# Where did the Bible come from???



## Raewyn (Jun 10, 2006)

Im just asking.  All my family are christians except for me.  I find this forum very interesting.  For me........... seeing is believing and my family have always said to me " one day I will be saved". I cannot see this happening in the near future.  My mother quotes verses out of the bible, things she says helps her.  My question is.......... where did the Bible come from.  (_please excuse my ignorance_)


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 10, 2006)

Barnes and Noble!
Terry


----------



## pstarr (Jun 10, 2006)

Well, it's written by many different people - but I believe that it's the inspired word of God (I know I'm gonna catch a lot of flak for this but WTH)...

     And there's more to it than meets the eye...


----------



## monkey (Jun 10, 2006)

The bible is supose to be account or events that occured.I see many stories & the 12 appostles were all of diferant tribes or speaking touns.Now for 1 man to translate (some words not existing from ours to theres)hence I see it as stories made by some one who wanted money & set up in a way that the book would tell of how tributes or sacrafices or offerings were to be,The Romans did not as a rule speak Hebrew.The greek/Aribic was not of honor to them.They were the slaves.Acounts with some facts & some here say & some questionable leads to Devince & others stating codes.The oldest of bibles I found was 400yrs old all spanish/Now why would Latin be the favord tounge.It was said by occultist to be the tounge of lucifer,Son of the mornig star.I dont claim to know every thing.i do lots of studies on lots of arts ect.Need more Ill tell of solomons keys ect.These seem to be accurate & untained.The bible seems more for entertainment-Not to be taken as guide line.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 10, 2006)

The Bible was originally compiled when reading and writing became sufficiently widespread that the original oral tradition was written down; at that point, the stories in the Tanakh (the first five books of the Bible) became codified, instead of continuing to change as they were passed orally from generation to generation.  As more of the oral history was written down discussions about what should and should not be included occurred; some things were included in some versions and some things were omitted.  As religions grew and evolved, more chapters were added, and some religious splits occurred over the inclusion or exclusion of various items; the best known being when the New Testament was added, marking the split between Judaism and Christianity.  Much of what was omitted from the Old and New Testaments was collected in the Apocrypha; some items were included in some versions of the Bible and excluded from others, adding to the confusion.  

As literacy and the religions using the Bible spread, fewer pieces were added; instead, arguments began to revolve around the translation (often through several languages) and the interpretations of those translations.  This was further complicated by the fact that many of the oldest versions known were written in more than one language, primarily Hebrew, along with some Aramaic for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament.

Whether you believe that the Bible was divinely inspired or not, there is much evidence that the actual writing occurred over 1600 or so years, and involved at least 40 authors.  Given the time span over which many of the events occurred, this is not unreasonable; whether divinely inspired or written as chapters in a history, such events would most reasonably have been passed down orally until such time as writing became widespread, and then would have been written down as soon as possible after the event and/or inspiration, to avoid further contamination by oral transmission.

As far as the physical location, most of the places in the Bible are in the Middle East or the Mediterranean, and the oldest versions of the Old and New Testaments have been traced to the regions in which the historical events recounted in them occurred.

Does this answer the question of where the Bible came from?  It depends on just what you meant when you asked it.  I'm sure that there are people out there who have more in-depth knowledge of the origins of the Bible than I do, and I hope that some of them will post more on this thread; I find it to be quite interesting.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 10, 2006)

To a certain extent it depends on your point of view.  We could discuss the history, archeology ... the individual stories ... the point of each chapter or the point of the whole work.  

There are many competing views as to where the Bible comes from which can become very confusing as every person with an opinon believes theirs is the correct one.

Are you looking for a kind of history lesson or something more esoteric?  Do you need the chronology or are you looking for the 'heart' of the stories?

I look at the Bible as a collection of works describing some of God's interactions with the creation, with the intent of mutual communion ... God to creation and creation to God.


----------



## monkey (Jun 10, 2006)

good post-hence thats why i tend to stay with the keys & texs of Solomon.It is accurate.Not 1 story but-rather eplains how to or why such.realy good points.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 12, 2006)

Raewyn said:
			
		

> My question is.......... where did the Bible come from.



