A believer who thinks we have been duped.

[SarahM777]

Most of the Deuteronomical and Levitical books were written by King Josiah over a thousand years after what the "traditional"story says it was written.

So think about this...it wasn't until after Solomon's great great great great grandson, where Leviticus and Deuteronomy was written. Most of the Pentateuch wasn't even in existence during King David's reign. The Psalms and Proverbs are much older than the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.

But that leaves out some very major points that the Bible itself states.

First Moses tells them to place the book of the law where? In the ark of the covenent.

Deuteronomy 31:25-27

24 After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end,
25 he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord: 26 "Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. 27 For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the Lord while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die!

Joshua then goes on and refers back to the book of the law.

Joshua 1:8

Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.

Joshua 8:33-35

33 All the Israelites, with their elders, officials and judges, were standing on both sides of the ark of the covenant of the Lord, facing the Levitical priests who carried it. Both the foreigners living among them and the native-born were there. Half of the people stood in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the Lord had formerly commanded when he gave instructions to bless the people of Israel.

34 Afterward, Joshua read all the words of the law—the blessings and the curses—just as it is written in the Book of the Law. 35 There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded that Joshua did not read to the whole assembly of Israel, including the women and children, and the foreigners who lived among them.

Joshua 23:6-7

6 "Be very strong; be careful to obey all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, without turning aside to the right or to the left. 7 Do not associate with these nations that remain among you; do not invoke the names of their gods or swear by them. You must not serve them or bow down to them.

Joshua 24:25-27

25 On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he reaffirmed for them decrees and laws. 26 And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the Lord.

27 "See!" he said to all the people. "This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the Lord has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God."

Joshua is refering to it in the past tense as already written. Joshua himself writes in the book of the law. (That points to that both Moses and Joshua wrote of the book of the law)


When Solomon built the temple what was placed in the Temple?

1 Kings 8:3-4

3 And all the elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the ark.

4 And they brought up the ark of the Lord, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those did the priests and the Levites bring up.

They placed the ark of the covenant in the temple. What was to be placed at the side of the ark? The book of the laws of Moses. Did they need to restate that as it was already stated in Deuteronomy that they were to keep the book of the laws of Moses with it?

2 Kings 14:1-6

Amaziah King of Judah

14 In the second year of Jehoash[a] son of Jehoahaz king of Israel, Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah began to reign. 2 He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother's name was Jehoaddan; she was from Jerusalem. 3 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, but not as his father David had done. In everything he followed the example of his father Joash. 4 The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.

5 After the kingdom was firmly in his grasp, he executed the officials who had murdered his father the king. 6 Yet he did not put the children of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the Lord commanded: "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

Amaziah ruled about 150 years BEFORE Josiah. Again it is written as the laws of Moses were written before Josiah. Again past tense.

Again in Chronicles

2 Chronicles 2:1/8-9
17 And Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his stead, and strengthened himself against Israel.

8 And with them he sent Levites, even Shemaiah, and Nethaniah, and Zebadiah, and Asahel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehonathan, and Adonijah, and Tobijah, and Tobadonijah, Levites; and with them Elishama and Jehoram, priests.

9 And they taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the Lord with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught the people.

Again stated that they HAD the book of the law before Josiah. Jehoshaphat reigned 230 years before Josiah.

Josiah was 8 when he became king,at 16 he began to purge the land of high places,Asherah poles and idols.
It's at 26 when he begins the repair of the temple.

2 Chronicles 34

14 While they were bringing out the money that had been taken into the temple of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the Lord that had been given through Moses. 15 Hilkiah said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord." He gave it to Shaphan.

16 Then Shaphan took the book to the king and reported to him: "Your officials are doing everything that has been committed to them. 17 They have paid out the money that was in the temple of the Lord and have entrusted it to the supervisors and workers." 18 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.

So if they state that it's the Book of the Law of the Lord and it was given to Moses would it make sense that if it was written at the time of Josiah,is it not possible that they would have seen it was written recently? A new scroll doesn't look like an old one.

So what does this mean it means that the Bible reaffirms that the law was written long before Josiah. It puts it into conflict with the notion that it was written at the time of Josiah. So the question remains how did they come up with the Josiah time frame? Is it based on reality or is it based on speculation?

Just because a writer uses a different style does not mean that it's a different writer. Take a writer that writes both tech and novels and the styles will NOT be the same. Two different venues and they are not that compatable with each other. The writer is making different points to two different sets of people but yet one writer. The same with musciains. Take the same group have them write two different styles of music and they may not sound the same. Take the groups Chicago and the Moody Blues. Listen to their earlier music and compare it to their later music and you may not recognize the groups. So what does this mean it means that one person could have written it but in a different style than what the writer first started with.

