-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hebrew the original language?
- Thread starter Helen
- Start date
Wisdom Seeker
New Member
Not to take this discussion off the subject too much. But isn't Acts commonly thought to be the oldest book written in the Bible? Even predating the writing of Genesis and Job? ( I'm speaking of when it was written, not the period it is written about of course.)Originally posted by Helen:
Job is the oldest complete book in the Bible. It is only predated by Genesis 1-11.
Helen, I am glad to see that you do in fact believe Moses wrote at least 4 of the 5. Here is the grind: The law is always spoken of as a unit. Moses was understood to be the author by the Jews. When Jesus mentioned the writings of Moses, they would not have thought that he meant all except Genesis.Originally posted by Helen:
We know that Moses wrote four books. In those four books are many references to the Redeemer. I am curious about where you find that material from Genesis is credited to Moses' authorship?
Wisdomseeker, perhaps I am just misunderstanding your post, but do you think ACTS was written prior to the O.T. Books?Originally posted by WisdomSeeker:
Not to take this discussion off the subject too much. But isn't Acts commonly thought to be the oldest book written in the Bible? Even predating the writing of Genesis and Job? ( I'm speaking of when it was written, not the period it is written about of course.)
Gunther, the Law is spoken of as the Law of Moses, and yet we all know it is God's Law and came through Moses. And that wasn't even original at that time! Murder had already been prohibited, the Sabbath already known, idolatry punished, etc. etc. Nevertheless, even though the Law wasn't new with Moses and did not originate FROM him, it is known as the Law of Moses, right?
This is the same idea as the book of Genesis being included in the books of Moses -- it came to us through him, not from him.
This is the same idea as the book of Genesis being included in the books of Moses -- it came to us through him, not from him.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
Just a question:
How could a person be an eyewitness of Genesis 1?
How could a person be an eyewitness of Genesis 1?
ScottEmerson
Active Member
The Greek "gramma" (writings) does not imply authorship, merely that he wrote it down. Someone who copied would have written "gramma"'s as well as someone who originally wrote them himself. Even the result of plagarism would be "gramma." This passage doesn't really help either side's case.Originally posted by Gunther:
Helen, in about 20 seconds, I found the following:
John 5:46-47
"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
But if you do not believe his WRITINGS, how will you believe My words?"
NASB, emphasis mine
There is a huge difference between editing work, and being credited with being the actual writer. Notice how everything in the N.T. points to Mosaic authorship and divine inspiration and Scripture is SILENT on this revised document hypothesis?
Helen, you do not know that. You are making quite the assumption saying that Moses was not the author.Originally posted by Helen:
This is the same idea as the book of Genesis being included in the books of Moses -- it came to us through him, not from him.
As I have pointed out, Jesus spoke of the WRITINGS of Moses.
You would have to prove that Jesus was not talking about Genesis (which is impossible), that the Jews of the 1st Century would have thought otherwise (which is impossible), and provide Scriptural support for the document theory.
I don't think that any of those things can be done. I appears that your argument is based upon more of a linguistics approach.
Btw, a person did not have to be an eyewitness to write Genesis. Part of the truth of inspiration is that it is directly from God. That is the only thing that must be there. Being an eyewitness does not guarantee truth.
Also, Moses very well could have understood alot more that I think the article gives credit for. He was raised in all the wisdom of Pharoah. I would say that his library was among the world's best.
These are just some thoughts from my side.
Have a nice day.
Not to take this discussion off the subject too much. But isn't Acts commonly thought to be the oldest book written in the Bible? Even predating the writing of Genesis and Job? ( I'm speaking of when it was written, not the period it is written about of course.) </font>[/QUOTE]No, the canon of scripture for the old testament was closed 200 years before Christ. The books of the OT are far, far older than the first century NT texts.Originally posted by WisdomSeeker:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:
Job is the oldest complete book in the Bible. It is only predated by Genesis 1-11.
Thank you,
Ron
timothy 1769
New Member
excellent point.Originally posted by Ben W:
Not True,
After the people began to build the tower of Babel, God confounded all of their languages. Hence nobody spoke the original language or could remember it.
orthodox jews do believe hebrew was the original language.
of course they also believe the exact words of the torah pre-existed creation in firey letters, people used to die when they sneezed, and god made the first set of tongs - so take it for what it's worth.
Actually, it was closed 400 years prior to Christ.Originally posted by Ron Grove:
No, the canon of scripture for the old testament was closed 200 years before Christ. The books of the OT are far, far older than the first century NT texts.
