I'm just wondering if anyone on here knows a reliable source, archeological or otherwise, that explains the making of the Bible. How many people were involved in it's writing, over how many years?
You need to clarify. By reliable, what do you mean? Well respected, accurate? What do you consider to be a reliable source? It's well established that the locations mentioned in the Bible actually exist, or existed, but is that what you consider an archeological source?
Also, are you referring to the entire 'Protestant - Christian' Bible, or just one of the Testaments. The Jewish Bible only includes the Torah and the writings of the prophets. The 'Catholic' Bible includes the apochrypha.
The 26 books of the New Testament were written by Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and an unknown author (Hebrews). Paul wrote most of these.
The Old Testament was written by Moses, and then largely by the namesake author (ie Jeremiah wrote the book of Jeremiah). These are mostly the prophets.
It is largely accepted that the New Testament was written over about a short period, beginning with Luke, and probably the last to be written being Revelation. It's probably that Revelation was written before 70 AD since it doesn't mention that destruction of the temple, which would certainly have been important to a Jewish writer at that time.
The writings of Josephus (non-biblical) provide a great historical reference which largely support the historical veracity of the Bible.
Find yourself a jesuit and a rabbi, they'll teach you the text better than anyone else. Don't waste your time with the numerous flavors of born again religion, they're hit and miss at best.
I knew people who took "Bible History" types of courses in college that covered exactly that topic. I'm don't know off hand what book(s) they used, but there must be plenty at the usual online bookstores.
<strong>It's well established that the locations mentioned in the Bible actually exist, or existed, but is that what you consider an archeological source?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have read many wonderful books that are loosely based on history. The major events are close to historical fact but the main characters are complete fiction.
<strong>You need to clarify. By reliable, what do you mean? Well respected, accurate? What do you consider to be a reliable source? It's well established that the locations mentioned in the Bible actually exist, or existed, but is that what you consider an archeological source?
Also, are you referring to the entire 'Protestant - Christian' Bible, or just one of the Testaments. The Jewish Bible only includes the Torah and the writings of the prophets. The 'Catholic' Bible includes the apochrypha.
The 26 books of the New Testament were written by Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and an unknown author (Hebrews). Paul wrote most of these.
The Old Testament was written by Moses, and then largely by the namesake author (ie Jeremiah wrote the book of Jeremiah). These are mostly the prophets.
It is largely accepted that the New Testament was written over about a short period, beginning with Luke, and probably the last to be written being Revelation. It's probably that Revelation was written before 70 AD since it doesn't mention that destruction of the temple, which would certainly have been important to a Jewish writer at that time.
The writings of Josephus (non-biblical) provide a great historical reference which largely support the historical veracity of the Bible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't want 45 different opinions, not knowing if any of them are accurate. That's what I mean by a reliable source. I want to hear it from some of the people who translated the Bible, if possible. That information must be on record somewhere.
I've never read the Bible, because I am not a "religeous" person, by nature. I have crossed religeous paths though, through researching other area's, and I have my own thoughts on all of it. But to help me form better opinions for myself, I'm at a point in my life where I want to both research the accuracy and history of the Bible, as well as read it. In full if possible.
OBJRA10, could you recommend me some versions of the Bible to read. I'm interested in both the Old Testament & New Testament, and everything in between, but I don't read Latin and I'd like it in as plain of English as possible. I am not familiar with all the different versions and chapters. Also, if you happen to know of any books or information on the people who translated the Bible, that would be very helpful.
I have read many wonderful books that are loosely based on history. The major events are close to historical fact but the main characters are complete fiction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I once thought as you do. It was a while ago, probably early high school, but I understand somewhat where you are coming from, although I don't know your knowledge or history in the subject.
The truth surrounding whether certain places mentioned in the Bible actually exist, is uncontested by me. I also believe many of the characters in the Bible did actually live and in cases "teach" their knowledge to the masses. That is also not something I question. What I question is the truthfulness of the stories themselves, having been written by men & women of faith, and having been written at a time when sophistication was extremely lacking.
Religion was WELL established long before Jesus was born, and it is well known that when people cannot explain something rationally, they generally will assume it to be a matter of faith, or a "miracle". As people's opinions grow, and stories are spread, it is human fallacy to exaggerate events to make them sound more appealing. Humans also tend to interject their own idea's of what is true and false, from their standpoint of what makes sense, and what is possible when speaking about "God".
Now, we could all debate the veracity of whether "God" exists until we're blue in the face, but that comes down to personal opinion.
