It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

True Authorship of The Old Testament?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




The core account is consistent with what we know of the times of Moses.


When was the "time of Moses"? Who was the Pharaoh at the time? Where's the evidence of the exodus of some 600,000 (plus) supposed slaves?




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: chr0naut
Who then, specifically, were those authors and why can it not be the divinely inspired word of God?


Religion can't even answer that question (about who the authors were), so why try and ask a random ATSer?

As for the reason it can't be the divinely inspired word of God...well, that can't be proven that it wasn't, but it can't be proven that it was. But if it was inspired by the Jewish god, then it's the same god as many other religions predating it, because many of the stories are not exactly unique to the stories of YHWH (they are just condensed into a monotheistic approach to the stories). Not to mention the many incorrect things in the bible would imply that it is not an omniscient God, or that it is a very poor judge of scribes, as they must have written things down inaccurately if God really is infallible (but making poor choices of scribes would negate the infallibility, would it not?).


Your suggestion that there are earlier source paradigms from which the Jewish writings arose assumes a few things. The first is that the Jewish accounts are entirely mythical and fictional. The second is that the Hebrew tribes arose from other, earlier societies. The third is that the Hebrew accounts are essentially the same as the other accounts with a few cultural modifications.

If the biblical account starts with the creation, then how could there be any alternate accounts that pre-date it?

The Hebrew accounts include genealogies that go back to creation. How could there be antecedents from other cultures?

Humans, in the Biblical accounts, are entirely human and fallible. There are no supermen, none are born from the moon and shuffle the stars or do other things that humans cannot actually do (unlike the myths of other ancient societies). In the Hebrew accounts, the only ones who do supernatural things are supernatural beings (of which there are only a few in the accounts). None of the characters oscillate (somehow) between humanity and deity. In this regard, the Hebrew accounts are markedly different than their contemporaries.

It could, therefore, be deduced that the Biblical accounts are the source texts from which the myths of other societies were built.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut




The core account is consistent with what we know of the times of Moses.


When was the "time of Moses"? Who was the Pharaoh at the time? Where's the evidence of the exodus of some 600,000 (plus) supposed slaves?



The Egyptians are hardly likely to record the defeat of the great Pharaoh at the hands of unarmed slaves, are they?

And as for archaeological evidence for the passage of 600,000 plus people, that would only happen if they died or left stuff behind, wouldn't it? A contemporary example would be the exodus of 700,000 Palestinians in 1948. We know it happened but it is hardly likely to leave archeological evidence.

Although I don't know the specific Pharaoh, I suspect it was Aakheperenre Thutmose II.

Moses was most likely born in the last decades of the 1500's BC (which is not recorded in the Bible. Different scholars have different dates) and lived for 120 years (His age at death is recorded). This overlaps with the timing of the reign of Thutmose II and the subsequent 40 year sojourn in the desert.


edit on 27/5/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
As an aside, it has been suggested that the name "Hebrew" derives from the Egyptian word "Apiru" which means 'stateless people'.

The "Leiden Papyrus 348" refers to the Apiru dragging stones used for construction.

There is also 18th dynasty wall paintings (Thutmose II was from this dynasty) showing slaves making bricks from clay and straw (eg: in the the tomb of Rekhmire, vizier of Thutmose III). Exactly as described in the Bible.

And there is evidence of Semitic dwellers in Egypt at the time (the ruins of Avaris in the Nile Delta).

There is also archaeological evidence of an influx of Hebrews back into Canaan during the 13th & 14th centuries BC. The Tel El Armana tablets contain letters to Pharaoh Akenaten asking for his help as the land was being overrun by the Apiru.

Later still, Pharaoh Merneptah on his Victory Stele from his tomb in Thebes, mentioned his military triumphs over the "Israelites" in Canaan, so they had become an identifiable nation.

Professor Adam Zertal an archaeologist from Haifa University has also located the tower and compound location of the covenant ceremony mentioned in the book of Joshua, at Mount Ebal near Nablus. He also has discovered several sites in the shape of feet dating from then and described as "the first sites to have been built by the Israelites upon entering Canaan and manifest the biblical notion of claiming ownership of the land by setting feet on it."