I am just guessing that you are speaking of Daniel being written in the second century BC, etc. Keep in mind that Christ said that Daniel was in fact the author of the book by the same name.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
Technically, the canon was not closed until the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD. Personally, though, I believe that Ezra was the one who compiled the books together to make what we would consider the Old Testament. I think that Josephus, the great Jewish historian, said that somewhere.Originally posted by Gunther:
[/QB]
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
My name is Mike Gascoigne and I am the author of the article on which this topic is based. It's good to see that it has caused so much discussion on this forum. This is just one of a series of articles, listed on the following page:
www.write-on.co.uk/history/index.htm
Some of these articles are about secular histories that affirm Biblical history, especially the first few chapters of Genesis. The accumulated material eventually resulted in the publication of my book "Forgotten History of the Western People: From the Earliest Origins".
Since the publication of my book, I have had useful feedback from some of my readers, and I have written some more articles, including the one on "Hebrew: The Language of Eden".
I would encourage you to look at the original article because (1) it preserves the original formatting and (2) it might be updated from time to time with new information.
There has already been one important update, because I found some Jewish people who say that, according to Jewish tradition, Hebrew is the language of Eden, and this is what the Jews have always believed. They call it "L'shon HaKodesh" which means "Holy Tongue", and there are many references to the special status of Hebrew in the Jewish literature. To give just one example, the Midrash Rabbah, Genesis XXXI:8 says that "Just as the Torah was given in Hebrew, so was the world created with Hebrew".
Anyone who wants to look at this further should study the Jewish literature (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash Rabbah, etc.), which is easily available on CD-ROM.
Mike
www.write-on.co.uk/history/index.htm
Some of these articles are about secular histories that affirm Biblical history, especially the first few chapters of Genesis. The accumulated material eventually resulted in the publication of my book "Forgotten History of the Western People: From the Earliest Origins".
Since the publication of my book, I have had useful feedback from some of my readers, and I have written some more articles, including the one on "Hebrew: The Language of Eden".
I would encourage you to look at the original article because (1) it preserves the original formatting and (2) it might be updated from time to time with new information.
There has already been one important update, because I found some Jewish people who say that, according to Jewish tradition, Hebrew is the language of Eden, and this is what the Jews have always believed. They call it "L'shon HaKodesh" which means "Holy Tongue", and there are many references to the special status of Hebrew in the Jewish literature. To give just one example, the Midrash Rabbah, Genesis XXXI:8 says that "Just as the Torah was given in Hebrew, so was the world created with Hebrew".
Anyone who wants to look at this further should study the Jewish literature (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash Rabbah, etc.), which is easily available on CD-ROM.
Mike
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
Gunther,
As Scott Emerson has pointed out, the Greek text does not necessarily imply authorship. The first five books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch, or the Torah (Law) were all put together by Moses, either as the compiler or the author. He was the compiler of Genesis, and the author of most of the material in the remaining four books. The verse from John's Gospel that you have quoted refers to any occasion in these books where Moses referred to the coming Messiah. There are two occasions that come to mind.
Genesis 3:15. "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
In this case, Moses was the compiler, because this prophecy was given long before his time.
Deut. 18:15 "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken".
In this case, Moses wrote it himself, as the original author.
In both cases, Moses was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The work of compilation, to which he might have sometimes added his own comments, was just as much a work of divine inspiration as the original authorship.
The following passage comes from page 26 of "The Genesis Record" by Henry Morris.
"It is also significant that, although the Book of Genesis is quoted from or alluded to at least two hundred times in the New Testament... in none of these references is it ever stated that Moses was the actual author. This is especially significant in view of the fact that Moses
is mentioned by name at least eighty times in the New testament, approximately twenty-five of which refer to specific passages attributed to Moses in the other books of the Pentateuch."
I have to credit Ruth Beeching, the author of "Adam and His Kin" for drawing my attention to this passage from "The Genesis Record". I am currently reading through it, and I have to say that it's one of the best and most comprehensive commentaries on Genesis that I have seen, and it's written from a scientific creationist viewpoint.
Mike
As Scott Emerson has pointed out, the Greek text does not necessarily imply authorship. The first five books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch, or the Torah (Law) were all put together by Moses, either as the compiler or the author. He was the compiler of Genesis, and the author of most of the material in the remaining four books. The verse from John's Gospel that you have quoted refers to any occasion in these books where Moses referred to the coming Messiah. There are two occasions that come to mind.
Genesis 3:15. "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
In this case, Moses was the compiler, because this prophecy was given long before his time.
Deut. 18:15 "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken".
In this case, Moses wrote it himself, as the original author.
In both cases, Moses was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The work of compilation, to which he might have sometimes added his own comments, was just as much a work of divine inspiration as the original authorship.
The following passage comes from page 26 of "The Genesis Record" by Henry Morris.
"It is also significant that, although the Book of Genesis is quoted from or alluded to at least two hundred times in the New Testament... in none of these references is it ever stated that Moses was the actual author. This is especially significant in view of the fact that Moses
is mentioned by name at least eighty times in the New testament, approximately twenty-five of which refer to specific passages attributed to Moses in the other books of the Pentateuch."
