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.

 

How was the Bible written?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Since this is my first thread, I hope people would tread softly on me. I also want you to excuse any grammatical error or spelling as english is not my native language. Recently it occurred to me that people have written extensively about the bible withoput taking a close look of how it was written and by whom.

If we start with Noah, we see that God allegedly spoke to him to build an ark. But there was no third party to corroborate this. Similarly we have the story where Lot was made drunk by his daughters to sleep with them since no man was around. Or the the story of Noah's son who laughed at his nakedness and got cursed by Noah. Another is when Moses was said to go up to the mountain to receive the 10 commandments.

Almost all the stories in the bible followed the same partern. Now how can these stories always add up without any missing link when there were no other witnessses? Which secretaries were taking down notes? I brought up this topic to a pastor friend but he quickly dismissed it.

Another thing is that people are always quick to say the bible was written through inspiration, whatever this means. Why do we eliminate the possibility that the bible was written by people or forces that have always controlled the world? This theory resonates with me in the sense that alot of bible prophecies are fulfilling. That means the people who makes these things happen are the offspring of the original writers and are right on top of global power hierachy.

Some could ask, but what of other religious books. This brings up then the issue that the faction that wrote the bible is more powerful. The bible is the only book that stood out among the many others.

Could the mods please move the topic to Religious Conspiracies.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by pro-all]




posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   


It was Written by Jesus.

Everybody knows that!



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by pro-all
 


I imagine the bible was written one word at a time... Isn’t that how any book is written? Not sure if the used number 2 pencil or blue or black ink though.

Hey In all seriousness though, Did anyone but me notice that on Day 6 god Created man. Then on Day 7 he watched Football.. But then he created Adam and Eve.????? So he created man, watched football (rested) then created Adam and Eve. Isn’t that weird?

Also anyone else catch this God said let us Replenish the Earth????WTF??? Was there something here first before Man is that why he replenished the Earth?


[edit on 16-8-2010 by poedxsoldiervet]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   
While your question bothered me at first, I slowly reread what you had to say.

Who cares who wrote the bible. Of course there were no witnesses to many of the times that God spoke to humans.

The bible is a collection of stories, some stolen from even earlier times, and other little myths, all wrapped up to deliver a certain message.

Now, the bible does have some interesting stories to relate, to help us find our own path to live by.

Here at ATS i think that the members are getting out of hand with some of their comments of hatred towards Religions and writings.. Everything must be taken with a grain of salt.

The Bible CANNOT be taken literally. And there lies the problem that most have with religion and the bible. Everyone takes it literally and forget that it is just a book!



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
According to Kabbalah, the first five books of the Bible (The Torah) were not talking about ANYTHING in the physical world. Only those given specific instruction will understand the TRUE meaning of what they are reading in the Bible.

Kabbalah was kept hidden for over 2000 years and has been passed down secretly generation by generation. The majority of the world took the teaching in the Bible literally and that is why we have this sense of confusion regarding our spirituality.

The Bible was written by those who had direct connection with the divine.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
According to Kabbalah, the first five books of the Bible (The Torah) were not talking about ANYTHING in the physical world. Only those given specific instruction will understand the TRUE meaning of what they are reading in the Bible.

Kabbalah was kept hidden for over 2000 years and has been passed down secretly generation by generation. The majority of the world took the teaching in the Bible literally and that is why we have this sense of confusion regarding our spirituality.

The Bible was written by those who had direct connection with the divine.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by pro-all
 

The Bible grew.
It was an accumulation of writings.
First there was a lot of oral tradtion, and oral tradition was very important in ancient times.
Then the stories were gradually written down and collected.
As for the first "writing" prophets, like Amos and Hosea, their prophecies were probably written down because nobody was listening to them at the time.
It was a growth process, and the result is that you've got an overall history of a relationship.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Thanks everyone for your responses. I pareticularly want to address the reply pertaining to the bible being handed down through oral tradition, this is entirely a different kettle of fish. It used to be that God inspired the prophets to write the bible. Now if at first it was oral, how did the prophets relay the message to the people? I can understand that a people might have an oral tradtion that speaks of say how their ancestor built a boat to take everybody to survive a flood but an account containing several thousand paragraphs and words, please give me a break.

Like in Africa, we have accounts in moonlight tales how man came to have a hollow on his back. It was said that a spirit was pursuing someone. Just as when the person was about to enter the house, the spirit scratched his back. But the man escaped with a depression along his spine. I also know of a story by the Yoruba in which their own account of creation is that man came from a hole in the ground. These are accounts which one can givein afew minutes.