[Annah]

it's actually been considered common knowledge for about 500 to 700 years that the Pentateuch had been written by different authors.

You have the Jehovah author
The Elohim author
the Priestly texts from another author
and then you have the Deuteronomical text.

This idea was considered blasphemous when it was first introduced because:

1. The idea came from a Jew. Not a good time to be Jewish during this era
2. People were already comfortable with the idea Moses had written everything.

When I read, say Genesis, for example. I see not one, not two, but three different authors in this book. I see it as clearly as a group of authors writing on an existing manuscript..to make editions. There are two different creations stories in the first two chapters of genesis. Even many fundamentalists scholars will say that.

The book of Exodus and Joshua (as well as others) were edited by King Josiah..so of course they will look like one smooth transitional story. Many (including myself) believed Josiah had written the entire book of Deuteronomy. It makes sense during his time and there is nothing out there that would show he did not write it,

Just because these books were written and edited by different people throughout different periods of history does not invalidate the book. To say these books HAS to be written by one author, in my opinion, gives the work a grave injustice.

Also, I don't understand your argument if King Amaziah ruled before King Josiah then King Josiah couldn't have written it. In my opinion, that makes it even more believable that King Josiah written it. People can write about Kings in the past.

[SarahM777]

it's actually been considered common knowledge for about 500 to 700 years that the Pentateuch had been written by different authors.

You have the Jehovah author
The Elohim author
the Priestly texts from another author
and then you have the Deuteronomical text.

This idea was considered blasphemous when it was first introduced because:

1. The idea came from a Jew. Not a good time to be Jewish during this era
2. People were already comfortable with the idea Moses had written everything.

When I read, say Genesis, for example. I see not one, not two, but three different authors in this book. I see it as clearly as a group of authors writing on an existing manuscript..to make editions. There are two different creations stories in the first two chapters of genesis. Even many fundamentalists scholars will say that.

The Bible itself confirms that at least two people wrote the book of the law. It states that both Moses and Joshua wrote in the Book of the law. Just because one "sees" three different authors does not make it so.
Styles can change over time and if they are writing on a different subject matter it can be vastly different. Read an authors very early works and often their last works are not on the same level as the first especially if they have written for 50 years or more. If a person were to be handed these two writings without the author's name would they be able to on the surface say they are the same author "Pet Sematary" and "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption" could you on the surface say it was Stephen King that wrote both?

The book of Exodus and Joshua (as well as others) were edited by King Josiah..so of course they will look like one smooth transitional story. Many (including myself) believed Josiah had written the entire book of Deuteronomy. It makes sense during his time and there is nothing out there that would show he did not write it,

But what proof is there that he did? If it based on it seems that it was written at this time does not make it so. Appearances do not make it fact. What evidence is there that makes it that causes people to think it was first written during Josiah's time?

Also, I don't understand your argument if King Amaziah ruled before King Josiah then King Josiah couldn't have written it. In my opinion, that makes it even more believable that King Josiah written it. People can write about Kings in the past.

To be plain the text says that the book of the law existed before King Josiah.

On Genesis it would not be outside the realm of possibility that it was authored by any or all of the following.
Shem,Abraham,Issac,Jacob or Joseph and then compiled by Moses.Which in that case it is still not wrong to say that Moses wrote it it just that he may not in that case be the original author.

[SarahM777]

This brings us to the question Why is there two different views on when the Pentateuch was written? The first being that Moses wrote the Pentateuch  before 1400 BC and then you have the view that it was written down during King Josiah's time and after. Where did it come from and who first came up with the idea?

First the name of the Theory goes by the name Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis or the JEPD Theory.
First one needs to define a hypothesis and a theory.

Merriam Webster defines each as follows

Hypothesis.

1a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2
: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3
: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

A hypothesis by definition is an assumption to be tested.

Theory

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

A theory by definition is not fact but is to be tested,it uses a hypothesis as the base and then it tests the hypothesis to validate the hypothesis. Neither by definition is FACT until it is verified.

So what is the hypothesis and theory that they are trying to convey? Has it been proven to hold up under scrutiny? If there is no validation of the hypothesis based on facts it is nothing more than a set of arguments for the sake of arguing. Is this the case of dating the writing of the Pentateuch at a much later date? Can it be verified that the writings were written much later? That is the proverbial $64,000 question.
More later.

