If I thought the Bible was merely the product of man, I wouldn't pay much attention to it.

Quote:

---

Few biblical books are the work of a single author, and most have been edited and revised to produce the texts we have today.

---

That is enormously speculative. As concerns the NT, it is simply incorrect. In fact, I don't know of anyone who is contending that some NT books have multiple authors. A fairly short but very nicely done treatment of this subject was done by Dr. Amy Orr-Ewing (a woman!!) titled "Why Trust the Bible".

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness... (2 Timothy 3:16, NKJV)

Nobody said anything about multiple authors. Talaniman was talking about the editing/redacting process that all the books of the Bible have gone through over the centuries. The manuscripts of the New Testament that we have tell a very interesting picture of the process.

It's also commonly accepted that some letters such as the "pastorals" weren't actually written by Paul but were written by some disciple of his some time later and put his name on them. Even most evangelical scholars accept the idea.

It's even more complex for the Old Testament, especially since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I wrote my Masters thesis on that subject. We keep hearing that the DSS confirmed the text of the OT that we have now; baloney. It's nowhere near that simple.

And many of the OT books do have multiple authors, except they're not always stated. It's possible the same is true of some NT books. You say you haven't heard of anyone suggesting such a thing, but it's clear the scope of your research is much too narrow.

Religion as a human concept goes back to the very beginnings of humanity appearing on Earth and the fact that so many bygone civilizations not only had a belief system, but many marvels of ingenuity and accomplishment is not limited to just one religion, or one civilization.

My research has shown much more commonality than difference among the many writings of the various religions and their peoples down through centuries and millenniums. Fascinating it is that groups claim their own roots but evidence suggest many roots of the same tree (Or is it TREES?).

Is this the common human flaw, to be superior (ALPHA?) to other humans? Verily it comes down to the simple choice of which part of our human natures we build on. Some have made better choices than others, and some have just followed the easiest path.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#...d_translations

John Riches, professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow, provides the following view of the diverse historical influences of the Bible:

It has inspired some of the great monuments of human thought, literature, and art; it has equally fuelled some of the worst excesses of human savagery, self-interest, and narrow-mindedness. It has inspired men and women to acts of great service and courage, to fight for liberation and human development; and it has provided the ideological fuel for societies which have enslaved their fellow human beings and reduced them to abject poverty. ... It has, perhaps above all, provided a source of religious and moral norms which have enabled communities to hold together, to care for, and to protect one another; yet precisely this strong sense of belonging has in turn fuelled ethnic, racial, and international tension and conflict.^[101]

Perhaps I can express it this way. I once heard that there is only one great question to be answered in this life. Did God create man, or did man create God? Now if man created God, then there are no more genuinely important questions to be answered. However, if God created man, then we should wonder if that God has revealed Himself, His thoughts, His ways, and His will to man. I convinced, for many good reasons, He has, and it is the Bible. It is a book unlike any other book to be found anywhere on the earth.

Quote:

---

It is a book unlike any other book to be found anywhere on the earth.

---

Have you read any of the other religions' books?

from Wikipedia:
The Golden Rule (which can be considered a law of reciprocity in some religions) is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated. It is a maxim that is found in many religions and cultures.^[1][2] The maxim may appear as either a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:

• One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive or directive form).
• One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form).^[1]
• What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathic or responsive form).^[1]

Even the Satanic Temple has elements of the Golden Rule divided among three of its Seven Tenets: #1. "Strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason."

You express your preference well Jlisenbe, and our preferences need not be the same to just debate the feelings and philosophy of one another. I have found that no matter what a person believes there are many different ways to express and practice that belief and as far as I'm concerned they are all good if they follow a Good Orderly Direction. Personally though I put NOTHING of man between the very personal relationship with the God I have come to understand and learn more as it is revealed on this life journey.

Yeah I guess I still have much to learn. I have no preference from which book I learn it from, but personal experience is the best teacher.

Quote:

---

Even the Satanic Temple has elements of the Golden Rule divided among three of its Seven Tenets: #1. "Strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason."