No doubt some tribes have oral tradtions concerning their past but this was in the custody of a select few. It is difficult for me to accept that God inspired a prophet to memorize the account of Noak getting drunk and one of his sons laughing at him. Ask yourself, for what purpose. It smells more like furthering an agenda of trying to rationalize the curse of Ham which subsequently was meant to explain the backwardness of blacks.

How was the law applied when there was no bible? Since not everyone was in a position to recount what was given to the prophets, then it means those in the know were summoned to crack their brain to reveal relevant parts. Look from all angles, this clearly lies outside the realm of reason.

Even after the socalled oral tradition was written down, how many people had access to it? Like someone mentioned, the bible is a collection of books which has nothing to do with the divine.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pro-all
 


The Bible was written in hebrew aramaic and greek one word at a time.I hope i have answered your question.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by I Want To Believe
reply to post by pro-all
 


The Bible was written in hebrew aramaic and greek one word at a time.I hope i have answered your question.


Not quite. Now tell me something, was the bible dictated and written down in hebrew, aramic and greek or first orally given and written down much later? I dont even understand that part of the bible being written in greek. Something doesnt add up for me for the original writers preferring to write in another language. If you cling to the fact that the bible was written down in those three languages, then oral tradition doesnt exist for you. In which case Moses must have gone up the mountain with a pot of ink and feather to put down the ten commandments and his conversion with God..



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by pro-all
 


You asked the question''how was the Bible written'' and i answered you to the best of my knowledge.I will again answer your questions to the best of my knowledge. The OT was written in hebrew aramaic and syriac.Moses was well versed in many languages being taught by the egyptians in the courts of pharoh.The NT was written in greek.Although there are some theologians that believe that the NT was originally written in aramaic and only then translated and written in greek.Most scholars believe they were written around 40 to 50 years after the death of Christ.There is currently a debate about all of that.The first five books of the Bible were written by Moses.Most theologians speculate they were written around 2000 to 3000 years before the birth of Christ.They are called the Torah or Pentateuch.The common belief of most theologians is that Moses recalled from his memory those events that took place throughout his life and only then wrote them out on paper.Since Scripture doesnt tell us whether or not Moses walked around with ink and parchment recording the events as they happened that conclusion is still uncertain.Most theologians believe that since Moses wasnt alive at the beginning of the world Genisis was most likely a oral story told by the Israelites that Moses put on paper.There is also the possibility that God himself told Moses of what transpired in the beginning and Moses simply wrote it down.Other theologians believe that Moses transcibed the story of Genisis from the book of Adam and Eve or the book of Seth or perhaps the book of Enoch or Abraham.There are many books with stories that predate Moses.God himself wrote the Ten Commandments with his own finger but then Moses got angry at the Israelites and smashed them.God then made Moses write the Ten Commandments with his own hand.It is believed though that Moses did take ink and parchment up to mt sinai with him to record on paper the laws and commandments of God since commiting all of that to memory would have been very difficult.But who knows scripture doesnt really say whether he did or not.I hope i have answered your questions.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Well, that's a big topic.

You might be better off reading a good introduction to the subject, rather than relying on the local pastor, who doesn't seem interested in talking about it anyway.

I haven't read it, but Karen Armstrong's book is probably pretty good (The Bible: A Biography). She knows what she's talking about, does her homework, and writes good prose. Both Testaments are discussed in her book, along with some interpretations.

Hope that helps.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by I Want To Believe
 


I want to thank you immensely for your efforts but did you notice that most of the things you stated are based on speculation? Why I picked on this topic is that most people are want to swallow everything without raising an eyebrow.

They say ignorance is bliss. How can one believe that a man like Moses wrote five books of the bible correct to the tiniest details from memory? Your statement that he was versed in several languages is new to me. I dont understand the need of the ancient Egyptians for several languages.

I think its high time we scrutnize all what we have read and been told. What is the likelihood that God wrote the ten commandments with his fingers? To me that doesnt pass the intelligence test. If he did, he could as well have written the whole bible.

If we must believe without questioning, what of tribes that have similar commandments without ever seeing the books of Moses? We have such rules against adultery, stealing, false witness, killing and our ancenstors have never heard of the hebrew God. The point I'm trying to make is that at the end of the day, the authorship of the bible would ever remain a speculation. I have already stated my own view.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
The "Bible" is a COLLECTION of books....written by different authors and from their points of view (i.e. Job, Matthew, John, etc.). As for the less historic parts of the Bible, (such as early man, creation, etc.), it's largely a collection of oral-tradition parables and stories to teach moral lessons. Because of the different authors, there are often discrepancies, but there is also a lot of actual history within the pages also, as many archeologists are discovering.