[peky]

So, it looks like Nicole99 was not duped by G-d but by people and books who claim to know what G-d said or wants from humans.

It seems from the above discussion, and from what you can observe in other religious forums, that the smart shopper ought to pick and choose what suits her/him life style and belief; or better yet, clear your mind and initiate your own conversation with G-d, why to use second hand sources when you can get directly from the "word" ?

[Cindi Jones]

Yup, Peky. I think you've pretty much presented the best approach. We believe what our parents teach us and many of us (in a general sense), rarely challenge those beliefs. Over generations, these beliefs change significantly with the flow of civilization. Who governs, who's making a power play, who writes a cool book (like Dante), all move religious beliefs in major ways. Just look at the current election process in the USA, and you will see religion challenged and altered in the perception of the public eye. Yes, it changes.

So, we've got this book that's been around a very long time. Everyone's had their fingers in it. Shoot, just look at any modern translation and compare it to the King James and you'll see minor changes to move popular belief a bit. Just think how major those changes could have been if the public didn't read.

Inconsistency is religion's biggest flaw. It reins everywhere and can challenge even the greatest believers. So what do they do? They ignore it, usually to favor the current regime in power. Religion is nearly always involved in politics. It always has been.  That way you can ignore the real problems and lead people by their faith.

My solution is to pull the good you can from what you study and try to live a good life. The concept of sin is foreign to me. For sin relegates righteous decision making to dust bins and boxes. Guilt is the proverbial nose ring, so get rid of it.  Goodness can not be measured as sin can. Rather, it is a great influence of the true power of faith... that to enrich other lives as well as your own.

[SarahM777]

My solution is to pull the good you can from what you study and try to live a good life. The concept of sin is foreign to me. For sin relegates righteous decision making to dust bins and boxes. Guilt is the proverbial nose ring, so get rid of it.  Goodness can not be measured as sin can. Rather, it is a great influence of the true power of faith... that to enrich other lives as well as your own.

Cindy,

Just a quick question. I can see a bit of a problem and also a solution to it. To often those of us who are Christian will throw out terms like sin, propitiation,sanctification,etc etc as if most Christians and nonbelievers know what we are talking about. We might as well be speaking a dead language or gibberish as far as they are concerned. My question is can a list of terms and definitions be tacked to the top so that those who are reading these threads can at least have a basic idea of what we are referring to when we use the insider terms? I do apologize for my oversight because it is far to easy to use terms that I understand but others may and I do forget that many do not understand.

[peky]

Yup, Peky. I think you've pretty much presented the best approach. We believe what our parents teach us and many of us (in a general sense), rarely challenge those beliefs. Over generations, these beliefs change significantly with the flow of civilization. Who governs, who's making a power play, who writes a cool book (like Dante), all move religious beliefs in major ways. Just look at the current election process in the USA, and you will see religion challenged and altered in the perception of the public eye. Yes, it changes.

So, we've got this book that's been around a very long time. Everyone's had their fingers in it. Shoot, just look at any modern translation and compare it to the King James and you'll see minor changes to move popular belief a bit. Just think how major those changes could have been if the public didn't read.

Inconsistency is religion's biggest flaw. It reins everywhere and can challenge even the greatest believers. So what do they do? They ignore it, usually to favor the current regime in power. Religion is nearly always involved in politics. It always has been.  That way you can ignore the real problems and lead people by their faith.

My solution is to pull the good you can from what you study and try to live a good life. The concept of sin is foreign to me. For sin relegates righteous decision making to dust bins and boxes. Guilt is the proverbial nose ring, so get rid of it.  Goodness can not be measured as sin can. Rather, it is a great influence of the true power of faith... that to enrich other lives as well as your own.

Thanks Cindi, much better said!!

[peky]

clear your mind and initiate your own conversation with G-d, why to use second hand sources when you can get directly from the "word" ?

I guess probably this ^^ makes me the antichrist, putting the preachers out of bossiness, sacre blue!!!



PS note that this is my post number 666 OMG

[SarahM777]

So what is the JEDP Theory?

Basically they "see" four different authors. It was broken down by certain words that were used and the type of books.

First you have the "Jahwist" who used the name Jehovah
The second is the the Elohist who used the name Elohim
The third is the Deuteronomist
The fourth is the Priestly code

So how did they figure this out and come up with this idea?

One way they broke it down was that  in some cases the Pentateuch was a law book,an instruction manual for the priests. That's have they came up with the D and P.
The other was that they took the Pentateuch and "underlined" the times when Jehovah was used and when Elohim was used,and separated them by the usage of those two names and that's how they came up with the J and E.

