PDA

View Full Version : Genesis



rationalist
Oct 20th 2008, 08:54 PM
Recently Ive turned my attention to the first books of the old testament. As I was reading them something struck me as very peculiar and that most theologians agree that Genesis was probably written by Moses who as I understand it was around the time of 1200-1300BC. Well something I just realized was that written languages didnt develope until 500-600BC. Now I know the egyptians had the heiroglyphs but it would have taken a 1000 years to write all of Moses stories down as heiroglyphs. So was Genesis and the other five books orally past on through time until they could be written ?

livingword26
Oct 20th 2008, 09:59 PM
Apparently at least Moses could read.

Exo 24:12
(12) And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.

Enoch365
Oct 20th 2008, 10:26 PM
Ge'ez is the original language of mankind. Genesis 11/1 as "Now the whole earth had one language and one speech.

According to the beliefs of The Church of Ethiopia, it was the era of Henos (Enos) the third generation of Adam that had witnessed the inception of the alphabet. Hence was a faithful and righteous servant of God. He was rewarded for his honest work through a divine gift of the alphabet so that this would serve him as an instrument for codifying the laws. That is, the heavens opened their gates to him and the scriptures were revealed to him. From then onwards, he had used the alphabet as a medium of literature. The script was named 'Fidel', meaning writing.

The First Book of the bible written by Enoch before the flood. Did you know that The Book of Enoch still part of our Bible?

Biastai
Oct 21st 2008, 03:32 AM
Recently Ive turned my attention to the first books of the old testament. As I was reading them something struck me as very peculiar and that most theologians agree that Genesis was probably written by Moses who as I understand it was around the time of 1200-1300BC. Well something I just realized was that written languages didnt develope until 500-600BC. Now I know the egyptians had the heiroglyphs but it would have taken a 1000 years to write all of Moses stories down as heiroglyphs. So was Genesis and the other five books orally past on through time until they could be written ?

Nomadic peoples like the original Israelites are big on oral traditions. Who wants to lug all those tablets around, you know? It would certainly make sense that the books would be put into writing around the time you specified (when Israel/Judah settled as a more agricultural people). In contrast, the peoples east of the Jordan i.e. Gileadites and those of Havvoth Jair retained their nomadic character due to the land there being more "wide open." As a result, its region called Trachonitis (correct me if I'm wrong here anyone) under the Romans still was an undefined mix of roving tribes as late as NT times.

R. Pfeiffer in History of New Testament Times gives the dating for the Deuteronomic Code as 621 B.C. (you were very close!).

This pattern repeated itself in later Jewish culture. Jesus refers at times to the "tradition of the elders" or "ancient traditions." These were orally circulated and well known in the time of Christ (at least by the educated), but not codified until 200 A.D. in the Mishnah and 500 A.D. in the Talmud.

SIG
Oct 21st 2008, 03:42 AM
"Well something I just realized was that written languages didn't develop until 500-600BC."

From a linguistics website:

Oldest Written Form
Some people base their answer on which language got written down first. If you're counting absolute oldest, probably Sumerian or Egyptian wins because they developed a writing system first (both start appearing in about 3200 BC). If you're counting surviving languages, Chinese is often cited (first written in 1500 BC), but Greek is a possible tie because it was written in Linear B beginning ca. 1500 BC.*

From ibs.org:

In what language was the Bible first written?
The first human author to write down the biblical record was Moses. He was commanded by God to take on this task, for Exodus 34:27 records God's words to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." And what language did he use? He wrote in his native language, called Hebrew.

Hebrew is one of a group of languages known as the Semitic languages which were spoken throughout that part of the world, then called Mesopotamia, located today mainly in Iraq. Their alphabet consisted of 22 letters, all consonants. (Imagine having an alphabet with no vowels! Much later they did add vowels.)

Almost the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew during the thousand years of its composition. But a few chapters in the prophecies of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah were written in a language called Aramaic. This language became very popular in the ancient world and actually displaced many other languages. Aramaic even became the common language spoken in Israel in Jesus' time, and it was likely the language He spoke day by day. Some Aramaic words were even used by the Gospel writers in the New Testament.

livingword26
Oct 21st 2008, 03:43 AM
Nomadic peoples like the original Israelites are big on oral traditions. Who wants to lug all those tablets around, you know?