The Council of Nicea is responsible for the modern Bible, where religious leaders convened to decide which books are in, and which aren't, for being part of the "official" Bible. The books that didn't make the cut, are collectively known as the Apocrypha, and often do not support the idea of Jesus as the divine son of God, etc. (and since this was the chosen direction, these books were out). Some of the left out books are even just very similar to existing ones, so were left out to avoid being redundant (although still a lot of that in the Bible)... Then of course, there is the King James version, that had further edits made by the English translation.

The idea of the bible coming from "inspiration" is simply the premise that God dictated the ideas to the various apostles, etc. who then wrote the words for man. That of course, is a matter of faith, but that is the claim at least.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by pro-all
 


Yes i did notice that most of what i stated was based on speculation.Since i dont posses a Delorean time machine all i can really give you is the speculation of theologians and scholars.I dont believe everything i read nor do i absolutely trust the learned opinions of others.When i read something whether it be in the Bible or in Times magizine or even on ATS i will research it out before completely accepting it as the God honest truth.Everything you and i believe is based on the opinions and experiences of others whether it be historians or scientists or yes even men of God.What we call facts and truth is really just the view points, opinions and experiences of other men.We all know that men are fallible.By this deduction we can assume that recorded history is in itself fallible since it is written by the hand of men.If you really truly seek the answers to your questions perhaps you should seek God for yourself find him and ask him.In ancient times Egypt was a metropolis and a empire.Many people from many nations and walks of life lived there not solely egyptians.In order to maintain trade and commerce with other nations the ancient egyptians had to first learn to communicate with them.According to ancient manuscripts the egyptians were well versed in many forms of communication both written and spoken.All i can really tell you is what i have read and understood.I dont understand everything and i too have many questions but i still choose to believe that the Bible is true and accurate.I dont have any concrete definitive irrefutable evidence that it is true and accurate but that is what faith is i suppose.Its believing in something even though you dont have the proof to support it.I will continue to look for that proof though.I encourage you to keep seeking the answers to your questions perhaps one day we will both find the answers we seek.I hope i have helped.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
The "Bible" is a COLLECTION of books....written by different authors and from their points of view (i.e. Job, Matthew, John, etc.). As for the less historic parts of the Bible, (such as early man, creation, etc.), it's largely a collection of oral-tradition parables and stories to teach moral lessons. Because of the different authors, there are often discrepancies, but there is also a lot of actual history within the pages also, as many archeologists are discovering.

The Council of Nicea is responsible for the modern Bible, where religious leaders convened to decide which books are in, and which aren't, for being part of the "official" Bible. The books that didn't make the cut, are collectively known as the Apocrypha, and often do not support the idea of Jesus as the divine son of God, etc. (and since this was the chosen direction, these books were out). Some of the left out books are even just very similar to existing ones, so were left out to avoid being redundant (although still a lot of that in the Bible)... Then of course, there is the King James version, that had further edits made by the English translation.

The idea of the bible coming from "inspiration" is simply the premise that God dictated the ideas to the various apostles, etc. who then wrote the words for man. That of course, is a matter of faith, but that is the claim at least.


Sorry, just as I was about to post a reply yesterday, I lost my internet connection. I am very happy the way you answered because it has given me a new angle to this issue. In the first place I'd like to ask of all the thousands of manuscripts before the council of Nicea decided to write the bible, how many laymen could lay their hands on them?

This brings up a secondary question of why this council decided at all to put them in a book form. The concensus among many conspirationists is that the bible or religion was invented solely for control purposes and I want to believe that the CoN was something of an elite base. What I want to know is: why publish a bible with some anti establishment verses, why not continue to keep the masses ignorant?

What I just learnt from your post is that we must-question everything, even the fact that coN published the bible. One thing though, I believe, is that man for whatever purpose wrote a book and called it the "holy bible".



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I think there may be a bit of confusion about the canonising of the Bible and the Council of Nicea.
An actual published Bible, as in a single compiled book, did not happen until close to a thousand years later and was a joint project involving all the scribal academics of the world.
At the center of the controversy that precipitated the first council was Athanasius who was a bishop of the Alexandria area. He did create a list of books to be considered as authoritative for use in readings in the churches under his jurisdiction. Other than that, I find no correlation between the C of N and the creation of a Bible.
There were probably as many copies of the New Testament letters as there were people competent to study and understand and teach them. Such a teacher was Arius who was a great scholar who had his name besmirched by the C of Nicea by not conforming to what I would equate as the new pantheon, the Trinity. Not that Arius was not a highly praised defender of the Trinity before it was attempted to be codified in a not so biblical way by Athanasius.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pro-all


No doubt some tribes have oral tradtions concerning their past but this was in the custody of a select few. It is difficult for me to accept that God inspired a prophet to memorize the account of Noak getting drunk and one of his sons laughing at him. Ask yourself, for what purpose. It smells more like furthering an agenda of trying to rationalize the curse of Ham which subsequently was meant to explain the backwardness of blacks.

