Who wrote the Bible?

[Neo Rome Republic]

Delete

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Why would they give advice that didn't support the existence of their God?

I wouldn't expect them not to, but who would accept this Law?

Remember not advice, but Law.

No one with any sense.

the Bible, with authorship traditionally attributed to a single individual per book(s) (such as Moses for the Pentateuch), is instead the combination of different works by different authors, carefully edited together.

I suppose I have to applaud the effort involved in writing that OP, but if the whole point was to reach the above conclusion - which I thought was common knowledge - I could likely have saved you the trouble with just two or three reputable academic citations.

The belief in Mosaic authorship is so painfully widespread that it's hard to not completely refute it.

[Dalmacie]

Perhaps, but then they're no more than 20% of all Christians, and likely a much smaller percentage than that. So it's a fairly poor broad generalisation if there's any implication that said view is shared more broadly within Christianity.

True, Evangelical Protestant Americans are a particularly loud and shouty group of Christians, but they're wholly unrepresentative of the totality thereof, so it's a regrettable debating tactic to pretend that they are.

Anyway, I've said it before, and I'll say it again... Evangelical American Protestants are actively damaging to Christianity.

Well, I did not mean to generalize all Christians.

I apologize if that seemed to be what I was saying.

I was referring to the fundamentalists, not all Christians grouped together.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm sorry, but I usually only take the trouble to debate people who actually understand the point of the posts to which they're replying.

That's a nice way to dodge the question . While I agree, that not all Christians have such as big a literal interpretation as others however, if you believe Jesus is the son of God and can perform miracles congratulations, you just took the Bible LITERALLY. If most or all Christians believe that about Jesus they are still taking it literally. If all Christians are taking that part of the bible LITERALLY, then my generalization is correct. All Christians still take the Bible literally one way or another.

I'm not 'dodging the question'.

It's just that the 'question' you apparently want to ask happens to be wholly unrelated to the point I was making in the post you were replying to.

This is what you're replying to:

Seriously - even among Xians, how is this even a question anymore?

It isn't; not for a large majority of Christians, anyway.

But it's no doubt fun to take the beliefs of a minority of a particular group, and then pretend that minority represents the majority, or even the totality.

And I say it again.... I usually only take the trouble to debate people who actually understand the point of the posts to which they're replying.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Delete

[The Archregimancy]

They do represent the majority as I've stated; They take the idea of Jesus being this Divine character as literally as you do. The only real differance is the depth of literal interpretion one denomination takes over another.Again, nothing I've said is wrong. You also, still went through the trouble of responding to me.

Since you're persistently completely missing the point - and the comment you think you're replying to wasn't even directed at you anyway - I can assure you that this is the last time I'll make the effort.

[Farnhamia]

I'm not 'dodging the question'.

It's just that the 'question' you apparently want to ask happens to be wholly unrelated to the point I was making in the post you were replying to.

This is what you're replying to:




And I say it again.... I usually only take the trouble to debate people who actually understand the point of the posts to which they're replying.

They do represent the majority as I've stated; They take the idea of Jesus being this Divine character as literally as you do. The only real differance is the depth of literal interpretion one denomination takes over another.Again, nothing I've said is wrong. You also, still went through the trouble of responding to me.

Arch is English and so polite. Don't push it, though, or he'll become Thrungur the Scourge of the Steppes and then you'll be sorry.

[Tyriece]

Its a book of story's and old laws, do not really think there's much political aims.

[Neo Rome Republic]

They do represent the majority as I've stated; They take the idea of Jesus being this Divine character as literally as you do. The only real differance is the depth of literal interpretion one denomination takes over another.Again, nothing I've said is wrong. You also, still went through the trouble of responding to me.

Arch is English and so polite. Don't push it, though, or he'll become Thrungur the Scourge of the Steppes and then you'll be sorry.

Delete

[Nationalist State of Knox]

They do represent the majority as I've stated; They take the idea of Jesus being this Divine character as literally as you do. The only real differance is the depth of literal interpretion one denomination takes over another.Again, nothing I've said is wrong. You also, still went through the trouble of responding to me.