But that's exactly what they did. The tablets with the Commandments on them, were put into the ark of the covenant, and they took it with them where ever they went.

Levin
Oct 21st 2008, 03:51 AM
Actually, given recent language study, it is believed that written language was actually in existence around 4000 BCE. There is then absolutely no problem in claiming Moses wrote around 1300 BCE.


The First Book of the bible written by Enoch before the flood. Did you know that The Book of Enoch still part of our Bible?

Sorry, but we (protestants) do not believe that the book of Enoch is cannonical. Roman Catholics asserted at the Council of Trent that this book is part of their canon.

This book was written, along with all other apocryphal literature, during the intertestamental period, approximately 400 BCE-CE 60. The book of Enoch was written by a Jew who affixed Enoch's name to the book. No branch of Protestantism holds this book to be in the canon.

The first book of the Bible written down was one of the books of the Pentatuech (we don't know exactly what order Moses wrote the initial forms in).

With Regards,
Levin

Biastai
Oct 21st 2008, 03:55 AM
But that's exactly what they did. The tablets with the Commandments on them, were put into the ark of the covenant, and they took it with them where ever they went.

Sure, I don't doubt they had them on stone. I was referring to the whole Pentateuch. This ark was only a cubic cubit wasn't it?

400 B.C. is a date I've come across a lot for complete codification of the Pentateuch. Some codification was most likely catalyzed by the rediscovery of the Law under Josiah's reign seeing that the Chronicler describes that time as one of intensely repentant recovery of something almost as good as lost. Much of its contents appear to have been largely unknown to the peoples of the time. They tore their robes in sorrow after reading the Law realizing how much they've been disobeying the Lord.

SIG
Oct 21st 2008, 04:11 AM
Sure, I don't doubt they had them on stone. I was referring to the whole Pentateuch. This ark was only a cubic cubit wasn't it?

400 B.C. is a date I've come across a lot for complete codification of the Pentateuch. Some codification was most likely catalyzed by the rediscovery of the Law under Josiah's reign seeing that the Chronicler describes that time as one of intensely repentant recovery of something almost as good as lost. Much of its contents appear to have been largely unknown to the peoples of the time. They tore their robes in sorrow after reading the Law realizing how much they've been disobeying the Lord.

The Ten Commandments were written on stone (and also on our stony hearts :D) by God Himself, and placed in the ark. But the word "book" appears 188 times in Scripture, and refers to scrolls. Moses wrote on scrolls--and camels can carry a whole lot of scrolls.

Jews are sometimes referred to as "People of the Book"--not "people of the tablets." That would be pharmacists.

Biastai
Oct 21st 2008, 05:38 AM
The Ten Commandments were written on stone (and also on our stony hearts :D) by God Himself, and placed in the ark. But the word "book" appears 188 times in Scripture, and refers to scrolls. Moses wrote on scrolls--and camels can carry a whole lot of scrolls.

Jews are sometimes referred to as "People of the Book"--not "people of the tablets." That would be pharmacists.

Authors writing the "book" would naturally use the word "book," wouldn't they? But let's just agree to disagree (whatever that actually means). Information I've come across has convinced me for the time being that the Pentateuch is a codification by the Jews in the time of Ezra. The Jews have shown this same pattern afterwards by orally circulating the "tradition of the elders" and codifying them centuries later (my first post in this thread). You believe Moses penned all 5 books (related question: do you think Joshua wrote about Moses' death?).

That's totally alright with me. I apologize if I sounded as though I wanted to push this opinion on others. :)

Emanate
Oct 21st 2008, 12:00 PM
Jews are sometimes referred to as "People of the Book"--not "people of the tablets." That would be pharmacists.


That is what you call a "zinger"

RJ Mac
Oct 21st 2008, 12:58 PM
I believe Moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT between 1450 and 1400 BC
Therefore we have the accurate understanding of the creation account
since other civilizations wrote theirs after many years of oral tradition, Moses
wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I think the Babylonians wrote theirs in
2200 BC if not older.

But wasn't the oldest book of the Bible Job and it would have been written
by Job in 2,000 BC since he is dated to come from the time of the
patriarchs?

RJ

rationalist
Oct 21st 2008, 01:12 PM
Thanks very much for everyone's reply. So am I to understand that there was a writing system that allowed Moses to write all the books in his life span?

daughter
Oct 21st 2008, 01:16 PM
Yes. There was writing around in the time of Moses.