Somewhere along the line they have what they call the redactor. What the redactor was said to have done was to takes all the writings and combine them and edit them into one sets of books.

''J was hypothesized to live about 900–850 BC in the Southern Kingdom of Judah during the divided Kingdom. Collecting myths and legends of the Ancient Near East (i.e. Creation, Flood, Babel), J wrote most of Genesis. This source is characterized by: it's attention on man and earth, God as YHWH who interacts with man, emphasis on Judah, emphasis on Israel's leaders, and use of the term Sinai.

E was hypothesized to live about 750–700 BC in Israel's Northern Kingdom. This hypothetical source used the generic term for God Elohim until Exodus 3-6; E wrote some of Genesis and most of Exodus and Numbers. This source is characterized by: God as Elohim, emphasis on Northern Israel, and use of Horeb for Sinai.

D was hypothesized to have written most of Deuteronomy around 650-625 BC. It was speculated that this was the book found by King Josiah in the Temple in Jerusalem in 621 BC (2 Kings 22:. This source is characterized by: God as Elohim (until Exodus 3), emphasis on Judah, a cultic approach to God, and presence of genealogies and lists.

P was hypothesized to be a priest(s) who lived during the Babylonian Exile. This source provided chronology, genealogy, the book of Leviticus, and the code for priesthood and worship. This source is characterized by: emphasis on the Temple and obedience to the law.


Wellhausen hypothesized that the sources were joined in the following manner:

1. J was written around 900–850 BC by an unknown person for unknown reasons.

2. E was written around 750–700 BC by an unknown person for unknown reasons.

3. At some unknown time, an anonymous editor edits and combines J and E and attends to discrepancies and introduces doublets.

4. D was written around 650-625 BC by an unknown person for unknown reasons.

5. At some unknown time, an anonymous editor edits and combines D with JE and adds new material.

6. P was written around 525-425 BC by an unknown person for unknown reasons.

7. At some unknown time, an anonymous editor edits and combines P with JED and adds some new material to harmonize the document. "

Above in quotes thanks to anyomous

As this is stated as a hypothesis,is there any truth to it and can it be proven?

[justmeinoz]

I attended a Uniting Church service today, as they are the most accepting of the major denominations here.  As I have said the jury is out on the question of God, so I thought it might be an interesting experience. 
I know one thing, I won't be back to the cathedral, because the pews were built for midget convicts in the 1800's. My back was in agony. 
The issue of marriage equality was raised during a sermon on generosity of spirit, which was encouraging.  Maybe I will try another church where I can actually sit through an entire service.

Karen.

[Annah]

or better yet, clear your mind and initiate your own conversation with G-d, why to use second hand sources when you can get directly from the "word" ?

That's a good concept but being a pastor is so much more than reading a Bible. Even with just reading from the word of God...you can put 40 people in separate rooms. Have them read the Bible and I pretty much guarantee you that no one will have the same ideas of what the scriptures means.  Heck, Pastors and scholars cannot even do that.

But back to my main point. If someone wants to be a Pastor and they think it's just about reading the Bible or teaching others how to read it, then they fail before they even start.

Being a Pastor also means counseling (of all forms), funerals, bereavements, a source of comfort at a hospital or hospice, a big brother or a big sister to a child who has no one else to turn to, a confidant, a source of social justice, a source of relief for those who need food, shelter, clothing, etc. Just today, we stopped the start of service because a man from Romania walked into our church in desperate need of resources. If we ignored him and continued with church then we would have lost the meaning of "church."

Now, unfortunately, you have pastors (in every religion) who fails miserably. But you also have a lot of really good ones.

[SarahM777]

Being a Pastor also means counseling (of all forms), funerals, bereavements, a source of comfort at a hospital or hospice, a big brother or a big sister to a child who has no one else to turn to, a confidant, a source of social justice, a source of relief for those who need food, shelter, clothing, etc. Just today, we stopped the start of service because a man from Romania walked into our church in desperate need of resources. If we ignored him and continued with church then we would have lost the meaning of "church."

Now, unfortunately, you have pastors (in every religion) who fails miserably. But you also have a lot of really good ones.

But is the pastor suppose to be doing all of that or is that suppose to be the responsibility of the elders and the members of the church? The legal requirements have to be because they are defined by the law of the land. I think the members expect way to much of their pastors.

