ForumGarden

Not according to the scholarship of Jewish scholars. The Bible is mostly midrash except for some of the letters attributed to Paul and not all of those came from Paul.

Ted;1487031 wrote: Not according to the scholarship of Jewish scholars. The Bible is mostly midrash except for some of the letters attributed to Paul and not all of those came from Paul.


Not the original texts.

Will start this again. When the canon of scripture (Christian and Jewish) were put together they had no original copies. They used copies of copies of copies etc. They had multiple copies of many of the books in the the meetings. Multiple copies of each and no two had the exact same wording. Ie. Dozens of varying copies of Mathew. There are still words in the Bible whose original meaning is long lost. ie. " A virgin will conceive . . . " is incorrectly translated as "a Virgin" should have read " A young maiden. There still are many mistranslated word especially in the KJBV. There are some 25.000 errors in the Christian Bible. (Archaeologist Norm Wagner). Try to read the Bible with Jewish eyes and a great load of common sense. There are of course even forgeries in the Bible. Not all the letters attributed to Paul were not written by Paul do not come from Paul.

Ted;1487117 wrote: Will start this again. When the canon of scripture (Christian and Jewish) were put together they had no original copies. They used copies of copies of copies etc. They had multiple copies of many of the books in the the meetings. Multiple copies of each and no two had the exact same wording. Ie. Dozens of varying copies of Mathew. There are still words in the Bible whose original meaning is long lost. ie. " A virgin will conceive . . . " is incorrectly translated as "a Virgin" should have read " A young maiden. There still are many mistranslated word especially in the KJBV. There are some 25.000 errors in the Christian Bible. (Archaeologist Norm Wagner). Try to read the Bible with Jewish eyes and a great load of common sense. There are of course even forgeries in the Bible. Not all the letters attributed to Paul were not written by Paul do not come from Paul.


The dead sea scrolls were original.

Mickiel;1487131 wrote: The dead sea scrolls were original.
How can you be sure?

FourPart;1487136 wrote: How can you be sure?


25 Fascinating Facts About the Dead Sea Scrolls @ Century One Bookstore

Mickiel;1487272 wrote: 25 Fascinating Facts About the Dead Sea Scrolls @ Century One Bookstore




WE have originals. They just got tampered with.

None are so blind as those who will see and none are so deaf as those will not hear.

The various books we have are copies of copies, of copies. They have been redacted, added to, changed modified etc. No original copies have been found anywhere. They have been sent off to the great shredder in the sky.

Ted;1487573 wrote: The various books we have are copies of copies, of copies. They have been redacted, added to, changed modified etc. No original copies have been found anywhere. They have been sent off to the great shredder in the sky.




After a study, I have found that you are right, we don't have any original copies. I have read the Vatican may have some stored, but I got nothing for sure from that.

According to the scholars there are no extant originals of the Bible. In fact it has been redacted, added to by the church and subtracted from. Words were changed at the whim of the copyists or even the "church" itself. The first five books the pentateuch traditionally written by Moses are not the product of Moses but of dozens of early oral stories past on through the centuries. As for the choice of books they were decided on on the basis of what they thought Jesus had said. and represents his thinking (New Testament". The Greek New Testament presented its own problems. The various writers of the New testament and the copyists did not use any punctuation marks. So the problem still remains without punctuation translation is very difficult.

Ted;1487828 wrote: According to the scholars there are no extant originals of the Bible. In fact it has been redacted, added to by the church and subtracted from. Words were changed at the whim of the copyists or even the "church" itself. The first five books the pentateuch traditionally written by Moses are not the product of Moses but of dozens of early oral stories past on through the centuries. As for the choice of books they were decided on on the basis of what they thought Jesus had said. and represents his thinking (New Testament". The Greek New Testament presented its own problems. The various writers of the New testament and the copyists did not use any punctuation marks. So the problem still remains without punctuation translation is very difficult.




I agree with all of this, except the part about Moses not writing the five books, he did. I was quite surprised that I could not find evidence of an original book existing, and had to admit I was wrong. Anyhow, despite of the obvious tampering and translation errors, I think enough of the bible has remained intact to give its message of the salvation of all.

The Pentateuch was put together from oral traditions during the Babylonian exile. The leadership was afraid of losing their faith stories and traditions and so figured it was time to write them down. Thus 2 creation stories and 2-3 Noah stories.

Ted;1487842 wrote: The Pentateuch was put together from oral traditions during the Babylonian exile. The leadership was afraid of losing their faith stories and traditions and so figured it was time to write them down. Thus 2 creation stories and 2-3 Noah stories.


Look under authorship at this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

Mickiel;1487848 wrote: Look under authorship at this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah
It says:

"The consensus of scholarship is that the stories are taken from four different written sources and that these were brought together over the course of time to form the first five books of the Bible as a composite work. The sources are known as J, the Jahwist source (from the German transliteration of the Hebrew YHWH), E, the Elohist source, P, the priestly source, and D, the Deuteronomist source. ... Thus the Pentateuch (or Torah, as it is known by Jews) comprises material taken from six centuries of human history, which has been put together to give a comprehensive picture of the creation of the world and of God's dealings with his peoples, specifically with the people of Israel."
Four different sources - not written by Moses.