---

If everyone is right, then no one is right. If everything is true, then nothing is true. It still comes down to the worship of God for which we will all some day be held accountable. If Jesus said that God's word is truth, then that will do for me.

Still, we end the discussion as friends.

Quote:

---

Still, we end the discussion as friends.

---

Why end it? This discussion is EXACTLY what this site and this topic need. It's getting views plus it's not only fun, but challenges and stretches my thinking.

OK with me. I just don't want to bore anyone. (<:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If everyone is right, then no one is right. If everything is true, then nothing is true.
Still, we end the discussion as friends.

---

As long as we're still here, I need some clarification.

To wit: "If everything is right, then no one is right. If everything is true, then nothing is true".

I'm not a logician, but this seems to violate basic rules of premise and conclusion. The one directly contradicts the other. Of course, there may be something very profound here that I'm missing. Something like a play on/with words?

Let's put it this way. We have a problem in math which is 3 x 3 =___. I say it is 6, you say it is 9, and another person says it is zero, so we decide that we must all be right. If any and every answer is considered to be right, then the concept of "rightness" loses any meaning. The same thing pertains to truth. If, for instance, everyone's view of Jesus is considered to be true, despite the fact that there are many contradictions in those views, then the concept of truth has lost all meaning. To say that something is true is to make a meaningless statement under those circumstances.

I gave you the shorthand version in my statement. More accurately we would say, "If everyone's views are considered to be right, no matter how contradictory they may be, then the concept of rightness loses meaning." What was the radio program that said, in some fictitious town, that all of the kids were above average? Same idea. Everyone cannot be above average, and divergent views of truth cannot all be right.

Quote:

---

divergent views of truth cannot all be right

---

Then, like Pilate asked, "What is truth?" How do we figure it out?

I think we should listen to the earlier statement of the man Pilate asked the question of.

Dwashbur, I just saw your earlier response. Didn't intend to ignore it.

You stated, "Nobody said anything about multiple authors." If you would look in the quote above your post, I quoted what the Wikipedia article stated. It very plainly said that few books were the work of one author.

You also state, "It's also commonly accepted that some letters such as the 'pastorals' weren't actually written by Paul but were written by some disciple of his some time later and put his name on them. Even most evangelical scholars accept the idea." That is an exaggeration of a rather high order. For anyone other than Paul to have written either of the letters to Timothy, he would had to have been a liar/forger pure and simple. I say that because of the intensely personal nature of the two letters in which Paul states his great love and affection for his spiritual son, Timothy. It is hard to imagine how anyone in the early church would have accepted them as authentic if the author had not been Paul. Daniel B. Wallace and two others have a very good discussion of the process of accepting the Canon of the NT in the book "Reinventing Jesus".

So far as the OT goes, I would like to hear your thinking on how the DSS do not give evidence of the faithful copying which took place over the centuries. Most of the material I have read on the topic point to the book of Isaiah since there had been one scroll (now two) of that book found complete. A comparison of that scroll with the Masoretic Text, dated at least a thousand years later, showed remarkable agreement between the two texts.

Gleason Archer stated, "Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."

I understand that the same can be said for the book of Daniel. It is a more difficult case since Daniel was not found intact as Isaiah was, but it has been possible to "assemble" most of the book from fragments found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I gave you the shorthand version in my statement. More accurately we would say, "If everyone's views are considered to be right, no matter how contradictory they may be, then the concept of rightness loses meaning." What was the radio program that said, in some fictitious town, that all of the kids were above average? Same idea. Everyone cannot be above average, and divergent views of truth cannot all be right.

---

Your "longhand version", by adding "...no matter how contradictory they may be...", entirely changed the meaning so that it turned out to be the exact opposite of your original statement. Of course, contradictory views cannot all be true at the same time. Logic 101. It has nothing to do with everyone being right leading to no one being right. That's a different proposition.

As to the radio show, the "average" being compared is to the wider or universal average, not to others in the same town. Again, these are basic ideas depending on context for their meaning.