My views up until this point in my life, have been that "God" does exist, but no religion on this planet can fully explain "Gods" intentions because God is the ultimate "Alien". Don't take this out of context, just understand what I mean by it. We are talking about the creator of everything that exists in the Universe, and the Universe itself. We are talking about a being thats conciousness spans all of space and time, at once. We are talking about a being that controls all of LIFE and DEATH for its own purposes, but doesn't share the details surrounding both, for whatever reason. We are talking about a force so great, NOTHING compares to it. If God is NOT alien to the human race, I don't know what is.
And yet, religion claims to know all about God, even though many religions on the planet are warring against each other.
I personally think God has absolutely nothing to do with life on this little planet. "Gods Will" is a fairy tale made up so the things that hurt the most, and the things that can't be explained rationally, CAN BE EXPLAINED. I believe many truly religious people are actually very weak minded and use religion solely for control purposes.
I believe God gave every being in the Universe free-will so they could accomplish what they need to, to survive and live free, and to make their own decisions as individuals. We humans have taken that free-will and put control parameters on it, slapped a price tag on it, and are destroying everything around us out of sheer greed and stupidity.
I believe however, God has complete control over death, and this is yet another area humans have no clue about, although luckily, that is changing slowly.
So, I guess I have opened this up to debate, but these are of course, only MY opinions, based on what I have witnessed and learned in my life thus far.
<strong>It's well established that the locations mentioned in the Bible actually exist, or existed, but is that what you consider an archeological source?</strong><hr></blockquote>That's a pretty bold statement. Do you mean every place mentioned in the Bible has been verified? Of course not. Where is the Garden of Eden, for example? Or Mount Sinai? I'm sure there are theories about these places, but the exact location has certainly not been "well-established."
First of all, that was a nice attempt at spin, but next time you are curious as to what I meant by something, don't attempt to twist it to mean what you want it to mean so you can shoot it down. Did I anywhere state that archeologists had absolutely identified every location mentioned in the Bible? No, I said that it is well established that they existed.
LUCY
A Couple good books on the matter. Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ" is an apologetic of sorts that details many interviews that he had with leading scholars about questions of the Bible and of the Christian faith. At the time of these interviews, Strobel was an atheist working as a legal reporter for the Chicago Tribune.
Another good resource is "Christianity 101" by Dr. Gilbert Bilzekian. It also takes a question and answer approach to documenting the imperical evidence for the Bible.
Hope these help. I'll look for more for you tonight!
First of all, that was a nice attempt at spin, but next time you are curious as to what I meant by something, don't attempt to twist it to mean what you want it to mean so you can shoot it down. Did I anywhere state that archeologists had absolutely identified every location mentioned in the Bible? No, I said that it is well established that they existed.
LUCY
A Couple good books on the matter. Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ" is an apologetic of sorts that details many interviews that he had with leading scholars about questions of the Bible and of the Christian faith. At the time of these interviews, Strobel was an atheist working as a legal reporter for the Chicago Tribune.
Another good resource is "Christianity 101" by Dr. Gilbert Bilzekian. It also takes a question and answer approach to documenting the imperical evidence for the Bible.
Hope these help. I'll look for more for you tonight!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Infidel. Everyone knows Cronus at his children. Anything newer than that is bunk.
First of all, that was a nice attempt at spin, but next time you are curious as to what I meant by something, don't attempt to twist it to mean what you want it to mean so you can shoot it down. Did I anywhere state that archeologists had absolutely identified every location mentioned in the Bible? No, I said that it is well established that they existed.
</strong><hr></blockquote>How can it be established that they existed if the locations haven't been identified? What you said is this: [quote]It's well established that the locations mentioned in the Bible actually exist, or existed, but is that what you consider an archeological source?<hr></blockquote>
That statement is false. There are certainly theories about the locations of various places mentioned in the Bible, but "established?" Nope. Again, take the two I mentioned - the Garden of Eden and Mount Sinai (I could come with lots more like that if you want). Has it been established that these places existed? Do neutral people who don't believe in the religious basis of the Bible accept their historical accuracy?
[quote] Has it been established that these places existed? Do neutral people who don't believe in the religious basis of the Bible accept their historical accuracy?
IP: Logged <hr></blockquote>
Yes, and that's exactly the point. Take Josephus for example. There is a huge amount of extraneous verification for these locations. That's the whole point. Simply because they haven't been located doesn't mean that sources believe they existed. That's the entire point.
Again you're putting spin on what I say. I guess you have no desire to actually have a conversation, but rather simply twist what I say to fit your ignorance.