The Noah story was borrowed from already existing Sumerian tales. The great bulk of the Old Testament was written during the so-called "Babylonian captivity" mixing Canaanite tribal stories with materials found in the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian libraries.

The Noah story of the curse was invented for the specific purpose of excluding the indigenous and the previous immigrant peoples of various ethnic groups from participation in the new city state of Jews only under the patronage of the Persian empire. (Ezra and Nehemiah)

The practice of common people having bound copies of the "holy scriptures" is very modern. These writings were always in the custody of a professional priesthood. Only portions were read aloud to the people, at times deemed suitable to the priests.



why publish a bible with some anti establishment verses, why not continue to keep the masses ignorant?


The cat got out of the bag with the Greek translation from the Hebrew and Aramaic with the Septuagint 3rd Century BCE, completed by 132 BCE. Since the Septuagint was not as holy, it could be produced on common papers instead of ritually pure animal skins, much faster, greater proliferation. Any Greek reader then had access. The priests lost control of the books. The OT was largely canonized by AD200, it was a bit late to keep some secret and keep some public.

The CoN was tasked with defining for the Roman empire what was and what wasn't Christianity. The masses weren't invited, just the experts from various schools of thought. Some elevated and some suppressed. The empire didn't have the say in what books were "sacred" except through leaving the disposal of certain writings to the Orthodox consensus.

The process of clergy regaining control over thought and belief then required a strong empire approved central authority which "interpreted" for the masses what they should believe.



[edit on 18-8-2010 by pthena]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   
I want to thank you the last two posters for your insight. The information you threw out there is simply confounding. I think the truth of religion could be unravelled if people are prepared to be a bit openminded. What is a human that accepts things without questioning?

When I looked around, I only see people who are ignorant and have been brainwashed to discard anything not official. This is exactly the case with the bible. People think it was written, binded with gold reel and sent down from heaven with Fedex.

A lot of eyes would be opened when people get to understand how the bible was written and people and agenda behind it. We were told the bible was inspired but not about the people who gathered and published the thousands of manuscripts in a single book.

These people that met and picked which books to include, were they also inspired by God? And since they were obviously the ruling elite and we know the elite do not always have the best of interests for the common man, is it not wise to conclude the bible may have been written with a sinister motive?

For pthena, I love that part of your name being an exiled shaman, something very akin to me. Recently I have been looking at Shamanism. I was surprised that shamanism as described on many sites is very close to what our ancestors practiced in Africa. The methods may vary, but the aim is always the same. Last week, I bought myself a drum to try to see if I could reactive the shaman in me. But after all the years of religious corruption, this is not an easy task for me.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pro-all


These people that met and picked which books to include, were they also inspired by God? And since they were obviously the ruling elite and we know the elite do not always have the best of interests for the common man, is it not wise to conclude the bible may have been written with a sinister motive?

Not even all the collecting and editing happened at the same time by the same people or for the same purpose. The work as a whole is a mixed bag of resources. As such, since it is universally available, different people use it for different purposes, just like any other resource, some build a house, some build a bulldozer to bring down a house, some make a cooking fire, some burn down fields.


For pthena, I love that part of your name being an exiled shaman, something very akin to me. Recently I have been looking at Shamanism. I was surprised that shamanism as described on many sites is very close to what our ancestors practiced in Africa. The methods may vary, but the aim is always the same. Last week, I bought myself a drum to try to see if I could reactive the shaman in me. But after all the years of religious corruption, this is not an easy task for me.

Shaman is only a job description, "restore balance in time of unbalance, sometimes wrestling the gods themselves in the process," When I discovered that schools of shamanism don't appreciate people calling themselves shaman without passing their courses I decided to add exiled. I have since realized that the exile is actually true on very many levels.

Many people are separated from their roots in many ways, some which cannot ever be restored. Therefore, it becomes all the more important that we accept each other in what ever lost condition we may find ourselves and each other. The organized and regimented religions and ideologies form walls that seperate.

I downloaded an mp3 with a drum beat. There are some resources freely given out there.

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join