But I don't want this to bog down in a discussion of logic. Your point seems to be there are varying ways of understanding Christianity, but only one way is the truth. That begs the question "Which way is that"?

Each group has their own version of the truth, and they support that truth by quoting the Bible. Whose quote wins? (Rhetorical).

The real question, as Wondergirl (and Pilate) asked, is how do we figure out what truth is. More specifically, what is the truth in the case at hand? Women as Sunday school superintendents. Jesus never answered that question because no one ever asked him.

Paul is the one who is most definitive about the role of women in church. His mind-set was that of one who believed that the end times would come during the lifetime of some still alive in Paul's day. That informed some of his teaching. And we know he was wrong about that. Was he also wrong about the role of women in church? Could he have been?

Jesus took a longer view and we have examples of his dealings with women. As a matter of fact, quite a few examples.

How would each have answered the question?

It's like the blind men and the elephant. Each thinks they know what an elephant is like based on their own experiences and so they disagreed with anyone who didn't share their views. Isn't that why every religion has their own doctrines and traditions, or VERSION of the truth, even within the same religion?

I suppose you don't need FACTS when you have FAITH. Or is it you have faith that ancient man was conveying facts? I have studied many religions and they seem to basically say the same thing (With a few variances, of course.), but argue over who is right and who is wrong. Just like those blind men.

Quote:

---

I suppose you don't need FACTS when you have FAITH. Or is it you have faith that ancient man was conveying facts? I have studied many religions and they seem to basically say the same thing (With a few variances, of course.), but argue over who is right and who is wrong. Just like those blind men.

---

Only the Christian faith has a Savior who is raised from the dead. Only the Christian faith gives salvation on the basis of faith, quite apart from works. I can hardly imagine how anyone could say that all religions say the same thing. Now some of the moral teachings are similar, true enough, but the teachings about the nature of God and our relationship with Him are wildly different.

I might add that my faith is based upon truth. I don't know what you are referring to when you suggest I don't need facts when I have faith. When did they become mutually exclusive?

Quote:

---

Your "longhand version", by adding "...no matter how contradictory they may be...", entirely changed the meaning so that it turned out to be the exact opposite of your original statement. Of course, contradictory views cannot all be true at the same time. Logic 101. It has nothing to do with everyone being right leading to no one being right. That's a different proposition.

---

It did not change the meaning at all. It only clarified it. Surely no one would think that, in the real world, everyone professing truth would all be professing the same truth. Rather plainly there would be contradictions in the opinions of "everyone". I would have thought that was a given.

Quote:

---

Jesus took a longer view and we have examples of his dealings with women. As a matter of fact, quite a few examples.

---

Not women in leadership roles, and that is the core of this thread.

As to Paul, I never cease to be amazed at how casually people tend to question Paul's writings. I would only say that once you have written 13 New Testament books, then you will have arrived at his position. I don't say that in any spiteful or mean manner at all, but nor would I care to so easily question a clear statement as Paul's directive in 1 Timothy.

I think it all comes down to how we view the Bible. I view it, for a number of good reasons, as being God's Word to man. When Paul wrote, he didn't just write his own convictions, but God spoke through him. If that is not true, then we should get rid of it. If it is true, then we should revere it, but under no circumstances do I intend to pick and choose that part which I will accept on the basis of this culture we live in now. There are parts I don't completely understand, but I have no taste for the middle ground where man elects to make himself the judge of what is right and wrong. If there is truly a God, then it should be our business to pursue Him with passion, worship Him, and obey Him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Only the Christian faith has a Savior who is raised from the dead. Only the Christian faith gives salvation on the basis of faith, quite apart from works. I can hardly imagine how anyone could say that all religions say the same thing. Now some of the moral teachings are similar, true enough, but the teachings about the nature of God and our relationship with Him are wildly different.

I might add that my faith is based upon truth. I don't know what you are referring to when you suggest I don't need facts when I have faith. When did they become mutually exclusive?

---

If I may respectfully ask my friend, what is the nature of the God as you understand it and the relationship with man that is so different than other religions?