Since you're persistently completely missing the point - and the comment you think you're replying to wasn't even directed at you anyway - I can assure you that this is the last time I'll make the effort.

Arch, do you happen to have a poll that shows what percentage of Christians/Jews believe in Mosaic authorship?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Its a book of story's and old laws, do not really think there's much political aims.

Says the person who clearly read the OP.

[Hydronium]

[Neo Rome Republic]

Delete

[Tyriece]

Its a book of story's and old laws, do not really think there's much political aims.

Says the person who clearly read the OP.

Have you read the bible?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Says the person who clearly read the OP.

Have you read the bible?

I've just posted a 7000 word OP analysing the bloody thing, what do you think?

[The Archregimancy]

Since you're persistently completely missing the point - and the comment you think you're replying to wasn't even directed at you anyway - I can assure you that this is the last time I'll make the effort.

The point was that certain literalist groups don't represent all Christians.

No, that wasn't the point of the post to which you're replying.

The point of the post to which you're replying - which, I repeat, wasn't directed at you anyway - was to agree with Daistallia 2104 that the point posited in the OP about Biblical authorship simply wasn't much of an issue for most Christians.

You, however, persist in replying to a post that wasn't directed at you as if it were making a point about Biblical literalism.

The mistake you're apparently making in reading my post is conflating discussion of Biblical authorship with an entirely separate point you want to make about Biblical literalism; but the latter certainly isn't the point I was making, nor did I say anything about Biblical literalism in the post to which you're replying. Biblical authorship and Biblical literalism are separate academic issues; the former can be discussed without any consideration of the latter.

Again, there's little point in having a discussion with someone unless they actually understand the point of the posts to which they're replying.



Here, for reference, is a question from someone who did understand the point I was making:

Since you're persistently completely missing the point - and the comment you think you're replying to wasn't even directed at you anyway - I can assure you that this is the last time I'll make the effort.

Arch, do you happen to have a poll that shows what percentage of Christians/Jews believe in Mosaic authorship?

So it doesn't look like it was really that hard a point to grasp.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

God knows.

*rimshot*

Yeah, that was bad.

[Neo Rome Republic]

The point was that certain literalist groups don't represent all Christians.

No, that wasn't the point of the post to which you're replying.

The point of the post to which you're replying - which, I repeat, wasn't directed at you anyway - was to agree with Daistallia 2104 that the point posited in the OP about Biblical authorship simply wasn't much of an issue for most Christians.

You, however, persist in replying to a post that wasn't directed at you as if it were making a point about Biblical literalism.

The mistake you're apparently making in reading my post is conflating discussion of Biblical authorship with an entirely separate point you want to make about Biblical literalism; but the latter certainly isn't the point I was making, nor did I say anything about Biblical literalism in the post to which you're replying. Biblical authorship and Biblical literalism are separate academic issues; the former can be discussed without any consideration of the latter.

Again, there's little point in having a discussion with someone unless they actually understand the point of the posts to which they're replying.



Here, for reference, is a question from someone who did understand the point I was making:

Arch, do you happen to have a poll that shows what percentage of Christians/Jews believe in Mosaic authorship?

So it doesn't look like it was really that hard a point to grasp.

Alright, I concede to my mistake.

[The Orson Empire]

It's pretty obvious that the Bible wasn't written by one person.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

The point was that certain literalist groups don't represent all Christians.

No, that wasn't the point of the post to which you're replying.

The point of the post to which you're replying - which, I repeat, wasn't directed at you anyway - was to agree with Daistallia 2104 that the point posited in the OP about Biblical authorship simply wasn't much of an issue for most Christians.

You, however, persist in replying to a post that wasn't directed at you as if it were making a point about Biblical literalism.

The mistake you're apparently making in reading my post is conflating discussion of Biblical authorship with an entirely separate point you want to make about Biblical literalism; but the latter certainly isn't the point I was making, nor did I say anything about Biblical literalism in the post to which you're replying. Biblical authorship and Biblical literalism are separate academic issues; the former can be discussed without any consideration of the latter.