FourPart;1487879 wrote: It says:

Four different sources - not written by Moses.


Authorship[edit]

Main articles: Mosaic authorship and Documentary hypothesis

Jewish tradition as expressed in the commentary of Rashi, Deuteronomy 34:5 states: The Talmud[17] holds that the Torah was written by Moses, with the exception of the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, being written by Joshua describing his death and burial. Alternatively, Rashi quotes from the Talmud that "G-D spoke them, and Moses wrote them with tears.[18][19] The Mishnah[20] includes the divine origin of the Torah as an essential tenet of Judaism. The modern scholarly consensus is that the Torah has multiple authors, and that its composition took place over centuries.[21]



"The consensus of scholarship is that the stories are taken from four different written sources and that these were brought together over the course of time to form the first five books of the Bible as a composite work. The sources are known as J, the Jahwist source (from the German transliteration of the Hebrew YHWH), E, the Elohist source, P, the priestly source, and D, the Deuteronomist source. ... Thus the Pentateuch (or Torah, as it is known by Jews) comprises material taken from six centuries of human history, which has been put together to give a comprehensive picture of the creation of the world and of God's dealings with his peoples, specifically with the people of Israel." (Professor John Riches of the University of Glasgow).[22]



You left this out.

The tradition part refers to blind belief that the claimed authorship is as written - i.e. entirely from the hand of Moses under the exclusive direction of God. However, the more scholarly, realistic point of view is that this is not the case & that it came from 4 different sources. The first is taking things at face value while the second is the result of researched options.

Mickiel. I do not subscribe to the use of Wickipedia. It is an open encyclopedia to which any one can post whether he/she is well educated or not. Individually it has no credibility and little on the whole.. True scholarship is quite clear that Moses did not write the pentateuch in any shape or form. There is also, in a related story about Moses not one shred of evidence for the escape of the Jews from Egypt. NO EVIDENCE. Read as midrash it makes a good story to try to explain the origins of the Hebrew.. Moses may have been a real historical person or he many not.



BTW there are three different authors of Isaiah and not just on. #1 to about Ch 35, #2 to about ch 54, # 3 to the end. It was written over about 200 years. May not be totally accurate in numbers but close. Not going to look it up at the moment.

FourPart;1487885 wrote: The tradition part refers to blind belief that the claimed authorship is as written - i.e. entirely from the hand of Moses under the exclusive direction of God. However, the more scholarly, realistic point of view is that this is not the case & that it came from 4 different sources. The first is taking things at face value while the second is the result of researched options.




Well right now I agree with this view;

Got Bible: Did Moses Write the Pentateuch?

But if I find out its wrong, then I'll change.

Scholars do not believe that Moses wrote any of it. Even the Jews have come to that conclusion.

Ted;1487903 wrote: Scholars do not believe that Moses wrote any of it. Even the Jews have come to that conclusion.




Depends on which scholars you cherry pick : check this out also;



Did Moses Write the FIrst Five Books?

Did Moses Write the Pentateuch?

FourPart;1487913 wrote: Did Moses Write the Pentateuch?




Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch | Theopedia

I do cherry pick from dozens of scholars but I hold there work with great respect. They make sense. We do know where the Pentateuch came from--Babylon.

Ted;1487957 wrote: I do cherry pick from dozens of scholars but I hold there work with great respect. They make sense. We do know where the Pentateuch came from--Babylon.




This is a good article that offers decent support for Moses being the author of the Pentateuch.

https://bible.org/seriespage/introduction-pentateuch

Nothing is allowed to affirm itself is a part of logic. My response is they were wrong or deliberately misleading people. Some come up with an idea and the search for "evidence" and then use it for other purposes. Logically the Bible cannot affirm itself by itself. Other evidence must come from outside the Bible.

Now to the real truth. I'm the return of Elijah because I say so. LOL

Ted;1488476 wrote: Nothing is allowed to affirm itself is a part of logic. My response is they were wrong or deliberately misleading people. Some come up with an idea and the search for "evidence" and then use it for other purposes. Logically the Bible cannot affirm itself by itself. Other evidence must come from outside the Bible.


If nothing can be allowed to affirm itself by itself, then no amount of evidence could help it be itself. You dig!

That means that if I desire to be god then all I have to say is I am God. I'm just affirming myself. Thus I am god.

Namaste

What does the atonement theology say about God. In my view it would appear that God is simply a petulant being who demands a blood sacrifice to assuage his anger. The were refer to "God is love and those that dwell in love dwell in God." (para) like

" Since you didn't do what I said You gonna burn forever. Too bad so sad. The first 4 centuries of Christianity were about following the the "WAY" and not about belief. Now thereare about 44 000 variations on the Christian theme with many of them thinking they have the full and complete handle on God and all the rest are wrong. It becomes a sick joke.