A number of sources. It varies from book to book.

Much of the Old Testament stories are actually reworkings of the myths and folklore of other cultures. It is well-established (by even most mainstream Jewish scholars) that the story of Noah and the Flood comes from the Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh". Likewise, as Joseph Campbell desmonstrated in his publications, the entire creation story from Genesis is simply a patriarchal re-casting of Sumerian mythology (with the familiar images of the primordial couple, the serpent-god, the tree of wisdom, the garden-paradise, and so on). The "twelve tribes" is an astrological motif inspired by the Babylonian zodiac, "Psalms" is an exegesis on Egyptian wisdom literature, and the Davidic/Enochian motifs of the "end of days" and the "messiah" are both derived from Zoroastrianism.

Now, it may be that some of these stories were passed down as "oral tradition" for quite a few centuries. But, if so, either we don't have evidence for it or the stories were in quite a different form that what is currently in the Bible. Prior to the Babylonian Captivity, the Jewish people seem to have been entirely polytheistic (or perhaps henotheistic), with the resulting "One God" being a late composite of numerous pre-existing deities (the most popular perhaps being a local volcano deity named Yahweh) created by the post-Exile priesthood. There also seems to have been no mass "exodus" from Egypt nor does there appear to have ever been a Davidic "empire", which calls the historical provenance of these tales into question.

The dominant explanatory framework for Old Testament scholarship now is what is referred to Documentary Hypothesis, which posits that the Old Testament is derived from four pre-existing sources or traditions: Yawhist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deutoronomist. When the Jewish Bible was actually written down, these four sources were used to create the text we have today (as with the New Testament, there never was a unilinear or monolithic tradition).

As for the New Testament, most scholars date the composition of the four canonical gospels to sometime between 70 and 100 CE. Given the geographical and cultural errors of some of the gospel authors (notably Mark and John), they do not appear to have been authored by natives of Judea. They were most likely written by Hellenized Jews living somewhere in the Roman Empire. And, as I mentioned on another thread, Markan Priority is the dominant form of gospel scholarship currently, with Matthew and Luke (and possibly John) apparently copying from Mark's gospel in the composition of their own (placing Mark at least a decade before the other three). As for Mark itself, the author appears to composed his work from pre-existing sources (mostly Old Testament passages).

As for the Paulines, only seven of the thirteen letters ascribed to "Paul" appear to have actually been written by him. Both textual and statistical analysis have indicated that the remaining six fall into two clusters: the "Pastoral Letters" in one cluster and Hebrews/Ephesians/Colossians in yet another cluster. Interestingly enough, these two clusters appear to gravitate in opposite "directions", the former representing the Orthodox and the latter representing the Gnostic. The authentic Paulines themselves appear to be proto-Gnostic/proto-Orthodox.

The Apostolic Letters (attributed to James, Peter, John, and Jude) are most likely second or third century compositions by the Roman Church. They deal almost entirely in proto-Catholic propaganda and anti-heresy rhetoric. They also don't appear to have been very popular, as even in Eusebius' time (mid-300's) they were highly disputed and controversial texts. As for the Revelation of John, that has been disputed by various elements of Christendom as recently as the tenth century and is still rejected by Syriac Christians today.

The emerging picture from all of this is that, contrary to apologist belief, the Bible was not some magically produced text resulting from "intelligent designs" at different periods in history with a monolithic and unilinear trend. Rather, the Bible as such evolved slowly over time, with various groups and factions competing for attention, and various differing sources used in its composition. In fact, it is precisely because the Bible is a product of such social evolution, that I would argue it actually is a "living document".

Laterz.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Jun 12, 2006)

Personally, I feel the bible was written by man.  It is part historical text, part myth, a lot of metaphor.  I believe it is divinely inspired in the same way that other spiritual and philosophical texts are divinely inspired.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 12, 2006)

OnlyAnEgg said:
			
		

> Personally, I feel the bible was written by man. It is part historical text, part myth, a lot of metaphor. I believe it is divinely inspired in the same way that other spiritual and philosophical texts are divinely inspired.


 
Can't say I disagree with that.

Laterz.