I have to credit Ruth Beeching, the author of "Adam and His Kin" for drawing my attention to this passage from "The Genesis Record". I am currently reading through it, and I have to say that it's one of the best and most comprehensive commentaries on Genesis that I have seen, and it's written from a scientific creationist viewpoint.
Mike
Originally posted by Gunther:
Helen, in about 20 seconds, I found the following:
John 5:46-47
"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
But if you do not believe his WRITINGS, how will you believe My words?"
NASB, emphasis mine
There is a huge difference between editing work, and being credited with being the actual writer. Notice how everything in the N.T. points to Mosaic authorship and divine inspiration and Scripture is SILENT on this revised document hypothesis?
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
Scott,Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Just a question:
How could a person be an eyewitness of Genesis 1?
That's the whole point of the first colophon. It says "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth..." (Gen. 2:4). That means God wrote it and gave it to Adam.
Mike
It does not mean that. If you are reading through the book of Genesis, you would never take that to mean that God wrote something and gave it to Adam.Originally posted by Mike Gascoigne:
That's the whole point of the first colophon. It says "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth..." (Gen. 2:4). That means God wrote it and gave it to Adam.
Scripture is silent on the issue of anyone but Moses writing Genesis. What authority and/or basis do you have to say that Moses did NOT write Genesis?
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
It does not mean that. If you are reading through the book of Genesis, you would never take that to mean that God wrote something and gave it to Adam.Originally posted by Gunther:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike Gascoigne:
That's the whole point of the first colophon. It says "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth..." (Gen. 2:4). That means God wrote it and gave it to Adam.
Scripture is silent on the issue of anyone but Moses writing Genesis. What authority and/or basis do you have to say that Moses did NOT write Genesis? </font>[/QUOTE]Gunther,
This single colophon, by itself, could not be taken to mean that God wrote the first section of Genesis and passed it on to Adam. However, we have a series of colophons all the way through Genesis, in the style of the Babylonian clay tablets. It is evident therefore, that each successive author recorded the history of his own time and signed it off, then passed it on to his successor to be continued. We have a problem with the first section, because nobody was present to witness the first five days of creation, so God must have provided the history in some way and given it to Adam. Perhaps God wrote it on clay tablets, or perhaps He dictated it to Adam and he wrote it down. But if Adam wrote it down, he would have to write his own colophon with a statement that it was dictated. I would go with the theory that God wrote it down and wrote the colophon Himself, because this would establish the tradition of each successive author writing his section of the history and signing it off.
In answer to your second question, I have no authoritative proof that Moses did not write Genesis. I also have no authoritative proof that Joshua, Caleb, or King David did not write Genesis. I can't find any verse in the Bible giving the name of a person who did not write Genesis. Also I have no authoritative proof that Moses did write Genesis. In that case, we are in a position of neutrality, and I would go for the clay tablet theory because it's the one that makes the most sense.
Mike
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
Sorry, I meant Ruth Beechick, not Beeching. I must have been thinking of the guy who carved up the railways in Britain.Originally posted by Mike Gascoigne:
I have to credit Ruth Beeching, the author of "Adam and His Kin" for drawing my attention to this passage from "The Genesis Record".
Mike
Mike
Welcome to the Baptist Board, Mike! Thank you for your additions to this thread. Like you, I have looked at the writings of a number of OT scholars and discussed the matter with others. There is a growing number of OT scholars who are agreeing with the Tablet Hypothesis.
It is also interesting that in all of Israel's history during the Egyptian slavery, Moses would have been the only one capable of getting the tablets and preserving them. From his mother, who became his nurse, the knowledge of his people and either from the Pharoah's archives or the teachers of the Israelites, the tablets themselves, preserved carefully through the ages.
It is also interesting that in all of Israel's history during the Egyptian slavery, Moses would have been the only one capable of getting the tablets and preserving them. From his mother, who became his nurse, the knowledge of his people and either from the Pharoah's archives or the teachers of the Israelites, the tablets themselves, preserved carefully through the ages.
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
Helen,Originally posted by Helen:
Welcome to the Baptist Board, Mike! Thank you for your additions to this thread. Like you, I have looked at the writings of a number of OT scholars and discussed the matter with others. There is a growing number of OT scholars who are agreeing with the Tablet Hypothesis.
It is also interesting that in all of Israel's history during the Egyptian slavery, Moses would have been the only one capable of getting the tablets and preserving them. From his mother, who became his nurse, the knowledge of his people and either from the Pharoah's archives or the teachers of the Israelites, the tablets themselves, preserved carefully through the ages.
Yes, you are right, the brothers of Joseph must have been in Egypt when they wrote their book, and they placed it in Pharaoh's archives together with the other books. I have updated the numbered paragraph 9 of my article:
http://www.write-on.co.uk/history/edenics.htm
In that case, it was part of God's design that Moses should be brought up in Pharaoh's house, so that he would have access to these archives.
Mike