Additionally, the name Mose is Egyptian in origin (meaning "he is born"). For example Thut-mose (which means Thut is born) or Ra-messes (Ra is born).


edit on 27/5/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

Yes, I agree for the most part. When I attack the divinely inspired aspect I should clarify that I mean the claim that it is also the inerrant word of god. I have no doubt that at least portions of the Bible and other early Hebrew/Christian texts were "divinely" inspired. I don't attribute that inspiration to a god however.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Thanks. I'll look into some stuff and comment back later.




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I was hoping I was going to get an interesting thread going with people full of new ideas and theories about where the bible comes from. The reality is that most people don't know and don't care, they just follow blindly. I usually stay out of the religious debates and tend to incline more on the economy conspiracies, but it just upsets me that everytime I try to rile friends and family to do things for the better, they tend to have these clutches that have to do with religion, and therefore can't put all their focus into certain tasks, its sad to see their inability to function is due to some angry god who is going to kill them and make them suffer if they do this or that. I originally was going to include the New Testament into this, but found that there is tons of material into who wrote it, that decided to focus on just the Old Testament to even things out. On the OP I said I was going to lay out my theory, but wanted to read other members first, well I think it's about time I explain it, since I see there is good number of internet warriors in here. So here is the bombshell...No,no,no let me re-phrase that: While I was witnessing the sheer beauty of this paradise called earth, I couldn't help, but notice the suffering, misery, hate, carelessness and greed of my fellow men, then the spirit of the Lord took me into a higher state of consciousness, and he said unto me: Son of man, Behold! The history of your holy books is not holy, it's just history entangled in lies used by your leaders to control the people ... I would tell you about the rest of the vision, but I don't wanna be called a prophet, I''ll just get to the meat and potatoes of the knowledge : )

As a previous member stated the OT is the hebrew bible, also known as the Tanakh. Scholars still don't agree as to when it was fixed. I however believe that it was during the grand assembly of 450 B.C. Then it went through another major fix between the 7th and 9th century A.C. During the Charlemagne empire, Then again the most recent one in the year 1611 to the King James Version. The oldest COMPLETE record of it is The leningrad codex from 1008 A.C. and most biblical scholars base their translations from this book. So you see whoever was saying that the history of the OT is intact from the time of Abraham to now was living lala land. Continued on next post....


edit on 27-5-2015 by bartholomeo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   
In 450 B.C. they began to assemble all the scripts they had compiled and decided to make it into a single book. The scripts that they had were history of their ancestors as well as tells of creation such as the sumerian tablets of today.

The language in which these scripts were written we don't know, specially the scripts that were more than a thousand years old in the year 450 B.C. Even the language that they spoke at that assembly is not 100% certain, they began speaking sub-phoenician or paleo hebrew at around the 10th century B.C. and then adopted the aramaic alphabet 500 years later in the 5th century B.C. so in 450 B.C. it would still be a debate of its own, about what language they spoke.

Anyway they had all these tales of creation and Deities that decided to put into one book, now since we don't have a pure direct translation that comes directly from 450 B.C. to 2015 I can only speculate what they decided to put in, and take out from all those original manuscripts. The same goes to Aaron ben Moses ben Asher who made major fixing to the book more than a millenium later, and of course to the 47 scholars who fixed the KJV of the bible in 1604, according to the church of England standards.

However I put my feet on the ground and use reason to make out what they put in there, so I believe they put the history of one of their ancestors abraham, but decided to twist the story a bit, and say that in the very last minute god stopped him from sacrificing his son.

What I believe was in that original text is that Abraham really did sacrifice a son, it could've been the second or first, but he did it, and they took that out. To be fair I believe the so called angels that made Sarai fertile was true story, however I believe they were actual people like you and me, that's another thread though.

As far as the deluge story I believe it also happened, but it didn't involve Noah putting all the animal kingdom into an ark, that would be a man made fantasy added. And also the story may be thousands and thousands of years old.