[SarahM777]

Yup, Peky. I think you've pretty much presented the best approach. We believe what our parents teach us and many of us (in a general sense), rarely challenge those beliefs. Over generations, these beliefs change significantly with the flow of civilization. Who governs, who's making a power play, who writes a cool book (like Dante), all move religious beliefs in major ways. Just look at the current election process in the USA, and you will see religion challenged and altered in the perception of the public eye. Yes, it changes.

So many people base it on assumptions. But you know what they say when you assume to much,it makes an ass out of you and me. Just because mom and dad say it,because a guy in a white robe says it,some guy in a fancy suit says something that I like,just because a teacher or professor says it.
Faith is to be tested. It must be to be able to with stand the scrutiny. It can only be refined in the testing. Being an honest skeptic is not a bad thing. The thing is if the foundation is rock solid nothing will break it. If the foundation is faulty it will crumble. It's at the heart and soul of it.

Most people want predigested thoughts and they will never take it any further than that until something shakes their foundation. Maybe just maybe,growing up in the family I did wasn't the worst thing in the world,I had to learn the hard way that relatives,preachers,teachers and others don't always have it right. They to often pass down what they have been taught without checking the sources as best as can be. I learned to be a skeptic. If they say something test it,try it,refine it where need be,throw out those things that I got wrong and reject those things they got wrong. Lather,rinse and repeat as often as need be.

So, we've got this book that's been around a very long time. Everyone's had their fingers in it. Shoot, just look at any modern translation and compare it to the King James and you'll see minor changes to move popular belief a bit. Just think how major those changes could have been if the public didn't read.

Go back a bit farther and the public wasn't even allowed to read it. It was in Latin which only the priests were allowed to read.

Inconsistency is religion's biggest flaw. It reins everywhere and can challenge even the greatest believers. So what do they do? They ignore it, usually to favor the current regime in power. Religion is nearly always involved in politics. It always has been.  That way you can ignore the real problems and lead people by their faith.

Bingo. Most people are afraid to stand up within the churches. It's much easier to go with the flow than to take a stand to speak out about the fact that to often those within the church are no different then those outside. To do so is not a good place to be. The "church" does not take to kindly to it. Those who do speak out put their very lives at stake. Those who are in power do not in anyway shape or form,do not want to lose that power,influence, or money. Those who do so are a threat to that system. They will see the threat as a virus that either needs to be removed or eliminated. That is a very scary place to be.

When people who call themselves "Christian" and are suppose to act differently then those outside,(which is suppose to be the proof that they are Christians) act no different then those who are not,is it any wonder that people see it as a fraud,a bunch of control freaks,greedy and corrupt? Which is far to common and it shouldn't be that way.

Should that be any surprise? It's really no different than when Jesus walked the earth. The harshest statements that He made were to the religous leaders of His day. He said the same things that need to be said today. He called them white washed sepluchers full of dead men bones. So what was He telling them? You prettied up the outside but inside your dead,rotten,and corrupt. You put on airs to make it look like you have it altogether,but it means nothing because it's dead,there is no life to it.

I really wish that those of us as Christians would get this through our heads.This is written to Christians and not unbelievers,and it right after the part that a lot of Christian's use to bash us. It's a very,very stern warning.

Romans 2:1-6

You, therefore, have no excuse,you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

[peky]

That's a good concept but being a pastor is so much more than reading a Bible. Even with just reading from the word of God...you can put 40 people in separate rooms. Have them read the Bible and I pretty much guarantee you that no one will have the same ideas of what the scriptures means.  Heck, Pastors and scholars cannot even do that.

But back to my main point. If someone wants to be a Pastor and they think it's just about reading the Bible or teaching others how to read it, then they fail before they even start.

Being a Pastor also means counseling (of all forms), funerals, bereavements, a source of comfort at a hospital or hospice, a big brother or a big sister to a child who has no one else to turn to, a confidant, a source of social justice, a source of relief for those who need food, shelter, clothing, etc. Just today, we stopped the start of service because a man from Romania walked into our church in desperate need of resources. If we ignored him and continued with church then we would have lost the meaning of "church."

Now, unfortunately, you have pastors (in every religion) who fails miserably. But you also have a lot of really good ones.

I am sorry as was using the "Word" as "G-d" not as the bible. So my revised version would be: "clear your mind and initiate your own conversation with G-d, why to use second hand sources when you can get directly to G-d ?


I do recognize the charitable and educational work of some religious organization, it is just that more often than not such a good work is attached to a cultural genocide or religious conversions requirements.

I also agree that preachers, rabbis, and imans, do plays roles as unlicensed (most of them) psychologiest and social workers for the followers, some good does come from it.