----------



## TonyMac (Jun 13, 2006)

The council of Nicea.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 13, 2006)

Humans.


----------



## Beowulf (Jun 13, 2006)

God using humans


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 13, 2006)

Ok nobody believes me about Barnes and Noble but was there today and they had alot of different ones right down in the religous section!
Terry


----------



## knifeboy (Jun 14, 2006)

God


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

knifeboy said:
			
		

> God


 
Then God must be one exceedingly confused deity, as a number of the historical, geographical, and cultural descriptions found in the Bible are less than factual.

Unless, of course, you mean in some mystical sense where all existence (including the Bible) is a manifestation of Godhead or something. . .

Laterz.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 14, 2006)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> Ok nobody believes me about Barnes and Noble but was there today and they had alot of different ones right down in the religous section!
> Terry


Yes Terry but WHO put those bibles there on those B&N shelves? Aha! 

You say the shelf stackers? Hmmm.. On the order of the boss? On the order of the branch and the company on the mandate of the shareholders? That is a lot of folk.. All divinely inspired? Hardly. All working to an holy plan? Perhaps..

Ahh Terry to discern all this is as complicated as disconnecting the chicken and the egg but I think you are correct when you say that the bible comes from Barnes and Noble or if you had said from the Gideons and their hotel NT mission or from King James' house itself or as the words transcribed by the followers of St Paul or if you had said it was written by come conspiritorial ancient Templars whose clandestine progeny still conspire today.. whatever.. all these people whomever they were or are executed some action to give us a piece of literature that we can read today. It could be argued that all these people only ever worked in their self interest or maybe some were deluded or some others sycophants or others conspirators and manipulators.. and in the same way we could say that the B&N folk only serve the pound shilling and pence (or $).. or alternative to all that for those who believe it could be argued that all these people were and are under a holy conviction or perhaps direction.. yes.. belief is the viewing agent here I think

but in my experience there are folk who are happy to decry the bible having not read one passage with so much as an open mind let alone front to back and yet the same people might exhort to not judge a book by its cover 

Oh and on the subject of bible covers.. always go for the BLUE one.. I would recommend that.. blue ones are always WAY better than black ones.. ooh but if you could get a green one those are better yet and the best read of all 

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## knifeboy (Jun 15, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Then God must be one exceedingly confused deity, as a number of the historical, geographical, and cultural descriptions found in the Bible are less than factual.


 
Such as?  Btw i was only refering to the "first five books of Moses."


----------



## BrandiJo (Jun 15, 2006)

id have to say the bible came from God, he inspired the writters to share their knowladge of events and happenings and laws and what not. ​


----------



## someguy (Jun 15, 2006)

My bible came from a factory... wait thats not the answere I should give.  OK well I guess the bible came from various sources from word of mouth to experiences writen down from events.  If god inspired it?  I'm a firm beliver in destiny so umm sure in a way yeah everthing can be broken down to God's will.  But, that raises a question involving the role of evil.  So for now that is unimportant.  
Did God tell everyone what to write?  I don't really care to venture a guess on that.  God is God.  I am me.  I have guessed at more about God then I should have already.  In the end I really have no clue.

Great way to say nothing ain't it.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Jun 15, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Unless, of course, you mean in some mystical sense where all existence (including the Bible) is a manifestation of Godhead or something. . .


 
heheh...well done


----------



## melj7077 (Jun 17, 2006)

There are plenty of sources as to where the Bible came from.  All you have to do is watch History channel occassionally.  I think what is more to the point is that you are not a believer while your family is.  Don't worry about that.  The bible is a fascinating read if you take it as poetry rather than historical fact.  So is the Koran, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Gnostic Gospels, the Bagdavad Gita (A personal favorite), Plato's Dialogues, and the other great sacred texts of the world.  

The issue is whether you are going to order your life through an outside source or from an internal source.  The great sacred texts can give you clues as can the mythologies of the world.  Get yourself a copy of Bill Moyer's interview with Joseph Campbell.  It'll give you a great primer on Dr. Campbell's thoughts on mythology (myths are not deliberate fabrications).

Don't worry about being "saved".  All gods love the brave and martial artists are the brave.