Again, there's little point in having a discussion with someone unless they actually understand the point of the posts to which they're replying.



Here, for reference, is a question from someone who did understand the point I was making:

Arch, do you happen to have a poll that shows what percentage of Christians/Jews believe in Mosaic authorship?

So it doesn't look like it was really that hard a point to grasp.

Is there a possibility you could answer my question?

It's pretty obvious that the Bible wasn't written by one person.

Nobody, not even those who believe in Mosaic authorship, dispute that.

[Pravengria]

Did say correct me if I'm wrong lol, but the first bible was written in Greek. Not saying the Greeks created the content of it btw.

The New Testament was written in Koine at a time when Jews were heavily hellenised and the lingua franca and the language of their common scriptures the Septuagint was Koine Greek. The word Pharisee refers to a teacher who did not adopt hellenistic and taught in the old languages.

Ah, makes sense now.

[The Archregimancy]

Since you're persistently completely missing the point - and the comment you think you're replying to wasn't even directed at you anyway - I can assure you that this is the last time I'll make the effort.

Arch, do you happen to have a poll that shows what percentage of Christians/Jews believe in Mosaic authorship?

That's not a wholly straightforward question.

There's two facets to that question - do we try and undertake a reasonably representative poll of each individual Christian, or do we accept the teachings of individual Christian denominations as representative of the views of their members.

I usually go with the latter route, since it's easier for me to quantify, though I understand why some people might object.

In any case, for Catholics we have paragraph 289 of the Catholic Catechism, compiled by no less a figure than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, subsequently Pope Benedict XVI, subsequently Pope Emeritus Benedict. This offers a summary of Catholic beliefs and principles.

This reads:

Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation.

Note the underlined.

The Catholic Church - c. 50% of Christians - therefore openly teaches that the Mosaic books had multiple authors.

There is no standard Orthodox Catechism or single authority we can use to represent the Orthodox Church in the same manner. And here things get messy; because this isn't an issue of Orthodox dogma, you can likely find the full panoply of opinions in Orthodoxy (in fact, I know you can - but my evidence here is personal and anecdotal rather than something easily citable), from full acceptance of Mosaic authorship (on the basis that the Pentateuch says as much), to full and easy acceptance that the Pentateuch had multiple authors.

Anglicans have been applying the principles of historical criticism to the Old Testament since at least the 1860s, so I doubt they're too bothered.

While the above is an incomplete survey, we see that the largest church - representing half of the total of Christians - openly teaches multiple authorship; that the second-largest church encompasses a broad body of not easily quantifiable opinion, but certainly includes a not insignificant number of people who accept multiple authorship; and that the Anglican Church led the charge to apply academic historical criticism to the relevant books of the Bible in the first place.

While I can't offer specific figures, and while this doesn't encompass the totality of Christianity, even if only a purely hypothetical minority of Protestants were to accept multiple authorship, we'd still arrive at a majority of Christians accepting multiple authorship, if only because it forms an open part of the catechism of the group that forms 50% of Christians to begin with.

[Death Metal]

Every other religion before Christianity and their respective mythologies. The Bible is pretty much a big bundle of plagiarism.

[The Realm of God]

And yet sooooo manyyyy, still believe it was.

Yes, religious misinformation is both unfortunate and dangerous.

I find it to be extremely ridiculous that such normal, honest, mostly intelligent people could honestly believe that some book just fell from the sky, and that it was directly written by God and his angels.

Ridiculous.

That also applies to those who believe the Koran is so as well; I am unsure of how Jews view their holy book, but if they believe so too, then that applies to them as well.

I've never met any Christian who claimed that God sat down and wrote the bible....take from this what you will.

[Dalmacie]

I've never met any Christian who claimed that God sat down and wrote the bible....take from this what you will.

I've met plenty, admittedly evangelicals, who basically believe that the Bible is the word of God, unchanging, infallible.

Completely ignoring the fact that it was actually written by humans, years after Jesus' death no less.