I could go on and on about each story, and giving you my theory on it, which I was hoping members were going to do here, but my theory relies on reason and putting your feet on the ground and really thinking about what is real, and what's fantasy, as well as to find historical, and archeological evidence that fits the bible.

Oh! and Yawh's name was not Yawh, we do not know what his name was, and we certainly don't know the language that it was written on, and neither the sound that was vocalized, so now we ended up with Yawh, however there is historical evidence that a Deity called Moloch did exist and that one was worshipped amongst Israelites, and other tribes there, and there is historical evidence that suggests that there was indeed child sacrifice and that it was common to do human sacrifices during that period. I believe that part was twisted during the Charlemagne era from the 7th to the 9th century A.C. They decided they could not have a deity that accepted human sacrifice, oh no! that would look bad specially to the roman empire with their merciful Jesus, so yes I believe Moloch is Yawh, and that it just got lost in translation.

So in conclusion I believe the true authorship of the Old Testament belongs to a group of men in 450 B.C. who weren't called jews at that time, Hebrews more likely. Eventhough that assembly had 120 scribes, I believe the fixing was done between 4 and 10 scribes whose names we don't know.


edit on 28-5-2015 by bartholomeo because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2015 by bartholomeo because: I keep saying Yaweh instead of Yahw



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: JUhrman

Yes, I agree for the most part. When I attack the divinely inspired aspect I should clarify that I mean the claim that it is also the inerrant word of god. I have no doubt that at least portions of the Bible and other early Hebrew/Christian texts were "divinely" inspired. I don't attribute that inspiration to a god however.


Who are the people claiming innerrancy of the Bible?



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: bartholomeo


You would look better to do your own research instead of following blindly what others say in here. Once you are done present your research for all to see; and no! the wrath of yaweh is not going to come and destroy you once you do that.

I guess I hit a nerve bart. I am not out to look better but thank you for the advice. As far as research is concerned? Simply look at Wikipedia and get your own free research. Here is an excerpt --

"Legend
These titles refer to a legendary story, according to which seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew into Greek, for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria.[11]

This legend is first found in the pseudepigraphic Letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates,[12] and is repeated, with embellishments, by Philo of Alexandria, Josephus[13][14] and by various later sources, including St. Augustine.[15] A version of the legend is found in the Tractate Megillah of the Babylonian Talmud:"
en.wikipedia.org...

Another very easy portion of research is --

Quote
b Talmud - Mas. Megilah 9a
"And it goes on to state, ‘R. Judah said: When our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll of the Torah’.14 This was on account of the incident related in connection with King Ptolemy,15 as it has been taught: ‘It is related of King Ptolemy that he brought together seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said to him, Translate16 for me the Torah of Moses your master.17 God then prompted each one of them and they all conceived the same idea and wrote for him,"
Unquote

I have many other references but not available to you. Reason is that you only destroy knowledge but do not build on that foundation. Please read the letter of Aristeas which is available on internet.


Thank you for your enlightment as to who translated the hebrew bible to greek. I will bookmark the page for future reference. I however was looking for any ideas or theories as to who was the real author(s) of the OT, Tankah, Hebrew Bible whatever. I hear good things about you by the way : )



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: bartholomeo

Seede is awesome.

Have you heard the phrase "My father was a wandering Aramean"?

Jacob settled in Aram where his wives were from. Leah and Rachel were both Aramean but I am not sure about Bilhah and Zilpah, they might have well been also. Genetically, my haplotype is T2b and the Sephardi mtDNA is T2e and they are called sister haplotypes.

There is no way to know specifically who wrote it as there were many authors of the scrolls. Amos compiled them in Babylon. While it might seem insignificant, the Hebrew language of the Bible is written in such a poetic way, that prophetic messages are shown in the very letters.

As far as Noah, his name simply means "Rest" or "Comfort" and I think what happened was that people began to give proper names, just like Yaweh means "I AM", when God tells Moses to go to Egypt, He tells Moses "I AM that I AM, tell them I AM sent you".

As the proper name of HaShem is forbidden to be spoken, Jews say HaShem, the Name. Even in the Shema, they don't say God, they say "Shema Y'Israel, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad".

