|
|
Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
03/03/2012 06:26 |
Ancient cultures were oral cultures.
Brian often paints the picture of people sitting around a campfire,
listening to the stories that had been passed down from generation to generation.
Before writing was invented, that's how the story was preserved.
Personally, while I'm sure the ancients tried to be faithful
in the passing down of the oral tradition,
I'm also that as the stories were passed down,
the stories were inevitably embellished or modified to fit their audience.
Scholars have even recognized different strands f tradition
which were ultimately woven into the final form we have today,
the so-called J,E.D, and P strands.
(If you've read any accounts even of recent history,
you know that ever writer has a different point of view,
and different resources, and there is no total agreement
about some of the details of the lives of our Presidents, for example.)
But I'm not as in the various origins of Scripture as I once was.
What is important to us is the final form we have today,
and our confidence that the essential message
of God's love for God's creation is definitely true.
|
| |
Marcie in MO
|
03/03/2012 10:31 |
I love you guys, but you really should stop hijacking these posts for your theological debates. Isabel, questioning is a good thing. Keep asking and seeking God and He will lead you. Praying for your journey.
|
| |
Saint Grogan
|
03/03/2012 13:13 |
I see,
I suggest that you do a little research on THE PENTATEUCH, the first five books written by Moses from which these “campfire stories” originated from. You will find that the Jewish community continues to hold them with the utmost reverence. They consider them as coming from Yahweh himself.
Consider also the words of Paul to Timothy. He writes:
“ALL SCRIPTURE is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 Timothy 3:16)
God’s own words were given through men superintended by the Holy Spirit so that their writings were without error. Peter writes:
“For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21)
As the authors of scripture wrote their prophecies, they were controlled by God’s Spirit.
If faith comes by hearing and hearing comes through the word of God (Romans 10:17) then Isabele needs to be confident that the book she holds in her hands is His inerrant word and not a collection of stories that were passed down from generation to generation.
(Sorry Marcie. I felt that this was important enough to point out. After all, isn’t this forum reserved for discussion?)
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
03/03/2012 16:05 |
Marcie,
You're right.
I was one of the first to respond to Lisa's post,
and addressed her concerns directly.
I don't know how this got sidetracked.
Lisa, you were concerned about whether or not the Bible is "all true,"
to use your words, and I tried to answer by saying
that there are different kinds of truth,
that the Old Testament contains ultimate truth
whether or not the accounts are factually true in all the details,
and that in any case the Old Testament has to be read
in light of the truth we see in Jesus.
If THAT were not true,
I would have stopped listening to DAB years ago.
Leviticus would have been a definite stopping point!
Brian's remarks following yesterday's readinsg were very good!
(I hesitate to respond to Grogan, but I do think it may be relevant.
Grogan, you have it backwards.
The campfire stories didn't originate from the Pentateuch.
The campfire stories were shared before writing was even invented -
that's why it's called "oral tradition."
If you want to continue this line of discussion,
pleas start a new thread.
But I would hope that we would agree, in answer to Lisa's concerns,
that Jesus is the lens through which we as Christians
must read and interpret the Old Testament,
and that Ultimate Truth is what matters,
whatever differences of opinion people may have about
the historical and scientific issues.)
|
| |
Ray
|
03/03/2012 16:34 |
Isabel.
Isabel is a Romance-language given name. It is related to Isabelle (French, Dutch, German), Catalan, Provençal), Isabella (Italian), and the English Elizabeth.
This set of names is a southwestern European variant of the Hebrew name Elisheva.
Elisheva or Elisheba (???????????[pronunciation?] in Hebrew) was the wife of Aaron "the priest" (Heb. HaKohen), the forefather of the Kohanim, the Jewish priests, in the Bible.