<strong>Yes, and that's exactly the point. Take Josephus for example. There is a huge amount of extraneous verification for these locations. That's the whole point. Simply because they haven't been located doesn't mean that sources believe they existed. That's the entire point.</strong><hr></blockquote>"Yes," it has been verified that The Garden of Eden and Mount Sinai existed? I noticed that in order to answer "yes" you intentionally left the referent of "these places" out of your quote of my post. Pretty dishonest. Perhaps dishonesty has just become habit to you, so you don't even think about it when you do it?
Flavius Josephus is a bad example to use for "extraneous" verification (the word you're looking for is 'external,' not 'extraneous,' but in the case of Josephus, you may have inadvertently chosen the more appropriate term). I'll let you discover why, unless you politely ask me to explain it to you.
Because I'm in a good mood and feeling generous right now, I'll give you another chance: What historians have verified the existence of my two examples, The Garden of Eden and Mount Sinai? If you'd prefer to grant me those two, I'd be happy to move on to others for you to work on.
could you recommend me some versions of the Bible to read. I'm interested in both the Old Testament & New Testament, and everything in between, but I don't read Latin and I'd like it in as plain of English as possible. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The New Living Translation is a great one to read.
Josephus was cited above as a "good example" for proving Biblical truth, however, it is not wise to bring up Josephus or his works. When one compares the standard modern Western version to more ancient Greek and Arabic versions, the former dating before the rise of Christianity, we see that Josephus has been "Christianized" in effect, altered to become propaganda for the religion. Anticipating that Fellowship will take this an assault against his faith and demand proof, I?ll make a preemptive strike and provide examples. The Arabic-language example comes from Kitab al-Unwan which is a history of the world from its inception (according to the Muslim tradition) until 924 CE. It was compiled by Agapius, a tenth century Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis, in Phyrgia, in Asia Minor. The modern version has added passages including ?if indeed one ought to call him a man" and ?he was the Messiah.? A sentence in modern version reads ?"He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive,? however, in the Arabic version this is introduced by ?"They reported that he had appeared?? The following link contains two versions of a passage from Josephus side by side so as to compare. It also discusses the mentioning of Jesus in non-Christian sources.
In regards to Mount Sinai, it is thought to be either one of two mountains in the Sinai peninsula. It is probably impossible to determine which of the two is the place where Moses was thought to receive the 10 Commandments. As to the Garden of Eden, I?m sure the authors had some place in mind when they were writing about it, however, the story is more important as an allegory than anything else, much like most of the Tanakh. This is why we will never find Noah?s ark, it does not exist. There is history, too, of course. But much of it is more like a ?non-fiction novel? as Capote termed In Cold Blood.
As far as which translation is the best, is probably advisable to select a Jewish translation when reading the Hebrew Bible. Jewish versions are usually numbered slightly differently and, more importantly, have key translation differences. They strike me as more objective unlike Christian translations which seem to go out of their way to fit Jesus into various places. Mine comes from Artscroll, you can find their selection of single-volume Tanakhs here:
Comments
Also, are you referring to the entire 'Protestant - Christian' Bible, or just one of the Testaments. The Jewish Bible only includes the Torah and the writings of the prophets. The 'Catholic' Bible includes the apochrypha.
The 26 books of the New Testament were written by Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and an unknown author (Hebrews). Paul wrote most of these.
The Old Testament was written by Moses, and then largely by the namesake author (ie Jeremiah wrote the book of Jeremiah). These are mostly the prophets.
It is largely accepted that the New Testament was written over about a short period, beginning with Luke, and probably the last to be written being Revelation. It's probably that Revelation was written before 70 AD since it doesn't mention that destruction of the temple, which would certainly have been important to a Jewish writer at that time.
The writings of Josephus (non-biblical) provide a great historical reference which largely support the historical veracity of the Bible.
<strong>It's well established that the locations mentioned in the Bible actually exist, or existed, but is that what you consider an archeological source?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have read many wonderful books that are loosely based on history. The major events are close to historical fact but the main characters are complete fiction.
<strong>You need to clarify. By reliable, what do you mean? Well respected, accurate? What do you consider to be a reliable source? It's well established that the locations mentioned in the Bible actually exist, or existed, but is that what you consider an archeological source?
Also, are you referring to the entire 'Protestant - Christian' Bible, or just one of the Testaments. The Jewish Bible only includes the Torah and the writings of the prophets. The 'Catholic' Bible includes the apochrypha.
The 26 books of the New Testament were written by Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and an unknown author (Hebrews). Paul wrote most of these.
The Old Testament was written by Moses, and then largely by the namesake author (ie Jeremiah wrote the book of Jeremiah). These are mostly the prophets.