Yes, there was a man in a flood, but in Hebrew the name was associated with rest. Even Paul says "ALL scripture is profitable" and he didn't specifically mention which scripture to use, he said ALL. Therefore he must have felt that the prior known Epic of Gilgamesh was also to be used.

And here is another interesting thing, the goddess Nikkal was the "Lady of the Forest" and Nikkal is a root word found in the Song of Solomon, it means blossom in Hebrew. Maybe though you have heard the television show from Japan about the many words in Japanese and Hebrew that are the same?



I was so surprised watching this, it really made me think.

BTW, the Southern kingdom was Judea and that is where the word Jew comes from, the Northern kingdom was still called Israel. Yes, they would have been Hebrews, but the term Jew came after the fall of the kingdoms and the northern tribes were taken away. The northern tribes were scattered, but today, no matter what tribe you are from, you are counted as a Jew.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0nautIt could, therefore, be deduced that the Biblical accounts are the source texts from which the myths of other societies were built.


Timelines for said myths and religions similar to the bible's say otherwise.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: bartholomeo


I however was looking for any ideas or theories as to who was the real author(s) of the OT, Tankah, Hebrew Bible whatever.

Your question of the Tanakh is not an easy one to answer and even if answered is not easily understood. It would take a lifetime of study as a Jew to understand it as a Jew understands it. Actually all of Tanakh is not necessarily of Hebrew descent. The Torah traditions predate the Hebrew cultures of existence by many years.

The Tanakh as we have it today has evolved in distinct stages. Dates do vary for those who are historians and it is for this reason that I have always referenced the Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia for consistency. Not to contend other sources but only to reference the same source at all times. The Torah was not written from its inception but was compiled from various sources of tradition and the sources were at times vague to say the least.

When one opens the Tanakh the very first literature is that of Torah. Tanakh consists of three and four major divisions which are Torah, Nevtim (nine major prophets) and (twelve minor prophets), and the Kethuvim or writings.

Now here is the reason that it becomes so vague as to who wrote the Tanakh. The literature of tradition which was gathered from various sources from creation to Moses is about 2448 accepted years or 1313 BCE. Nothing is written in stone but this is taken from the Jewish Timeline Encyclopedia only for consistency. Moshe is only the author of the book with a number of ghost writers as well as compilers. It was never intended to be argued as to say that the accounts were by one authority or one author. Torah accounts are varied as to source and were compiled into five divisions. As with all literature Torah was tradition before written. What those methods were is highly contested. Some could have been pictorial as well as oral and some could have been writings from various cultures as well as variations of writings from the same cultures. One can get bogged down in any of these categories which are in themselves much study.

There were two Torah’s at one time. One was the written Torah and the other the oral Torah. The oral Torah was in place till the threat of Jewish extermination by Rome in 70 CE. It was then decided to gather the traditions and commit to writing. The most widely accepted oral Torah is that of MeAm Loez which I believe is available from Art Scrolls. You can research this on internet.

From that date of 1313 BCE we then begin our count as to the Hebrew nation. The time span of over 1,000 years is seen as to the rest of Tanakh. The manuscripts were gathered by various tribes and condensed into a book in about 200 BCE to about 200 CE. Those 400 years were the evolution or gathering of the literature which was canonized as the Tanakh. Nothing is written in stone as to exact dates of the closing of Tanakh but is accepted by most as about 200 CE.

Today the Jewish Publication Society has the Tanakh translated directly from available Hebrew manuscripts to English in those three stages which are Torah 1962, Prophets 1978 and the Writings 1982. It is stated that this entire work took most of thirty years to complete. As you can see in this era of computers and libraries that in the eras of those 400 years what a tremendous task was undertaken and the length of time involved.

With all respect to those who disagree, it is my opinion that no one can determine various dates with certainty and that Tanakh evolved through thousands of years of redaction. So to answer your question as to who wrote Tanakh, it is not an easy question and not an easy answer.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: chr0nautIt could, therefore, be deduced that the Biblical accounts are the source texts from which the myths of other societies were built.