In the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an, Aaron (play /'ær?n/ or /'??r?n/;[1] Hebrew: ???????? Aharon, Arabic: ?????? Harun, Greek (Septuagint): ?a??? ), who is often called "'Aaron the Priest"' (??????? ????????) and once Aaron the Levite (??????? ????????) (Exodus 4:14), was the older brother of Moses, (Exodus 6:16-20;[2] Qur'an 28:34[3]) and a prophet of God.
|
| |
Saint Grogan
|
03/04/2012 01:21 |
I was being facetious when I made reference to “campfire stories”, Lanny. I was pointing out that Moses got his information directly from the Holy Spirit, not through oral tradition.
|
| |
Ted C
|
03/04/2012 12:26 |
If the Pentateuch is a series of tribal, oral stories from people who had just been cavemen a little while earlier as they evolved from Apes, then why assert that there in any truth in Scripture whatsoever except as a fascinating fantasy concocted by illiterate post-neanderthals? Lanny, I'd really love to know your answer because extrapolating out your scientific convictions that's basically what you're making Scripture out to be - a fascinating fantasy concocted by illiterate post-neanderthals. If Adam and Eve weren't real, and if God doesn't use Blood-sacrifice as a covenantal tool, then Christ died needlessly and Scripture is tribal nonsense. In fact, to claim that it somehow does give inspired lessons from a real creator-god flies in the face of the science you espouse- to claim any inspiration at all is to assert a more tenuous and indefinite mythos than you are ascribing to the originators of what you call oral traditions.
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
03/04/2012 14:01 |
Isabel,
if you're still reading this thread,
I apologize for what probably seems like a total digression
from your initial questions and concerns.
Still, I need to address the posts from Grogan and John T.
even though I have addressed them time and again,
they keep coming up every time I post anything,
and I wish we could focus on the things about which we do agree
and not keep going around in circles
and repeating our disagreements.
I alone don't call them oral traditions.
Every Biblical scholar I have ever known speaks of oral tradition.
Brian refers to the oral tradition,
and though he and I disagree on many things,
he uses the example of people sharing the stories orally around campfires
as part of the basis of the Daily Audio Bible.
Post-Neanderthals?
Where did you find that term?
That would mean that Neanderthals evolved into homo sapiens,
while most scholars tend to agree that Neanderthals were a dead-end species,
either replaced by or absorbed by Cro-Magnon, or modern man.
Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons have both been found in what is now Israel,
and inbreeding is now a popular theory.
Neanderthal fossils dating to over 50,000 years ago have been found in Israel.
And genetic evidence suggests interbreeding took place with anatomically modern humans between roughly 80,000 and 50,000 years ago in the Middle East,
Nevertheless, I've never heard modern humans referred to as "post-Neanderthals.
That term sets up the kind of "straw man" I've sometimes been accused of using.
Finally, you say,
"If Adam and Eve weren't real, and if God doesn't use Blood-sacrifice as a covenantal tool, then Christ died needlessly and Scripture is tribal nonsense."
I'm sorry, and I will try not to take that as a personal attack,
but I frankly find that statement to be nonsensical.
I don't know how many times we have to go over the same ground -
We've discussed "blood sacrifice" several times in other threads,
and I have stated my views of the meaning of the cross numerous times as well.
I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus gives us our clearest picture
of the nature of God and the nature of humanity,
and the cross stands at the center of my faith
as a testimony to God's love and an example of our calling
(take up your OWN cross and follow me.)"
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
03/04/2012 14:06 |
Ted C,
As I said in my last resposne to Grogan,
"But I would hope that we would agree, in answer to Lisa's concerns,
that Jesus is the lens through which we as Christians
must read and interpret the Old Testament,
and that Ultimate Truth is what matters,
whatever differences of opinion people may have about
the historical and scientific issues."
I would propose the same thing to you.
|
| |
Isabel
|
03/04/2012 14:37 |
Marcie - thanks, your comments were really helpful. I'll be honest, I think some of the other comments missed what I was getting at (and go slightly over my head!) although as someone pointed out it is a discussion forum!
|
(page
1
2
3
4
5)
|