Where did you get your initial date from, out of interest?

Teke
Oct 21st 2008, 03:44 PM
Recently Ive turned my attention to the first books of the old testament. As I was reading them something struck me as very peculiar and that most theologians agree that Genesis was probably written by Moses who as I understand it was around the time of 1200-1300BC. Well something I just realized was that written languages didnt develope until 500-600BC. Now I know the egyptians had the heiroglyphs but it would have taken a 1000 years to write all of Moses stories down as heiroglyphs. So was Genesis and the other five books orally past on through time until they could be written ?

The people in scripture were people of the Word (they listened to Moses before Moses wrote anything) before they were people of the book.

Fact: Hebrew is a Semitic language. Abraham was from Ur which was a literate culture associated with Babylon. We have archeological proof of the existence of written language in stone, such as the "code of Hammurabi/Khummarabi", which is written laws of the land of the time, and which parallel the Israelite laws in many respects. Job refers to writing, on what to write with (iron pen) and on (stone). (Lead is a soft stone that can easily be written on with an iron pen)
I could give more archeological evidence if needed. :)

RJ Mac
Oct 21st 2008, 03:48 PM
Yes Moses wrote the first five books and He did so in the last 40 yrs of his life.
Obviously Joshua added to the end of Dt. the death of Moses which is
totally acceptable.

Daughter I am not sure who your asking to show their sources for dating
the writings of Moses but if its me, I recommend International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia, Vol.1 p.678 under 'Chronology" dating the Exodus
at 1447 BC and Joshua's conquest at 1407 BC.

RJ Mac

Clay Blucher
Oct 21st 2008, 04:52 PM
Sorry, but we (protestants) do not believe that the book of Enoch is cannonical. Roman Catholics asserted at the Council of Trent that this book is part of their canon.


I must note that you are factually wrong on this statement. Roman Catholics do not hold that the Book of Enoch are canonical. Never at the Council of Trent, nor any of the official written documents coming forthwith, the issue is raised regarding it. It is one thing to disagree with a tradition, but it is a whole other thing to say factually incorrect statements which act as ad hominem attack only.

Parts of the Eastern Orthodox religion consider this, as other Pseudopigraphical books, as books which ought to be alongside Scripture. This would put them on the same significance level as the Apocrypha for Roman Catholics and the first Reformers (Luther, Calvin, authors of the 1611 KJV). They are not classified as Holy Scripture as Word of God, but as reading which is appropriate-and to an extent necessary-to be read alongside Scripture. (Many Protestants today, I would argue, practice similar sectarian policies as they enforce authors such as Piper, McDowell, et al to be studied and read alongside Scripture.)

I hope that gives a fair account of how Scripture was seen. I hated to break into the discussion, but factually incorrect statements such as this should be corrected. Hopefully the rest of the discussion will be uplifting.

keck553
Oct 21st 2008, 06:27 PM
I think it's profitable to look beyond the surface of the 'written word.' There is much meaning in the Hebrew that evades the outward apperance of just the letters and words. Let me explain: I hope in this we all can see how deep the Hebrew develops God's word, and why it's relavent and revealing to study.

Gen 1:1בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ׃


Hebrew reads from right to left. This is how (in my limited writing ability) this verse looks in a Torah scroll, without the vowel points. In a Torah scroll, the first letter is enlarged just as you see it here.

ב

This is the letter “bet”. In a Torah scroll, it is enlarged relative to the rest of the letters that follow for a reason.

The first word/phrase of the verse is b'resh*i*t, which literally means “in beginning”. The letter ‘bet’ is the preposition ‘b’, which means “in”. Resh*i*t means ‘beginning’.

Just looking at it, you can see that the letter ‘bet’ is open toward the rest of the verse as if the very words of Scripture came out from inside of the letter ‘bet’. What is more intriguing is that the letter ‘bet’ is also a word….which means ‘house.'

The ancients of course saw the Tabernacle, and the Temple as “Bet”, in fact the Hebrews referred to the Temple as simple “bet”.

The ancients also wondered about what was not seen to the right of ‘bet’, just as we do these days…what was ‘before’? They wondered if there was another letter that was invisible.