Timelines for said myths and religions similar to the bible's say otherwise.


The timelines are misleading. They show the cultures that gave rise to their creation myths but the myths themselves are not necessarily from the same time.

For instance, the earliest archeological evidence of the Sumerian flood myth is preserved in a clay tablet called the Eridu Genesis found at Nippur. It has been dated to approximately 1600 BC, which is makes it contemporaneous with the time of Moses (within 150 -300 years).

Both accounts are contemporaneous and have enough similarity that they are obviously describing some earlier common event/s or account/s.

Moses background and education was Egyptian and therefore he would be unlikely to be modifying a Sumerian account.

In the light of the facts, with the separation of the sources and with the Biblical account being the most rational, most complete and least fantastic of the two, I would assume that the Sumerian one was an oral myth that changed in the multiplicity of retellings and that the Biblical account had documentary support (names, genealogies, places and historically verifiable events).


edit on 28/5/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: chr0nautIt could, therefore, be deduced that the Biblical accounts are the source texts from which the myths of other societies were built.


Timelines for said myths and religions similar to the bible's say otherwise.


I think the very first mistake people make is in the very first chapter of Genesis...

And the first day...and the second day.....

What modern readers think is that word means a 24 hour span, however, that is only one definition from antiquity. The word used in the Hebrew actually means eon.

As the Bible only states right off that the first "day" was really the first eon, people who didn't know that assumed.

Really, what the Bible is actually telling us is that there was a sharp divide in time and civilization pre-flood to post-flood. The years listed for their ages doesn't actually align with chronological time. Allow me to give an example,


Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


What people haven't read is that man was first, then the Garden. Man was formed prior to the Garden. People miss that one. So in the eons of time from the first moment of "let there be light" to forming man, Adam only means man, there were eons.

The word used for day in Berei# (Genesis) is Yom.

Sefer Berei#


5 Vayikra Elokim la-or yom velachoshevh kara lailah vayehi-erev vayehi-voker yom echad.


Yom in Hebrew


Yom (in Hebrew יום) is a Biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament). The Arabic equivalent is "yawm" written as يوم. Although it is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word yom has several literal definitions: [1]
Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
Period of twenty-four hours
General term for time
Point of time
Sunrise to sunset
Sunset to next sunset
A year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)
Time period of unspecified length.
A long, but finite span of time - age - epoch - season


As man lives by time, chronologically it makes sense then to count days as 24 hour time spans for our modern world. But the ancients had so many time frames they understood.

But colloquially we still use the word day for other purposes, like when we say "back in my day", or "back in the day". It simply means a time in the past. And this is most likely what the translators were saying, not that it was 24 hours, but that it was a time in the past. In that day...we also say that.

English is a newer language with so many nuances that if one doesn't understand the nuances, if they take a literal understanding, sometimes they can get the wrong meaning.

Let's roll.

Does that mean that we literally get down on the ground and roll? No, it means to carry out an action now. So I wouldn't take it literal to the point of accusing others of taking it too literal.

The translation of the KJV was in the idiom and nuances of the King's English and many people don't even understand Shakespeare, let alone any old document from that time. And that is why translating the Bible into any language takes years, because one needs to understand the nuances of the original Greek and Hebrew, some Hebrew words could not be translated into Greek so they had to use the closest word they could understand.

Does it mean there may be errors? Certainly. Does that mean we reject it because of errors? No, it means that we take a scholarly approach to find the true meanings of the words.

The errors were not done on purpose and neither were they part of a grand scheme to control people. Even right now, the current translations of the Book of Enoch and the Epic of Gilgamesh are still questionable. Sitchin made many errors in translation of the steles and inscriptions.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: bartholomeo


I however was looking for any ideas or theories as to who was the real author(s) of the OT, Tankah, Hebrew Bible whatever.

Your question of the Tanakh is not an easy one to answer and even if answered is not easily understood. It would take a lifetime of study as a Jew to understand it as a Jew understands it. Actually all of Tanakh is not necessarily of Hebrew descent. The Torah traditions predate the Hebrew cultures of existence by many years.