It is largely accepted that the New Testament was written over about a short period, beginning with Luke, and probably the last to be written being Revelation. It's probably that Revelation was written before 70 AD since it doesn't mention that destruction of the temple, which would certainly have been important to a Jewish writer at that time.
The writings of Josephus (non-biblical) provide a great historical reference which largely support the historical veracity of the Bible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't want 45 different opinions, not knowing if any of them are accurate. That's what I mean by a reliable source. I want to hear it from some of the people who translated the Bible, if possible. That information must be on record somewhere.
I've never read the Bible, because I am not a "religeous" person, by nature. I have crossed religeous paths though, through researching other area's, and I have my own thoughts on all of it. But to help me form better opinions for myself, I'm at a point in my life where I want to both research the accuracy and history of the Bible, as well as read it. In full if possible.
OBJRA10, could you recommend me some versions of the Bible to read. I'm interested in both the Old Testament & New Testament, and everything in between, but I don't read Latin and I'd like it in as plain of English as possible. I am not familiar with all the different versions and chapters. Also, if you happen to know of any books or information on the people who translated the Bible, that would be very helpful.
Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks.
<strong>
I have read many wonderful books that are loosely based on history. The major events are close to historical fact but the main characters are complete fiction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I once thought as you do. It was a while ago, probably early high school, but I understand somewhat where you are coming from, although I don't know your knowledge or history in the subject.
The truth surrounding whether certain places mentioned in the Bible actually exist, is uncontested by me. I also believe many of the characters in the Bible did actually live and in cases "teach" their knowledge to the masses. That is also not something I question. What I question is the truthfulness of the stories themselves, having been written by men & women of faith, and having been written at a time when sophistication was extremely lacking.
Religion was WELL established long before Jesus was born, and it is well known that when people cannot explain something rationally, they generally will assume it to be a matter of faith, or a "miracle". As people's opinions grow, and stories are spread, it is human fallacy to exaggerate events to make them sound more appealing. Humans also tend to interject their own idea's of what is true and false, from their standpoint of what makes sense, and what is possible when speaking about "God".
Now, we could all debate the veracity of whether "God" exists until we're blue in the face, but that comes down to personal opinion.
My views up until this point in my life, have been that "God" does exist, but no religion on this planet can fully explain "Gods" intentions because God is the ultimate "Alien". Don't take this out of context, just understand what I mean by it. We are talking about the creator of everything that exists in the Universe, and the Universe itself. We are talking about a being thats conciousness spans all of space and time, at once. We are talking about a being that controls all of LIFE and DEATH for its own purposes, but doesn't share the details surrounding both, for whatever reason. We are talking about a force so great, NOTHING compares to it. If God is NOT alien to the human race, I don't know what is.
And yet, religion claims to know all about God, even though many religions on the planet are warring against each other.
I personally think God has absolutely nothing to do with life on this little planet. "Gods Will" is a fairy tale made up so the things that hurt the most, and the things that can't be explained rationally, CAN BE EXPLAINED. I believe many truly religious people are actually very weak minded and use religion solely for control purposes.
I believe God gave every being in the Universe free-will so they could accomplish what they need to, to survive and live free, and to make their own decisions as individuals. We humans have taken that free-will and put control parameters on it, slapped a price tag on it, and are destroying everything around us out of sheer greed and stupidity.
I believe however, God has complete control over death, and this is yet another area humans have no clue about, although luckily, that is changing slowly.
So, I guess I have opened this up to debate, but these are of course, only MY opinions, based on what I have witnessed and learned in my life thus far.
<strong>It's well established that the locations mentioned in the Bible actually exist, or existed, but is that what you consider an archeological source?</strong><hr></blockquote>That's a pretty bold statement. Do you mean every place mentioned in the Bible has been verified? Of course not. Where is the Garden of Eden, for example? Or Mount Sinai? I'm sure there are theories about these places, but the exact location has certainly not been "well-established."
First of all, that was a nice attempt at spin, but next time you are curious as to what I meant by something, don't attempt to twist it to mean what you want it to mean so you can shoot it down. Did I anywhere state that archeologists had absolutely identified every location mentioned in the Bible? No, I said that it is well established that they existed.
LUCY
A Couple good books on the matter. Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ" is an apologetic of sorts that details many interviews that he had with leading scholars about questions of the Bible and of the Christian faith. At the time of these interviews, Strobel was an atheist working as a legal reporter for the Chicago Tribune.
Another good resource is "Christianity 101" by Dr. Gilbert Bilzekian. It also takes a question and answer approach to documenting the imperical evidence for the Bible.
Hope these help. I'll look for more for you tonight!