As it turns out, there is a single letter that can fit exactly over and around the letter ‘bet’. It is the letter ‘pey’. The letter ‘pet’ also is a word that means ‘mouth’. It was not lost to the ancients that the letter ‘bet’ is a perfect match to fit inside the letter ‘pey’. When the comptemplated the importance of the first letter being a ‘bet’, they also comptemplated an ‘invisible’ mouth that spoke the creating into existence through the bet.

The ‘bet’ is then a visible representation of the creative voice that was spoken.

Did some of those sages understand the Messianic significance? It turns out that some did. Among the things that ancient interpreters say existed before Genesis 1:1 are the Torah, the Name of Messiah, and a Voice that says “repent you children of men”.

As we go further down the verse, there are two letters not translated into English. They are the letters alef and tav, the 15th and 16th letters of the verse. These are on any Torah scroll, but not translated in our English bibles. They are in fact, a grammatical device. The ancient sages of course understood the grammatical need (like ‘the’ or ‘a’) for these two letters, but it also must have stood out that these letters are the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet (in Greek it would be alpha- omega), what the Hebrews referred to as the alef-bet. Some sages though that it appears to represent a range of letters, and since the middle letter of alef- tav is ‘mem’, the alef-tav is alluding to the word ‘emet’, which means truth.

Truth – Emet is also an anagram of m’eth which can be read ‘from Aleph-Tav. This is akin to when we swear to tell the truth, the whole truth. Truth falls short if it includes less than the whole, or from Aleph to Tav. Likewise, all truth comes from God, who identifies Himself as the beginning and the end (Aleph-Tav).

About the letter ‘tav’. In the turn of the 20th century there was a Jew named Eliezer ben Yehuda who became who we now credit with reviving the Hebrew language. In his pocket Hebrew dictionary, ben Yehuda describes the Tav’s alternate ancient Hebrew written form. It is the shape of a cross.

God further describes Tav as a mark or a seal in Ezekiel:

Eze 9:4 Adonai said to him, "Go throughout the city, through all Yerushalayim, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who are sighing and crying over all the disgusting practices that are being committed in it."
Eze 9:4ויאמר יהוה אלו עבר בתוך העיר בתוך ירושׁלם והתוית תו על־מצחות האנשׁים הנאנחים והנאנקים על כל־התועבות הנעשׂות בתוכה׃


Everyone marked with the Tav was protected when God poured out His wrath on the apostates corrupting His Temple. When Jesus died, he cried out “It is finished”. His work was the “Tav”, the finished work.

Teke
Oct 21st 2008, 07:02 PM
I must note that you are factually wrong on this statement. Roman Catholics do not hold that the Book of Enoch are canonical. Never at the Council of Trent, nor any of the official written documents coming forthwith, the issue is raised regarding it. It is one thing to disagree with a tradition, but it is a whole other thing to say factually incorrect statements which act as ad hominem attack only.

Parts of the Eastern Orthodox religion consider this, as other Pseudopigraphical books, as books which ought to be alongside Scripture. This would put them on the same significance level as the Apocrypha for Roman Catholics and the first Reformers (Luther, Calvin, authors of the 1611 KJV). They are not classified as Holy Scripture as Word of God, but as reading which is appropriate-and to an extent necessary-to be read alongside Scripture. (Many Protestants today, I would argue, practice similar sectarian policies as they enforce authors such as Piper, McDowell, et al to be studied and read alongside Scripture.)

I hope that gives a fair account of how Scripture was seen. I hated to break into the discussion, but factually incorrect statements such as this should be corrected. Hopefully the rest of the discussion will be uplifting.

Thanks for pointing that out Clay. :)
BTW catholics don't call them "Apocrypha", they call them "Deutero-canon" meaning second or secondary canon. Jews would call them, as well as the NT, "Apocrypha" (meaning unaccepted canon).

Clay Blucher
Oct 21st 2008, 08:59 PM
Thanks for pointing that out Clay. :)
BTW catholics don't call them "Apocrypha", they call them "Deutero-canon" meaning second or secondary canon. Jews would call them, as well as the NT, "Apocrypha" (meaning unaccepted canon).

I still think more clarity is needed though. You are right to point out that Catholics think them Deutero-canonical, but this is their official categorical status in light of Scripture (i.e., they present a second official collection of writings that are to be read alongside Scripture). This was pretty much what I said before, but that's for clarifying it.