The Tanakh as we have it today has evolved in distinct stages. Dates do vary for those who are historians and it is for this reason that I have always referenced the Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia for consistency. Not to contend other sources but only to reference the same source at all times. The Torah was not written from its inception but was compiled from various sources of tradition and the sources were at times vague to say the least.

When one opens the Tanakh the very first literature is that of Torah. Tanakh consists of three and four major divisions which are Torah, Nevtim (nine major prophets) and (twelve minor prophets), and the Kethuvim or writings.

Now here is the reason that it becomes so vague as to who wrote the Tanakh. The literature of tradition which was gathered from various sources from creation to Moses is about 2448 accepted years or 1313 BCE. Nothing is written in stone but this is taken from the Jewish Timeline Encyclopedia only for consistency. Moshe is only the author of the book with a number of ghost writers as well as compilers. It was never intended to be argued as to say that the accounts were by one authority or one author. Torah accounts are varied as to source and were compiled into five divisions. As with all literature Torah was tradition before written. What those methods were is highly contested. Some could have been pictorial as well as oral and some could have been writings from various cultures as well as variations of writings from the same cultures. One can get bogged down in any of these categories which are in themselves much study.

There were two Torah’s at one time. One was the written Torah and the other the oral Torah. The oral Torah was in place till the threat of Jewish extermination by Rome in 70 CE. It was then decided to gather the traditions and commit to writing. The most widely accepted oral Torah is that of MeAm Loez which I believe is available from Art Scrolls. You can research this on internet.

From that date of 1313 BCE we then begin our count as to the Hebrew nation. The time span of over 1,000 years is seen as to the rest of Tanakh. The manuscripts were gathered by various tribes and condensed into a book in about 200 BCE to about 200 CE. Those 400 years were the evolution or gathering of the literature which was canonized as the Tanakh. Nothing is written in stone as to exact dates of the closing of Tanakh but is accepted by most as about 200 CE.

Today the Jewish Publication Society has the Tanakh translated directly from available Hebrew manuscripts to English in those three stages which are Torah 1962, Prophets 1978 and the Writings 1982. It is stated that this entire work took most of thirty years to complete. As you can see in this era of computers and libraries that in the eras of those 400 years what a tremendous task was undertaken and the length of time involved.

With all respect to those who disagree, it is my opinion that no one can determine various dates with certainty and that Tanakh evolved through thousands of years of redaction. So to answer your question as to who wrote Tanakh, it is not an easy question and not an easy answer.



Thank you, that was a remarkably clear and concise explanation.

I will, however point out that the Hebrew scribal traditions were established very early on (and in fact procedures are codified in the Torah itself). The writing of the scrolls, the preparation of the vellum and the inks are all described in the Torah which gave the master scrolls a significant lifetime of about 800 years in use. This meant that a single scroll could exist for a significant historical period without the need for constant copying. An example of this documentary historicity is that from the time of Moses to the current day, less than 5 master copies are required.

Each master scroll (temple scroll) became a master copy which could be referred back to to verify the accuracy and quality of subsequent copies.

Many of the annotations were placed in the margins or around the text so that the original was untouched. In fact, whole systems of adding vowel and cantillation points (guides for singing and chanting) were put in place to preserve the original text.

Although we do not know absolutely for sure the authors and annotators, we can be fairly sure that there has been little "messing" with the core texts.

edit on 28/5/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: chr0nautIt could, therefore, be deduced that the Biblical accounts are the source texts from which the myths of other societies were built.


Timelines for said myths and religions similar to the bible's say otherwise.


I think the very first mistake people make is in the very first chapter of Genesis...

And the first day...and the second day.....

What modern readers think is that word means a 24 hour span, however, that is only one definition from antiquity. The word used in the Hebrew actually means eon.

As the Bible only states right off that the first "day" was really the first eon, people who didn't know that assumed.

Really, what the Bible is actually telling us is that there was a sharp divide in time and civilization pre-flood to post-flood. The years listed for their ages doesn't actually align with chronological time. Allow me to give an example,


Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


What people haven't read is that man was first, then the Garden. Man was formed prior to the Garden. People miss that one. So in the eons of time from the first moment of "let there be light" to forming man, Adam only means man, there were eons.