Thanks for the suggestions and the help, I'll look into those immediately.
<strong>BRussell,
First of all, that was a nice attempt at spin, but next time you are curious as to what I meant by something, don't attempt to twist it to mean what you want it to mean so you can shoot it down. Did I anywhere state that archeologists had absolutely identified every location mentioned in the Bible? No, I said that it is well established that they existed.
LUCY
A Couple good books on the matter. Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ" is an apologetic of sorts that details many interviews that he had with leading scholars about questions of the Bible and of the Christian faith. At the time of these interviews, Strobel was an atheist working as a legal reporter for the Chicago Tribune.
Another good resource is "Christianity 101" by Dr. Gilbert Bilzekian. It also takes a question and answer approach to documenting the imperical evidence for the Bible.
Hope these help. I'll look for more for you tonight!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Infidel. Everyone knows Cronus at his children. Anything newer than that is bunk.
<strong>BRussell,
First of all, that was a nice attempt at spin, but next time you are curious as to what I meant by something, don't attempt to twist it to mean what you want it to mean so you can shoot it down. Did I anywhere state that archeologists had absolutely identified every location mentioned in the Bible? No, I said that it is well established that they existed.
</strong><hr></blockquote>How can it be established that they existed if the locations haven't been identified? What you said is this: [quote]It's well established that the locations mentioned in the Bible actually exist, or existed, but is that what you consider an archeological source?<hr></blockquote>
That statement is false. There are certainly theories about the locations of various places mentioned in the Bible, but "established?" Nope. Again, take the two I mentioned - the Garden of Eden and Mount Sinai (I could come with lots more like that if you want). Has it been established that these places existed? Do neutral people who don't believe in the religious basis of the Bible accept their historical accuracy?
IP: Logged <hr></blockquote>
Yes, and that's exactly the point. Take Josephus for example. There is a huge amount of extraneous verification for these locations. That's the whole point. Simply because they haven't been located doesn't mean that sources believe they existed. That's the entire point.
Again you're putting spin on what I say. I guess you have no desire to actually have a conversation, but rather simply twist what I say to fit your ignorance.
<strong>Yes, and that's exactly the point. Take Josephus for example. There is a huge amount of extraneous verification for these locations. That's the whole point. Simply because they haven't been located doesn't mean that sources believe they existed. That's the entire point.</strong><hr></blockquote>"Yes," it has been verified that The Garden of Eden and Mount Sinai existed? I noticed that in order to answer "yes" you intentionally left the referent of "these places" out of your quote of my post. Pretty dishonest. Perhaps dishonesty has just become habit to you, so you don't even think about it when you do it?
Flavius Josephus is a bad example to use for "extraneous" verification (the word you're looking for is 'external,' not 'extraneous,' but in the case of Josephus, you may have inadvertently chosen the more appropriate term). I'll let you discover why, unless you politely ask me to explain it to you.
Because I'm in a good mood and feeling generous right now, I'll give you another chance: What historians have verified the existence of my two examples, The Garden of Eden and Mount Sinai? If you'd prefer to grant me those two, I'd be happy to move on to others for you to work on.
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
edit: nm, looks like it might be in <a href="http://www.baseinstitute.org/Sinai_1.html"; target="_blank">Saudi Arabia</a>
i have no idea if this is legit, just the first google hit.
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
<strong>
could you recommend me some versions of the Bible to read. I'm interested in both the Old Testament & New Testament, and everything in between, but I don't read Latin and I'd like it in as plain of English as possible. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The New Living Translation is a great one to read.
Fellowship
<a href="http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/jesus.html"; target="_blank">http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/jesus.html</A>;
In regards to Mount Sinai, it is thought to be either one of two mountains in the Sinai peninsula. It is probably impossible to determine which of the two is the place where Moses was thought to receive the 10 Commandments. As to the Garden of Eden, I?m sure the authors had some place in mind when they were writing about it, however, the story is more important as an allegory than anything else, much like most of the Tanakh. This is why we will never find Noah?s ark, it does not exist. There is history, too, of course. But much of it is more like a ?non-fiction novel? as Capote termed In Cold Blood.
As far as which translation is the best, is probably advisable to select a Jewish translation when reading the Hebrew Bible. Jewish versions are usually numbered slightly differently and, more importantly, have key translation differences. They strike me as more objective unlike Christian translations which seem to go out of their way to fit Jesus into various places. Mine comes from Artscroll, you can find their selection of single-volume Tanakhs here:
<a href="http://www.artscroll.com/Categories/bsv.html"; target="_blank">http://www.artscroll.com/Categories/bsv.html</A>;