You put too much emphasis I think on their official status within the church at this point by recognizing their other categorical name. The church (at large, i.e., the RCC, EO, Protestants) recognizes these books as "Apocryphal" on the basis of their contents. So labeling this collection as the Apocrypha is appropriate. Another group of writings, the Pseudepigraphia, are those other writings which do not fall into the other categories (i.e., Hebrew Scriptures=OT, Apocryphal) and are not written by the traditional author. 1 Enoch is such a book, as it most likely was not written by Enoch the historic man, but from a later person who believed that Enoch would have said these things anyways. This was actually a very common practice in the ancient world. These writings form a flexible and unclosed canon of their own for the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Officially I can see how these two collections (Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha) may be lumped together and called Deutero-canonical, but again this term is a descriptor of their status next to the canon of Scripture-not their actual content.

To be really complete on the matter: NT scholars have a tendency to group the Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphal writings with other Jewish writings from ancient time (e.g., Talmud, Mishnah, Tosefta, DSS, Philo, Josephus, etc) together. Basically, anything that was written by a Jew, but not the OT or NT. (There are NT apocryphal and pseudepigraphial writings as well, but these are "Christian.") There is no official name for this grouping, but most scholars prefer the title "Judaica." So in essense, you have the OT, NT, Judiaca, and Christian Other. It would be interesting to see if there will ever be a time when this last category will ever be changed to something like "Christianic." ;)

Jews would recognize both labels, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, as appropriate. But from talking to orthodox Jews (well, ones that really take time to investigate the matter and care about it) would call these writings, and especially the NT, heretical. All together these writings (Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, NT, Philo, Josephus, DSS, etc) would not be called Apocrypha/l. If anything they would be called (and here I am suggesting another new word) "Pseude-Judaica." This would set them against what Jews use as their authoritative writings (OT, Talmud, etc). The tension then comes in their authority for the Jews (none) and how they view these writings in line with their preceived view of revelation (not revelation at all).

Anyways... My apologies for making this post unneededly wordy and long. But the original post, claiming 1 Enoch was Scripture, should really be clarified the best we can. All historically orthodox Christian sects (i.e., Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox) have one canon of Scripture: the OT and the NT. From there we can talk about a possible Deutero-canon (or simply just secondary-canons) of writings. But by definition these writings are excluded as being Scripture. That at least we recognize and see as vitally important to the discussion-of which should now be able to continue. :D

Sold Out
Oct 21st 2008, 09:05 PM
Well something I just realized was that written languages didnt develope until 500-600BC. Now I know the egyptians had the heiroglyphs but it would have taken a 1000 years to write all of Moses stories down as heiroglyphs. So was Genesis and the other five books orally past on through time until they could be written ?

Where did you read/hear that written language didn't begin until 500-600bc?

Chimon
Oct 21st 2008, 10:25 PM
I would just like to point out that Apocrypha comes from the Greek, 'απόκρυφος' meaning obscure or hidden, and denotes the uncertainity or doubt about the Apocrypha. This is therefore an appropriate name for the books, because the Church has for many years be unsure of their their cannonicity.

However, I think that we are completely beside the point now. I agree with Levin in that there were fully evolved writing systems at the time the Israelites left Egypt (around 1300 BC.) We know this because the Mari tablets show a complete writing system existed in this region and are dated to 1400 BC.

Teke
Oct 21st 2008, 11:22 PM
I would just like to point out that Apocrypha comes from the Greek, 'απόκρυφος' meaning obscure or hidden, and denotes the uncertainity or doubt about the Apocrypha. This is therefore an appropriate name for the books, because the Church has for many years be unsure of their their cannonicity.

However, I think that we are completely beside the point now. I agree with Levin in that there were fully evolved writing systems at the time the Israelites left Egypt (around 1300 BC.) We know this because the Mari tablets show a complete writing system existed in this region and are dated to 1400 BC.

Well, it's not altogether besides the point. Because within, all the writings indicate where and when they came from. Authorship may be doubtful, but that doesn't negate written works becoming canon (look at Hebrews in the NT). Which is why I used the example of Abraham and Moses. If you do a comparison of the law Moses wrote with that of the law Abraham was under (code of Hammurabi) you'll find they are very similar. Moses' are just more merciful than that of the ruler Hammurabi of Babylon. And they are both of Semitic origin. IOW there exists a kinship which is also evident from history and biblical evidence.