----------



## burkspatrick (Jul 8, 2006)

Various men inspired by God.  The Old Testement--5 books of Moses,the Histories from Joshua all the way to Eshter, then what's called the next division which in the Bible is called the Psalms which includes Job thru Song of Solomon, then the last division which is called the Prophets.   There's 400 years of silence by any prophet till John the Baptist spoke paving the way for Jesus.  Then you have the New Testament---the four Gospels, Acts-Pauline Epistles--Pastoral Epistles--then you have James, Peter and the John epistles last of all is the Revelation written by the Apostle John on the Isle of Patmos.  All of the New Testament was written within a hundred years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.  The last writer was the Apostle John at about A.D. 96 who wrote the Revelation.
The New Testament was considered complete and canon way before the Council of Nicea.  A good website to look up information is at http://www.biblicalstudies.info there's alot of good and professional information on this site. It also has alot of good and factual information on Biblical Archaeology.  Another good website to look up on Biblical Archaeology, not the Hollywood version that's presented on History Channel, is at http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology most information here is consise and for the regular person in mind.  For more professional infromation on biblical archaeology you can go to http://www.biblicalarchaeolgy.net as well as http://www.bibarch.com
or you could go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page which is on online encyclopedia website and look up information.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 9, 2006)

burkspatrick said:
			
		

> Then you have the New Testament---the four Gospels, Acts-Pauline Epistles--Pastoral Epistles--then you have James, Peter and the John epistles last of all is the Revelation written by the Apostle John on the Isle of Patmos. All of the New Testament was written within a hundred years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The last writer was the Apostle John at about A.D. 96 who wrote the Revelation.



This is incorrect.

The so-called Pastoral Letters date to sometime between 125 to 175 CE, as does the Acts of the Apostles. These texts are the work of 2nd century apologists that are trying to "silence" supposedly heretical and partisan views within the early Christian communities. The typical tactic among early apologists is to co-opt the identity of some early Christian leader (such as Paul) and then write one's text in "his name". It generally worked, as most Christians today still believe the Pastorals were authored by Paul.

Many of the Apostolic Letters were also written after the fact and attempt to paint a revisionist account of the early Chrisitan communities. The letters attributed to Peter, for example, attempt to paint companionship and harmony between Peter and Paul. Yet, in Paul's own accounts in his letters, he does not think very highly of Peter.

As for the Revelation of John, it is generally believed to have originally been a Jewish apocalypse that was co-opted and heavily revised by Christian scribes in the early 2nd century. It was definitely not written by "John".



			
				burkspatrick said:
			
		

> The New Testament was considered complete and canon way before the Council of Nicea.



This is also incorrect.

The Revelation of John was disputed among various groups of Christians (including the Catholic Church) as recently as the 10th century. It was hardly "considered complete and canon". Even the official Church "historian" (re: propagandist) Eusebius, writing in the early 4th century, holds both Revelation and several of the Apostolic Letters to be disputed and spurious works.

The four canonical Gospels were generally accepted, if that's what you mean, as were most of Paul's letters. But the New Testament that we have today did not take its _final_ form until the Middle Ages (at which point reading became outlawed and suddenly all such "scriptural debates" magically stopped).

Laterz.


----------



## Samurai (Jul 18, 2006)

Not sure what sort of history lesson we have here but....

William Tyndale published the first Bible translation from the Greek and Hebrew manuscrupits in 1580 and presented his work to the Council of Worms.  He was later killed as a heretic by the church.  His work included the same 66 books we have today plus 4 "others" that are not even included in the Gnostic Gospels or the Apocropya (sp?)

Later King James of England (a nasty man in his own rights) comissioned the writing of the King James BIble.  This version was completed in 1611.  The original King James Bible inclued the 66 standard books and the apocropya (sp?).  Reprints of other Tyndale and the 1611 version of the King JAmes are availible on Amazon.com.  You can also get modules for a free Bible program called E-Sword (www.e-sword.net) of the Bishops Bible (1580) and the King James (1611 version).  The King James version we have now did not come into fashion until about 1820.


--Jeremy Bays


----------

