keep in mind that the Pentateuch is the crystallization of Israel's age-old relationship with God.

Thats great, but it is not text critical evidence.

[HAZARD]

All right I have sort of intresting little problem. I tried to bring my friend to christ but the problem is...well many things, most of the issues he has I can eliminate but there is one thing I can't cause im not even sure how to answer. While were supposed to have faith in christ and to trust in the bible in leading people to christ however we also must have the answers that non christan bring up. It's sort of like being a lawyer, a lawyer never ask a question he doesn't all ready know the answer to. Same thing (well sort of) if I can't answer a question then it hurts my ability to lead people to christ, and more importantly it makes me look like fool, I should at least know the answers (with in reason).

Which leads me to my problem. See my friend doesn't believe in the bible, thinks it was made up by man. He told me that the bible has been rewriten so many times and more to the point that it has been rewriten to further Certain peoples agendas, people like King James. He says that we call christ Jesus yet christ was Jewish and there is no J in Jewish language, so in short were calling the lord by a name that isn't even his. This is what he has thrown in my face, problem is I have no idea how to answer that.

I know that Religious Scholars and priest and what not came together and decided what Books would go in to the formation of what we call the bible. Yet beyond that I have no idea about were they got these books, I though it was from dead sea scrolls, how do I show that the bible hasn't been rewriten that the bible is same text as they were created by the authors. How do I explain Jesus name being Jesus when there is no J in the Hebrew languge. Now this is more then just me going to relate this back to my friend, but I to would like the answers to these questions, that way if it ever comes up I can explain it and show the person what im talking about.

Are there any good books that go in to this subject that I could pick up, especially books that have cross references to other books that are more historical and less Religious in nature. Any way and help you guys can give would be great.

Over fourty different authors wrote the sixty six books of the Bible during a period of over 1,800 years; and they all had one theme, and that is, the revealation and redemption of the human race by God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. These books were written by men from all walks of life such as kings, priests, judges, lawyers, princes, shepherds, soldiers, courtiers, statesmen, musicians, inventors, singers, poets, preachers, prophets, fishermen, farmers, tent makers, publicans, physicians, richmen and poor men. They were written in many various lands of three continents____Europe, Asia, and Africa. They were written in different ages by many men, some who never ever saw each other or even knew what the others wrote on the same subjecs, yet when their writings became one book, there is not one contradiction among them.

Suppose fourty medical men, each in a different land and age, would write sixty books on how to cure a disease, what kind of cure would such a collection of books make. How much unity would we find in their writings?

There is perfect unity between the books of thje Bible, which speak of the hundreds of subjects in the realm of religion, politics, science, etc. This proves there is one divine author for all the sixty-six books. Who but a divine author could produce such a work. Even convinced a hard harted, major sinner like me that God does exist and His Word is real.

And, check this out, a news release yesterday.

Discovery backs Old TestamentBy Dalya Alberge in London

July 12, 2007 01:00am

THE British Museum yesterday hailed a discovery within a clay tablet in its collection as a breakthrough for biblical archeology - proof of the accuracy of the Old Testament.

The cuneiform inscription in a tablet dating from 595BC has been deciphered for the first time - revealing a reference to an official at the court of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, that proves the historical existence of a figure mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah.

It is rare evidence in a non-biblical source of a real person, other than kings, featured in the Bible.

Read full article at this link.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22060312-401,00.html

[forrestkc]

Thats great, but it is not text critical evidence.

Well I think, and correct me if I am wrong, but typically, when we evaluate a text to determine whether it was the result of one writer, or several, we look at the text to see if there are different writing styles and perspectives present in the text or if it seems to be of one individuals writing style.

[Guest shiloh357]

I think sometimes it is best to let the Bible do the talking.

• The books of the Torah (Pentateuch) claim to have been written by Moses (Exodus. 24:4,7; 34:27-28; Numbers. 33:2; Deuteronomy. 1:1-5; 4:4-5; 31:9,24-26).
  
• God's prophets who wrote according to the moving of the Holy Spirit (2Peter 1:21), assert that Moses wrote the Torah (Penateuch)(Joshua. 1:7; 8:32-35; Judges. 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; Ezra 2:6; Nehemiah. 9:14; Mal. 4:4).
  
• The writers of the New Testament and even Jesus Himself claim that Moses is the author of the 1st 5 books of the Bible (Mark. 12:26; Luke. 16:29-31; John. 1:17; 5:45-47; 8:5; Acts. 15:21; 2 Corinthians. 3:15).
  

We really don't need to take the JEDP "theory" too seriously when we have enough from the Scripture to show us who the human author of the Torah was. If the whole JDEP "theory" were true, the Bible would support it.

[Guest Biblicist]

I think sometimes it is best to let the Bible do the talking.

• The books of the Torah (Pentateuch) claim to have been written by Moses (Ex. 24:4,7; 34:27-28; Nu. 33:2; De. 1:1-5; 4:4-5; 31:9,24-26).
  
• God's prophets who wrote according to the moving of the Holy Spirit (2Pet 1:21), assert that Moses wrote the Torah (Penateuch)(Jos. 1:7; 8:32-35; Jud. 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; Ezra 2:6; Neh. 9:14; Mal. 4:4).
  
• The writers of the New Testament and even Jesus Himself claim that Moses is the author of the 1st 5 books of the Bible (Mk. 12:26; Lk. 16:29-31; Jn. 1:17; 5:45-47; 8:5; Ac. 15:21; 2 Co. 3:15).
  

We really don't need to take the JEDP "theory" too seriously when we have enough from the Scripture to show us who the human author of the Torah was. If the whole JDEP "theory" were true, the Bible would support it.

Umm, I think I missed it, what's JEDP?