These writings form a flexible and unclosed canon of their own for the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Officially I can see how these two collections (Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha) may be lumped together and called Deutero-canonical, but again this term is a descriptor of their status next to the canon of Scripture-not their actual content.

You'd be surprised how their used by EO (all scripture is just part of tradition to them, and it is not the only thing they use for clarifying understanding. in their churches you'll see some 20 books or so at the readers stand, but the 4 gospels of the Apostles are on the altar, that's how they make a statement of greater or lesser). The Syrian Orthodox church uses the book of Enoch as much as the rest of scripture. The Syrian's have a better understanding of the original language than others who don't find the book useful. It's the same as reading the early church fathers, some will find clarity in some of them and no clarity in others.

Biastai
Oct 22nd 2008, 05:31 AM
The Book of Enoch along with 2 Esdras are good reads for the light they shed on the Son of Man figure to which many references are made in the Gospels.

To stay on topic: For interesting information on the possible origins of the book of Genesis, I would recommend The Chaldean Account of Genesis by George Adam Smith. Its a work outlining his archeological finds in Babylonia. Babylonian origins would certainly not be out of the question. The Tower of Babel has been said by some to be a ziggurat of Babylon. Melchizidek may have come from the region of Chaldea. This work is not for everyone, but its out there for those who would like to look at it.

SIG
Oct 23rd 2008, 08:26 PM
The above book can be read here:
...
This is not a recommendation; I have not read it...

I do believe, though, that things Babylonian are often an imitation and distortion of things from God. So--the Hebrew zodiac (Mazzeroth), which contained Messianic prophecy, was turned to astrology as we know it by the Babylonians. Etc...

Teke
Oct 23rd 2008, 08:33 PM
The above book can be read here:
...
This is not a recommendation; I have not read it...

I do believe, though, that things Babylonian are often an imitation and distortion of things from God. So--the Hebrew zodiac (Mazzeroth), which contained Messianic prophecy, was turned to astrology as we know it by the Babylonians. Etc...

Hey Sig, good to see you around. :)

You have me curious now. Is this something from that book or where did you hear it. From what I understand, when they built that tower in Babel in Genesis there was a zodiac on top of it. Are you saying that was the Hebrews?

daughter
Oct 23rd 2008, 08:54 PM
The above book can be read here:
...
This is not a recommendation; I have not read it...

I do believe, though, that things Babylonian are often an imitation and distortion of things from God. So--the Hebrew zodiac (Mazzeroth), which contained Messianic prophecy, was turned to astrology as we know it by the Babylonians. Etc...
Or then again, maybe the Hebrews were seduced and started to worship the starry host. We know from scripture that this really did happen. Anything else is speculation. We know that God told us to not bow down or worship or regard the starry host. I think Mazzeroth is the fruit of Israel being corrupted, rather than a "pure" branch of astrology.

RoadWarrior
Oct 23rd 2008, 10:57 PM
The above book can be read here:
...
This is not a recommendation; I have not read it...

I do believe, though, that things Babylonian are often an imitation and distortion of things from God. So--the Hebrew zodiac (Mazzeroth), which contained Messianic prophecy, was turned to astrology as we know it by the Babylonians. Etc...

I'm glad it is not a recommendation. Let's keep the discussion to the book of Genesis; let scripture interpret scripture. Or, use Christian commentaries and dictionaries rather than look into books that might be derogatory to our faith.

Thanks.

SIG
Oct 24th 2008, 03:52 AM
My bad.....

As for my observations on things Babylonian....hearsay.....

...or not; amazing what I have tucked away deep inside my overstuffed head:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazzaroth#Original_figures_and_teachings_of_the_Ma zzaroth_corrupted

Biastai
Oct 24th 2008, 06:11 PM
Like I said, the book is not for everyone. Personally, it has strengthened my faith. In his defense, Smith did not write his account to refute the Biblical Genesis. He had no religious agenda as readers will soon see when they take a look. He reports strictly as an archaeologist. The work concerns mostly the stories of the creation and the flood. These accounts in the Bible are before the Hebrews, so Babylonian accounts (Assyrian copies in this book) of them do not conflict with them. The Tower of Babel (Gn 11) is after the flood (Gn 6). An event on the scale of the flood would certainly be recorded in some form by other peoples besides the Hebrews (it was Ham, Shem, and Japheth, and not only Abraham that followed the flood).

