Questions regarding Bible

Who is the author of:

1ST SAMUEL?............ Answer: Author "Unknown"
2ND SAMUEL........... Answer: Author "Unknown"
1ST KING?................. Answer: Author "Unknown"
2ND KING?............... Answer: Author "Unknown"
1st CHRONICLES? …. Answer: Author "Unknown, probably …"
2st CHRONICLES? …. Answer: Author "Likely collected …"

SOME OF THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

GENESIS
AUTHOR One of the "five
books of Moses."
EXODUS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.
LEVITICUS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.
NUMBERS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.
DEUTERONOMY
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.
JOSHUA
AUTHOR. Major part
credited to Joshua.
JUDGES
AUTHOR. Possibly Samuel,
RUTH
AUTHOR. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel.
FIRST SAMUEL
AUTHOR. Unknown.
SECOND SAMUEL
AUTHOR. Unknown.
FIRST KINGS
AUTHOR. Unknown.
SECOND KINGS
AUTHOR. Unknown.
FIRST CHRONICLES
AUTHOR. Unknown,
probably collected and
edited by Ezra.
SECOND CHRONICLES
AUTHOR. Likely collected
and edited by Ezra.
EZRA
AUTHOR. Probably written
or edited by Ezra.
ESTHER
AUTHOR. Unknown.
JOB
AUTHOR. Unknown.
PSALMS
AUTHOR. Principally David,
though there are other writers.
ECCLESIASTES
AUTHOR. Doubtful, but
commonly assigned to Solomon.
ISAIAH
AUTHOR. Mainly credited
to Isaiah. Parts may have been
written by others.
JONAH
AUTHOR. Unknown.
HABAKKUK
AUTHOR. Nothing known of
the place or time of his birth.


The above facts are from Collins' R.S.V. 1971. Pages 12-17.



This is what I meant. Why would a person from an organized religion would like to go ahead and accept christianity, what is that bible offer that other religions don't? When we didn't even know who wrote many chapters of the bible. Do you see my point?? I hope you can answer. Thanks
 
This is what I meant. Why would a person from an organized religion would like to go ahead and accept christianity, what is that bible offer that other religions don't? When we didn't even know who wrote many chapters of the bible. Do you see my point?? I hope you can answer. Thanks

My best guess is this: People who believe don't know all of this when they first accept Jesus. They don't know that the authors are unkown or even that the works are in question. So from the beginning, they believe without real knowledge. So, when they begin to learn these things about Christianity, they are learning them through tainted eyes; they don't see works without known authors as a problem.

That's why it's important for every theist to take off the blinders and step away from their beliefs for a while. Take a breath, and look at everything objectively. Scientists began doing that not so long ago, and now creationism isn't even an arugment in the scientific community.

This is all the same for a devout atheist. If someone refuses to believe just because they don't want to believe it, then that's as ignorant as believing without knowing all the facts. Objectivity is the key, my friend.

JD
 
Validity & usefulness of the Bible

Hi Markx;

I see that you are being treated well. Nonetheless, as your last posting seems a response to my previous comments directed to you, it seems courteous for me to respond. Sincere interchange is a good thing.
......................
YOU WROTE; "This is what I meant. Why would a person from an organized religion would like to go ahead and accept christianity, what is that bible offer that other religions don't? When we didn't even know who wrote many chapters of the bible. Do you see my point?? I hope you can answer. Thanks"
......................

Now about the authors: There are various opinions as regards the authors. However, I tend to lean toward the conclusions, along with the explanations given and defended in the Unabridged Translation of "THEOLOGICO-POLITICO TREATISE, by BENEDICT DE SPINOZA, [R. H. M. Elwes, Translater].

The specific writings to which I refer are covered in, Chapter VIII--Of the authorship of the Pentateuch and the other historical books of the Old Testament. . . . ~ Ch. IX-- Other questions about these books. . . . ~ Ch. X --An Examination of the remaining books of the Old Testament (etc.). . . . ~ Ch. XI-- An Inquiry whether the Apostles wrote their Epistles as Apostles and Prophets or merely as Teachers, and an Explanation of what is meant by an Apostle.

I agree that few become interested in becoming Christians simply by reading the Bible. Following have been my observations:

In evangelical meetings, one may come with friend or family and be encouraged to, nagged into, or practically dragged, (I have seen it all), but mostly they are talked into coming to the altar. Usually, in such a case the person has either already thought about it, is having a very bad time in his/her life at the moment, and would love to find a better way, or is very impressed with the particular pastor, evangelist, congregation . . . (all or any of these).

Emotionalism could also be a reason, (not that this is necessarily bad). To expand on that: Some of us are more sporatic/impulsive, easily influence. Fear is sometimes a motivator, either a fear of not finding any other solution, or fear of God's anger should one die, (or never see loved ones again, etc. or going to 'hell' - as found in "fire and brimestone messages."

Conversely, there is the cut and dried sort of presentation of what is necessary to become a Christian. By this I mean the strategy of simply getting a person to say certain words.

As I have matured I am much more inclined to encourage person to think for themselves, and yet be there for them, to encourage, but not to intimidate.

I have worked with very few (Christians) who came rom "another religion, but I have known some."

More often than not, those who inquire, come forward, or are otherwise approached and convinced to become Christians either have no previous religion, or are/was disenchanted with their previous denomination, or religion, and have very strong feelings about the place from whence they came. Some denominations do not consider others 'Christians' indeed.