To clarify, I did not mean you the individual, but the more broad collective "you" as far as not needing facts when you have faith. Personally I find it hard to NOT question the words and actions of men in general no matter the religion, or FAITH, or age. History is full of men who do bad deeds in God's name and proclaim divine entitlement to shepherd their sheep to slaughter. In truth I don't question God or his nature, just the word of man (Not YOU, personally but again the collective man).

I think that TRUTH is to be sought, so we can make better choices and honor the gift of CHOICE given to us as humans.

Quote:

---

It did not change the meaning at all. It only clarified it. Surely no one would think that, in the real world, everyone professing truth would all be professing the same truth. Rather plainly there would be contradictions in the opinions of "everyone". I would have thought that was a given.

---

Addition: So if everyone's opinion is right, then the concept of "right" ceases to have meaning. That was the point of the statement. If "right" is to have meaning, then some of those opinions have to be wrong unless, of course, by some miracle, "everyone" agrees in all points. When was the last time you saw that happen?

Quote:

---

If I may respectfully ask my friend, what is the nature of the God as you understand it and the relationship with man that is so different than other religions?

---

Very legitimate question. Some examples.

The Buddhist faith is more of a philosophy of life that does not require a god.

The Hindus are polytheists and so believe in many (millions!) of gods as were the ancient Greeks and Romans.

The Jewish and Muslim faiths believe in one God, but man must engage in good works to please Him. Righteousness is an accomplishment of man. Man does not really engage in a personal relationship, as such, with God.

The Christian faith believes in one God as well, but righteousness is an accomplishment of God, not of man. "All we like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way, but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him." Isaiah 53. Man and God walk together in a love relationship enabled by faith in the work of Jesus, not in our own works.

Quote:

---

I think that TRUTH is to be sought, so we can make better choices and honor the gift of CHOICE given to us as humans.

---

I tend to agree with that, but might I suggest that you need to take it further. Who gave us that gift of choice, and what does He intend us to do with it?

Hey, you might all be happy to know that I met a man last Wednesday whose wife is a PASTOR! He had been a pastor, but recently retired, so his wife took over for him. We had a great conversation. I haven't changed by belief on the matter, but I figured it would make some of you happy to know that I have broadened my horizons!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Hey, you might all be happy to know that I met a man last Wednesday whose wife is a PASTOR! He had been a pastor, but recently retired, so his wife took over for him. We had a great conversation. I haven't changed by belief on the matter, but I figured it would make some of you happy to know that I have broadened my horizons!

---

You write that your "belief on the matter" hasn't changed, but you have "broadened your horizons". How have you broadened your horizons?

Quote:

---

You write that your "belief on the matter" hasn't changed, but you have "broadened your horizons". How have you broadened your horizons?

---

I meant that post to be a light-hearted one, so the conversation perhaps marginally expanded my horizons, but I've met female ministers before. I have nothing against them. As I stated earlier, I just don't see it as being any of my business. It's an issue between them and God. If they don't ask my opinion, and they typically don't, then I don't offer it. But it was a nice conversation.

Quote:

---

It's an issue between them and God.

---

Why would God have any concern over this?

Quote:

---

Why would God have any concern over this?

---

Are you serious?? I'm tempted to simply say go back and read the 103 posts before yours, but I guess I can at least add that God is interested in everything we do and we should certainly be interested in what He has to say about this, especially where there is good reason to think that He would not approve.

And please, please don't ask why He would not approve, because then I would only be willing to suggest you read the 103 posts before yours.

I have a problem taking any man's or woman's word for their having divine advice, or instruction.

Quote:

---

I have a problem taking any man's or woman's word for their having divine advice, or instruction.

---

I agree completely. That's why we should appeal to the Bible.

Quote:

---

there is good reason to think that He would not approve.

---

Au contraire! He very much approves!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I agree completely. That's why we should appeal to the Bible.

---

Written by MAN? Same thing. Doesn't matter what man... not even ME! What do I know?