The word used for day in Berei# (Genesis) is Yom.

Sefer Berei#


5 Vayikra Elokim la-or yom velachoshevh kara lailah vayehi-erev vayehi-voker yom echad.


Yom in Hebrew


Yom (in Hebrew יום) is a Biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament). The Arabic equivalent is "yawm" written as يوم. Although it is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word yom has several literal definitions: [1]
Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
Period of twenty-four hours
General term for time
Point of time
Sunrise to sunset
Sunset to next sunset
A year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)
Time period of unspecified length.
A long, but finite span of time - age - epoch - season


As man lives by time, chronologically it makes sense then to count days as 24 hour time spans for our modern world. But the ancients had so many time frames they understood.

But colloquially we still use the word day for other purposes, like when we say "back in my day", or "back in the day". It simply means a time in the past. And this is most likely what the translators were saying, not that it was 24 hours, but that it was a time in the past. In that day...we also say that.

English is a newer language with so many nuances that if one doesn't understand the nuances, if they take a literal understanding, sometimes they can get the wrong meaning.

Let's roll.

Does that mean that we literally get down on the ground and roll? No, it means to carry out an action now. So I wouldn't take it literal to the point of accusing others of taking it too literal.

The translation of the KJV was in the idiom and nuances of the King's English and many people don't even understand Shakespeare, let alone any old document from that time. And that is why translating the Bible into any language takes years, because one needs to understand the nuances of the original Greek and Hebrew, some Hebrew words could not be translated into Greek so they had to use the closest word they could understand.

Does it mean there may be errors? Certainly. Does that mean we reject it because of errors? No, it means that we take a scholarly approach to find the true meanings of the words.

The errors were not done on purpose and neither were they part of a grand scheme to control people. Even right now, the current translations of the Book of Enoch and the Epic of Gilgamesh are still questionable. Sitchin made many errors in translation of the steles and inscriptions.



The fact that the Genesis account says "there was evening and morning, the [first/second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth] day" in our translations, indicates that out translations are probably in error.

Rationally, evening and morning equals a night, not a 24 hour period and definitely not a day.

Also, I would not regard Sitchin's works as having any true academic weight.


edit on 28/5/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




If the biblical account starts with the creation, then how could there be any alternate accounts that pre-date it?




The timelines are misleading. They show the cultures that gave rise to their creation myths but the myths themselves are not necessarily from the same time.


When Abraham entered Egypt, it was an already established Theocracy, complete with their Osiris, Horus, Isis etc. "Risen God" religion already in tact. In addition, Abraham came from UR, where there were animistic cults in place. The Vedas recount cities and rivers that date back to at least 12,000 BC and were gone by the time of the arrival of Abraham on the scene, whose name seems to be derived form ancient Brahmic traditions.



To assert that all myths stem from Hebrew oral traditions is either ignorant or dishonest.


edit on 28-5-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut




If the biblical account starts with the creation, then how could there be any alternate accounts that pre-date it?




The timelines are misleading. They show the cultures that gave rise to their creation myths but the myths themselves are not necessarily from the same time.


When Abraham entered Egypt, it was an already established Theocracy, complete with their Osiris, Horus, Isis etc. "Risen God" religion already in tact. In addition, Abraham came from UR, where there were animistic cults in place. The Vedas recount cities and rivers that date back to at least 12,000 BC and were gone by the time of the arrival of Abraham on the scene, whose name seems to be derived form ancient Brahmic traditions.



To assert that all myths stem from Hebrew oral traditions is either ignorant or dishonest.



I never said that.

Where they didn't, they didn't.

The Torah doesn't include any Egyptian stuff (except that the 10 plagues were a poke at Egyptian gods) which is odd considering where Moses was raised and educated.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




I never said that.


You said this:


If the biblical account starts with the creation, then how could there be any alternate accounts that pre-date it?


The Vedas and the Egyptian Mythology both predate biblical stories, even if they do portend to explain creation. There were others that predate them.


edit on 28-5-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join