I prefer to read and study on my own until I come to a reasonably good understanding, but then, you did not ask about that. Just thought I would mention it, for this reason: People can drive you crazy with all their varied opinions, (which could be more than worthwhile to hear), but--from my own experience, I can assure that one must work out his own understanding, ---bottom line.

It never hurts to doubt. It can, in fact, be the beginning of understanding, and give one an hunger for knowledge, and so forth.

This more than you asked for, but it is very difficult to give an abbreviated answer on such a complicated subject.

It helps to know something about the authors or commentators you whom you choose to hear/read, and especially their opinions on the specific portion(s) of the Bible on which they are commenting and whatever else you can know about them, because there is often an agenda!

I honestly do not believe I have one, (agenda). and I will tell you why. As to who wrote the books of the Bible, though an interesting thing to investigate, I cannot be so sure, with the many knowledge seekers differing in this matter.

I gave you the one in whom I have placed much of my trust. J Dawg, Okinrus and doubtless others, have given you other thoughts to consider. Whatever you conclude or do not conclude is yours! Do not easily cast your gut feelings aside. Man's search for truth has not ended. Please be kind to those who stumble along, as we all do at times, and keep your own heart and mind open. You sound like a sincere individual, and the hunger for knowledge, and for rightness can be so rewarding, and yet it never ends. So, go for it, and I wish you well.

P. M. Thorne
 
Re: Validity & usefulness of the Bible

Originally posted by P. M. Thorne
Hi Markx;

Thank you Thorne. Thank all of you for your replies. I accpeted Islam about 3 years ago. Now, I am looking from an Islamic point of you view, why would some one wants to go and accept Christianity and you have answered part of my question. However the doubts about bible are normal for any one. Just like any other religion there is a blind faith involve, I had many reasons and those reasons drove me to atheism and then Islam. By the way if any one of you can post the complete time frame in which bible was completed and when it started and ended, it would be great. thank you .
 
There is no complete timeframe but for the most part Paul's epistles were written around 50AD, Mark around 50AD, Mathew after Mark, John after Mathew, and Revelation last. But some scholars, and the entire early Church record, claim that Mathew was written before Mark and in hebrew. I think that as more recent discoveries come to life, the dates of Mathew and John will come down.
 
Marx, Hi again.



About Apostle Paul, (one of my favorite guys): There is a consensus that he definitely wrote: I Thessalonians, Galatians, I & II Corinthians, Philemon, Phillippians, and Romans. THESE, SAYS AUTHOR, MARCUS J BORG, were believed to have been written in the decade of the 50's.

[There is also a consensus that he did not write I & II Timothy and Titus. While on the other hand some scholars believe that Colossians, Ephesians and II Thessalonians were written after Paul's death.]

I was a little surprised to hear about the espistle to the believers at Ephesus. That is a neat book, fascinating, and well written, and I had always thought Paul wrote it. But you know what? It does not matter to me who wrote the books. It matters to me what they say. For example: Some portions of the book of James, not because James wrote it, but because some passages seem rather foreign to my convictions.

Something about the New Testament that caught my ear. The book of Revelation: (Though some swear it was written at one time)
There are scholars who believe that it was originally -two writings, and a few who believe it was -three separate writings.

Spinoza, and others, do not believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, and I definitely agree; as thinking otherwise is not reasonable to me. Do not quote me, but I believe that he mentioned Ezra as the possible author.

Before he was excommunicated and forever cursed by his own community.... he was a star scholar of the Hebrew language, and of the History of the Hebrew people, among other things.

He could write in Spanish, Dutch, Hebrew and Latin. He also studied Greek. He supported, with scripture, that God had other people besides the Jews. I do not understand why that point is often explained away.

Regardless of what we call ourselves, there is nothing that can take the place of being enthusiastic about the power of God. People's impression of Him surely differ, but as for me, I think of Allah and of my God as one and the same.

I say, the more we talk about the religious differences in a negative way, the more we give fuel to the rumor that our faith in God is worthless, no matter what we call our Creator. I am hopeful that this awful mess will lead us to a more unified faith.

Markx, I wish you well, especially in your spiritual undertakings. PMT
 
OKINRUS:

I see that I, more or less, repeated some of the information you gave regarding Paul's writings. That was not intentional.

Also, I was wondering: have you heard anything about the book of Revelation not having been written at one time? (see my msg. to Markx.) I hope you aren't afraid of that book. Naw, you would not be. PMT
 
Originally posted by okinrus
There is no complete timeframe but for the most part Paul's epistles were written around 50AD, Mark around 50AD, Mathew after Mark, John after Mathew, and Revelation last. ...
Can you suggest the scholars who, and the arguments that, date Mark before 65 CE?

Originally posted by okinrus
I think that as more recent discoveries come to life, the dates of Mathew and John will come down.
You think this based on what?
 
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Can you suggest the scholars who, and the arguments that, date Mark before 65 CE?
This person argues that "the confusion [between Irenaeus and Clement] about whether [Mark] was written before or after the deaths of Peter and Paul implies that it was written around the time that they died in AD 64-68." He then says the same argument is valid for Luke, and if Mark was written before Luke its date must be pushed back a little to allow for Luke to attain an authoritave status.
You think this based on what?
They can hardly be dated later based on new evidence...
 
Back
Top