Quote:

---

Written by MAN? Same thing. Doesn't matter what man... not even ME! What do I know?

---

I tell you what. Read the 53rd chapter of Isaiah and see if you really believe that was written by man.

Quote:

---

Au contraire! He very much approves!

---

Says WG, but not the Bible. I think I'll just go with the Bible. And if you ask what the Bible has to say about this, I'll just say go back and read the previous 103... well, you know.

Quote:

---

And if you ask what the Bible has to say about this

---

The Bible has nothing to say about women as SS superintendents. That's called adiaphora.

Wikipedia: "In Christianity, 'adiaphora' are matters not regarded as essential to faith, but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in church."

Please reread this thread. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Read the 53rd chapter of Isaiah and see if you really believe that was written by man.

---

Like all of Isiah, Chapter 53 is a powerful statement. But why do you question whether it could have been written by man?

Quote:

---

Like all of Isiah, Chapter 53 is a powerful statement. But why do you question whether it could have been written by man?

---

Because of its very plainly prophetic nature. How could man have written anything so accurately predictive of the ministry and vicarious death of Christ? No other religious book has anything like it.

Quote:

---

The Bible has nothing to say about women as SS superintendents. That's called adiaphora.

Wikipedia: "In Christianity, 'adiaphora' are matters not regarded as essential to faith, but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in church."

---

You must pay attention. We've already covered that ground.

I don't question your right to the peace and comfort of your bible my friend, nor the guidance it gives you to being a good human. All are free to make that choice of how to conduct themselves and where that comfort comes from no matter what book they get it from, or what they perceive is the right path to take on the journey through the reality of their life.

All humans have the gift of choice doesn't matter the region, language, or history.

Comfort does not interest me nearly as much as the truth does. Now we all get to choose, but if the Bible is true, and we are all going to appear before the judgement seat of Christ, then we better choose wisely. If it is not true, then I can't imagine why anyone would pay attention to it. And yet God has left His fingerprints in the Bible in places such as Isaiah 53 and many others. You would be wise, my friend, to consider it well.

Best wishes.

"Dwashbur, I just saw your earlier response. Didn't intend to ignore it."

Ditto. I saw your post and am working on a reply, it's just going to take a while.

"So far as the OT goes, I would like to hear your thinking on how the DSS do not give evidence of the faithful copying which took place over the centuries. Most of the material I have read on the topic point to the book of Isaiah since there had been one scroll (now two) of that book found complete. A comparison of that scroll with the Masoretic Text, dated at least a thousand years later, showed remarkable agreement between the two texts."

The biggest problem is, your information is horribly out of date. Those scrolls were found in 1947. Since then, ten more caves were found in the region, as well as several others in different locations around the Dead Sea, and the number of scrolls and fragments they yielded is staggering. We're talking hundreds, possibly thousands. Cave 4 held an unbelievable trove of scrolls, all buried under a several-inch layer of bat guano.

The entire body of the scrolls show at least three textual strains: one similar to the Masoretic text, one similar to the Septuagint, and one similar to the Samaritan Pentateuch. There are also tons of unique readings, ones that only appear in one scroll and nowhere else. If you want to get a feel for just how jumbled the picture is, I can refer you to my book, available from SBL Press. There's a hardcover available from E.J. Brill but it's overpriced, ugly, and not worth the difference in price.

If you don't read some Hebrew, the books usefulness may be limited. But with it you can look up a passage, find out of it's preserved anywhere, and get a general idea of how it compares to the Masoretic text et al. I would also suggest you check out some general introductions to the DSS, but look for ones written after the turn of the century.

Here's the link to my book:

https://secure.aidcvt.com/sbl/ProdDe...ype=BL&PCS=SBL

Fascinating reply. I don't intend to buy your book (no offense), but I did go to the site and it's plainly a serious academic work, so I commend you for it. Please allow me to address one paragraph at a time.