Whenever the subject of Self Affirmation comes up, I can't help but think of Pahu. Constantly quoting repeated passages from the same single source in the vain hope that in some way it will prove itself to be true.

Ted;1488733 wrote: What does the atonement theology say about God. In my view it would appear that God is simply a petulant being who demands a blood sacrifice to assuage his anger. The were refer to "God is love and those that dwell in love dwell in God." (para) like

" Since you didn't do what I said You gonna burn forever. Too bad so sad. The first 4 centuries of Christianity were about following the the "WAY" and not about belief. Now thereare about 44 000 variations on the Christian theme with many of them thinking they have the full and complete handle on God and all the rest are wrong. It becomes a sick joke.


I agree, Christianity has become a joke.

The problem is the fundamentalists changed the real wisdom in the Bible. They bastardized the Christian faith into something it never was. Others have done the same thing. The historical Jesus would be appalled at what people have done with him. There are many Christians trying to return to the faith of Jesus of Nazareth. The church that is closest to the original church is the Greek Orthodox church.

Ted;1489139 wrote: The problem is the fundamentalists changed the real wisdom in the Bible. They bastardized the Christian faith into something it never was. Others have done the same thing. The historical Jesus would be appalled at what people have done with him. There are many Christians trying to return to the faith of Jesus of Nazareth. The church that is closest to the original church is the Greek Orthodox church.


I would say the Universalist church is the closest.

That's how evolution and the selection process works. Things mutate and then are either selected for or not.

The problem of the Church Universal is that there are some 22 000 variations within Christendom. Many of them think they hold the sole and correct truth and all the rest are wrong in many places. Scholars tell us the closest church to that established by the Apostles in the Greek Orthodox church.

Ted;1489295 wrote: The problem of the Church Universal is that there are some 22 000 variations within Christendom. Many of them think they hold the sole and correct truth and all the rest are wrong in many places. Scholars tell us the closest church to that established by the Apostles in the Greek Orthodox church.




I disagree with the scholars; universalism is the closest in my view.

What ever you think is fine with me. I don't agree but that's OK too. BTW just out of curiosity how do you rate yourself against the Scholars?

Ted;1489691 wrote: What ever you think is fine with me. I don't agree but that's OK too. BTW just out of curiosity how do you rate yourself against the Scholars?


I don't rate myself against anyone. I am not a scholar; I am nothing.

I'm just an average guy but I do accept the validity of the scholars work. I'm not trained in the work os scholarship though I've been trained to evaluate research papers.

I am just an average guy, but I have seen scholars totally screw up the true meaning of the bible. Understanding that bible is a spiritual matter, not a scholistic one.

I've seen supposed scholars at loggerheads with each other debating what sections of the Bible mean - and if they can't get a consensus of opinion, how the hell is anyone else expected to makes heads or tales of what is a total hotch potch of folklore, superstition, misinterpretation & deliberate propaganda which has been perpetually corrupted more & more throughout the ages.

FourPart;1489711 wrote: I've seen supposed scholars at loggerheads with each other debating what sections of the Bible mean - and if they can't get a consensus of opinion, how the hell is anyone else expected to makes heads or tales of what is a total hotch potch of folklore, superstition, misinterpretation & deliberate propaganda which has been perpetually corrupted more & more throughout the ages.




That's why understanding the bible is a spiritual thing, no amount of scholarship gives you understanding of it; only a God could help you see through the mess they made of the bible.

That is nonsense. The Bible has to be read with Jewish eyes or you are trying to make it say what is not there.

Ted;1489765 wrote: That is nonsense. The Bible has to be read with Jewish eyes or you are trying to make it say what is not there.


Thank you.

Ted;1489765 wrote: That is nonsense. The Bible has to be read with Jewish eyes or you are trying to make it say what is not there.




What you fail to understand is that the bible was not written for just one particular race, it was written for humanity.

More like inhumanity.

Besides - Religion is not a Race. It was written about the Jewish God. It should, therefore, just as Ted states, be read from the Jewish interpretation. The Christians come up with some sequel about some particular Jew, and claim the original was just the introduction to their version.

The OT was written for the Jewish people. The Pentateuch was the book of the law. It was a legal document.

FourPart;1489789 wrote: More like inhumanity.

Besides - Religion is not a Race. It was written about the Jewish God. It should, therefore, just as Ted states, be read from the Jewish interpretation. The Christians come up with some sequel about some particular Jew, and claim the original was just the introduction to their version.


This knowledge I am about to share with you, may come as a surprise, which may be uncomfortable to the way you are trying to relate; God is not Jewish! God is not a Jew! He is not a respector of persons either! The biblical message is not Jewish, salvation has absolutely nothing to do with Jews. The Kingdom of God has nothing to do with Jews. Or any other race.