As for the Hebrews being involved with Babel, Abram's account is after the account of Babel. No Hebrews were in existence at or during Babel according to the Bible.

:note: But I repeat: This book is not for everyone! If one doesn't want to involve Babylon in all this, then leave it alone!

Servant of David
Oct 25th 2008, 06:08 AM
Authors writing the "book" would naturally use the word "book," wouldn't they? But let's just agree to disagree (whatever that actually means). Information I've come across has convinced me for the time being that the Pentateuch is a codification by the Jews in the time of Ezra. The Jews have shown this same pattern afterwards by orally circulating the "tradition of the elders" and codifying them centuries later (my first post in this thread). You believe Moses penned all 5 books (related question: do you think Joshua wrote about Moses' death?).

That's totally alright with me. I apologize if I sounded as though I wanted to push this opinion on others. :)


Years ago I talked to an Orthodox Jew. He told me that when they were in the caves were they are cutting the stone for the new Temple they found 5 books. He did not reveal what was in them but told me that the Israeli government would not show the world what was written in them. This man was a retired Israeli Colonel and was very knowledgeable.
By the way there is a total of 3 books of Ezra and in those books it tells that he had written 250 other books that are suppose to be looked after by some selected men.

Levin
Oct 25th 2008, 07:08 AM
But wasn't the oldest book of the Bible Job and it would have been written by Job in 2,000 BC since he is dated to come from the time of the
patriarchs?
RJ

Hey RJ,

While the historical events of Job (in the patriarchal period) occur near the beginning of the book of Genesis, "the orthography of his book suggests the seventh century BC" (Waltke 928). Job was likely written during the United Kingdom period under either David or Solomon (or possibly under Hezekiah); this is when the other pieces of wisdom literature (Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Proverbs) were produced. So, if this book is in fact an historical account, then it was a written down story that was once part of an oral tradition. However, it may in fact be a fictional tale to illustrate theodicy. Either way, it was written by a prophet-type in this period.

In Christ,
Levin

Levin
Oct 25th 2008, 07:12 AM
I must note that you are factually wrong on this statement. Roman Catholics do not hold that the Book of Enoch are canonical. Never at the Council of Trent, nor any of the official written documents coming forthwith, the issue is raised regarding it. It is one thing to disagree with a tradition, but it is a whole other thing to say factually incorrect statements which act as ad hominem attack only.

Parts of the Eastern Orthodox religion consider this, as other Pseudopigraphical books, as books which ought to be alongside Scripture. This would put them on the same significance level as the Apocrypha for Roman Catholics and the first Reformers (Luther, Calvin, authors of the 1611 KJV). They are not classified as Holy Scripture as Word of God, but as reading which is appropriate-and to an extent necessary-to be read alongside Scripture. (Many Protestants today, I would argue, practice similar sectarian policies as they enforce authors such as Piper, McDowell, et al to be studied and read alongside Scripture.)

I hope that gives a fair account of how Scripture was seen. I hated to break into the discussion, but factually incorrect statements such as this should be corrected. Hopefully the rest of the discussion will be uplifting.

I apologize. I was mistaken regarding this book. Thanks for pointing this out.

Levin

Biastai
Oct 25th 2008, 04:07 PM
Hey RJ,

While the historical events of Job (in the patriarchal period) occur near the beginning of the book of Genesis, "the orthography of his book suggests the seventh century BC" (Waltke 928). Job was likely written during the United Kingdom period under either David or Solomon (or possibly under Hezekiah); this is when the other pieces of wisdom literature (Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Proverbs) were produced. So, if this book is in fact an historical account, then it was a written down story that was once part of an oral tradition. However, it may in fact be a fictional tale to illustrate theodicy. Either way, it was written by a prophet-type in this period.

In Christ,
Levin

I too believed Job's story to be fictional. His story seemed to be purposed towards establishing his extreme situation to provide a point of departure from which to discuss theodicy.
I thought that it was possible this book could be dated in the exilic or post-exilic time. I was struck by the references to "Leviathan" and "Orion and Pleiades." They seem to be ideas that would be picked up in Babylonian exile. A people thought to be God's elect who just got deported to an alien land would understandably be wrestling with the problem of theodicy. The idea of Job experiencing utter disaster followed by a double restoration may also indicate exiled Judah's hopes at the time.
However, I don't own a commentary on Job yet. I wanted to ask you where you got your information on it. Thanks.