Quote:

---

The biggest problem is, your information is horribly out of date. Those scrolls were found in 1947. Since then, ten more caves were found in the region, as well as several others in different locations around the Dead Sea, and the number of scrolls and fragments they yielded is staggering. We're talking hundreds, possibly thousands. Cave 4 held an unbelievable trove of scrolls, all buried under a several-inch layer of bat guano.

---

I am aware that there were a number of caves discovered after Cave 1. However, all of the caves at Qumran were discovered by the mid 1950's. Cave 4 that you reference was discovered, for instance, in 1952, which puts it only 5 years later. So to say my information is horribly out of date strikes me as puzzling if your concern is the date of the cave discovery. Perhaps you were referring to the Gleason Archer quote.

My understanding is that the contents of Cave 4 were abundant in number (thousands, but most non-Biblical) but poor in quality, and that while about 15 copies of Isaiah were found,they were in tattered condition and quite fragmentary and incomplete. The two scrolls from Cave 1 appear to be far and away the best quality and most complete, but you might have more current information. To be clear, are you saying the copies of Isaiah in Cave 4 do not support the Masoretic text as well as the two scrolls from Cave 1? I ask because I am not able to find information on that. However, I would think you would agree that the agreement of the two intact scrolls is truly remarkable.

Your comments did make me consider something. I have read many articles and watched a number of documentaries about the DSS, but no books written for that sole purpose. So, taking your advice, I ordered this: Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls.​ I'll look at others after that.

I wouldn't expect you to buy my book, that was just for reference. We're badly overdue for a new edition, but SBL has other things on its plate at the moment.

(For comparison, when I gave a copy to my pastor, I said "This will become the most useless book in your library. I doubt you will ever find occasion to open it." I know the audience for that book, and this ain't it.)

There's a lot more than Isaiah. Portions of every book except Esther are preserved, including a near-complete copy of Job translated into Aramaic. A number of non-biblical materials were found, too.

I met Gleason Archer and listened to him present a paper back in the 80's. He was sincere, but didn't always do his homework. While he did take a high view of the Bible, he didn't always do the best job of defending it. He was also one of the most monotone speakers I ever heard, but that's another topic.

But back to the DSS. Example: the books of Samuel, in the Masoretic text, have a problem. In technical scholarly terms, they're a mess. Scholars have thought for nearly two centuries that the Septuagint preserved a more accurate text, and if you look at the marginal or footnotes in the average recent translation, you'll see the "LXX" represented more often than not.

Some pieces of both books were found in Cave 4, and they support that idea. They're in Hebrew, but their text is distinctly LXX. This tells us that the textual strain in the LXX came from an earlier Hebrew textual strain that ultimately fizzled out in Hebrew due to lack of copying. But it also tells that our suspicions were correct: the Greek text of the Septuagint is much closer to the original Hebrew text than the Masoretic text is.

The situation with scrolls from various parts of the Torah is a jumble. Most resemble the MT, but about 10% follow the Septuagint, and about 5% include unique readings from the Samaritan Pentateuch.

The reason I said your information is out of date is because so far we were only talking about Isaiah. Around the time that Archer et al were writing, those first couple of scrolls (two Isaiah scrolls and a commentary on Habakkuk) were just about all that had been released. Editing and publishing was going at a molasses pace, and all this was happening while I was working on that book (it was my Masters thesis). This was 1982-3, before the Internet. So finding the material to put in the book was a serious adventure. When Hershel Shanks of BAR fame announced that the entire body of material was going to be released, I wrote to one of the scholars, described my project, and asked how to get hold of images of the ones he was working on.

I still have his reply somewhere, because it was exemplary for its rudeness. He took a swipe at Hershel Shanks, basically said I sounded like an excited child in my letter, and then essentially told me to go away and quit bothering him.

This is what we were up against with the Dead Sea Scrolls for decades. Gleason Archer and the others wrote about what they knew, they just hadn't had the opportunity to know a whole lot.

Another book you might find interesting is Norman Golb, "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?" That book caused a firestorm in the DSS community because it basically challenges everything the scholars thought they knew. Whether you come out agreeing or not, it's an excellent book.

More to follow.