I am not aware of any women writing down the Bible when it first came into existence. Of the men that wrote down the Bible, Paul and Peter would be two of them. Aside from that there was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who each wrote down the books that were named after them in the NT. John also wrote down the book of Revelations in the NT. In the OT there was King Solomon who wrote down Proverbs, Daniel who wrote down the book of Daniel, and others. I personally believe that it was God who wrote the entire Bible and was using the men I just mentioned to write down what He was saying, whether or not other people want to accept that belief is their choice. Of all the people that wrote down the Bible when it was first written, Im not aware of any women doing so.
The Bible does not condemn self defense
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
I am not aware of any women writing down the Bible when it first came into existence. Of the men that wrote down the Bible, Paul and Peter would be two of them. Aside from that there was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who each wrote down the books that were named after them in the NT. John also wrote down the book of Revelations in the NT. In the OT there was King Solomon who wrote down Proverbs, Daniel who wrote down the book of Daniel, and others. I personally believe that it was God who wrote the entire Bible and was using the men I just mentioned to write down what He was saying, whether or not other people want to accept that belief is their choice. Of all the people that wrote down the Bible when it was first written, Im not aware of any women doing so.
The Book of Proverbs - My Jewish Learning
Mishlei - Chapter 1 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
The Book of Daniel - My Jewish Learning
Daniel - Chapter 1 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
You do know that what you call the Old Testament is in fact Jewish writings?
Well, of course you aren't...no one is really aware of any of the authors of the Bible.
Least of all someone who holds up the KJV as a "historical" source.
Popular theory, however, holds that the Book of Ruth was written by (surprise!) a woman, though,
Additionally, several scholars theorize that the author of one of the Bible's source documents, the so-called "Book of J"-the basis for Genesis, Exodus and Numbers, "J" was a woman.
The Book of J Harold Bloom David Rosenberg 9780802141910 Amazon.com Books
Well, of course you aren't...no one is really aware of any of the authors of the Bible.
Least of all someone who holds up the KJV as a "historical" source.
Popular theory, however, holds that the Book of Ruth was written by (surprise!) a woman, though,
Additionally, several scholars theorize that the author of one of the Bible's source documents, the so-called "Book of J"-the basis for Genesis, Exodus and Numbers, "J" was a woman.
The Book of J Harold Bloom David Rosenberg 9780802141910 Amazon.com Books
Actually, it's pretty widely accepted that none of the Gospels were directly written, or even narrated, by the named authors. Remember that the first generations after the Resurrection believed that the Second Coming was imminent. They only began to write down what the various disciples taught as they realized that those who saw Him directly were going to die.
Last edited:
Well yes, Christianity did not come into existence until the NT. So the OT is all Jewish.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
jks9199, I noticed they don't all agree. Do you have an opinion of which one I should believe?
They all say, in this instance, almost the same thing-the intention is certainly the same....??
(I mean, do you mean that all the translations don't agree, or that all the translations of that particular verse shown on that page don't agree? Because, if it's the latter, I've gotta say look again...if it's the former, well, how long do you have?
)oftheherd1
Senior Master
You and I travel in different circles I guess. I am not aware of a widely accepted belief that none of the Gospels were directly written by other than the men they are named for. There are some who believe Matthew and Luke may have borrowed from Mark, and from another unknown source called "Q." That is not proven, nor widely accepted to my knowledge. As I have mentioned before, I am a fundamental Baptist, and we are believers in the KJV as the inspired work of God in English. I guess you don't believe that. You are free to believe what you wish, as am I.
With the exception of some of the Pauline books, it's generally held by most reputable academic Biblical scholars that authorship of the New Testament, especially the Gospels, were completed at later dates from earlier fragments, and that authorship cannot be attributed to eyewitnesses, or the individuals for whom the Gospels are named...tradition, on the other hand, holds otherwise. The same is true for the hypothetical "Q" document-this theory is accepted by most academics. Believe it or not, most of this-as well as Christianity's relationship to Greek "mystery schools," and Mithraism, would actually be taught at a Baptist seminary or Bible college: Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote (mostly plagiarized ) a paper on the relationship between early Christianity and the mystery schools himself.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
They all say, in this instance, almost the same thing-the intention is certainly the same....??
(I mean, do you mean that all the translations don't agree, or that all the translations of that particular verse shown on that page don't agree? Because, if it's the latter, I've gotta say look again...if it's the former, well, how long do you have?
Perhaps it would help if you could tell us what it is they all say. You are an educated man as evidenced by your posts. It shouldn't be difficult for you to summarize how they all use the same words to say the same thing, and how that is so in all the translations of all the Bible. I think we could all learn from that. I know I would.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
"Most reputable academic Biblical scholars." What about those "reputable scholars" that are not part of the most? Is their research, and is their opinion not worthy? Do you have a guess as to what percentage of those most reputable say what you believe as opposed to those most reputable don't say what you believe?
You do bring up an interesting point about most current reputable academic Biblical scholars versus tradition. What makes current scholars better qualified than traditions of those who were closer the events? It would seem what they passed on might have validity.
As to Baptist seminary or Bible colleges teaching such things. They could also be using other than KJV Bibles. As you can imagine, I would not put a lot of credence in them. You or anyone else is free to do so.
Cirdan
Senior Master
Given that G-man vrote evertyhing himself he has an awful lot of trouble getting his stuff straight...
Biblical Contradictions
Language is a funny thing, often I've been reading something in French and not understood a particular word, I look it up and there's no direct translation for that word in English, the dictionary can give me an idea, an impression of the meaning but not the exact meaning the French writer has and native French readers will understand.
Where I live in North Yorkshire the dialect is heavily influenced by Norse words, it's in the name places as well as the spoken word. We have becks ( streams) brigs ( bridges) clegs ( horseflies) dales (valleys) foss ( waterfall) gate ( street) gyll ( narrow valleys) keld (well) thwaite (village) as well as phrases like 'we mun go now', and 'happen he did'. Now whether the modern descendants of the Norsemen recognise those words or not I don't know but the parallel is there with ancient Hebrew and Aramaic and centuries later English. We have a Norse word 'gimmer' used by sheep farmers, there's no one word translation for it, it means a female sheep that hasn't had a lamb yet but can you see the potential for mistranslation there? who is going to write the whole phrase out in English when perhaps one word would do? So you find words close to it, perhaps young ewe but it changes the meaning slightly because we think of ewes as having had lambs. A poor translator could just put 'ewe' and the correct meaning has gone altogether now.
I do think the KJV has translations that were politically motivated but with the best will in the world even without that meanings will have changed.
My belief is that the Truth in Scripture lies in the message rather than specific words. On the grand scale, that is that God sent His Son top redeem mankind. This verse is, in my opinion, pretty clear: The message that Christb was bringing was not simply going to be more of the same -- it would be a radical and divisive new message. Families would come to be divided over questions of the new teachings
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Last edited:
oftheherd1
Senior Master
I also believe that when taken in its context, it shows that people will be divided over Christ's message.
But would you believe and/or agree that when different words are used, or words are left out, you may no longer be able to ascertain the "Truth in Scripture?" in the message?
How about (From: Quick Comparison of Bible Versions - Chick Publications)
King James Version: New International Version:
Luke 9:56: For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, Luke 9:56: and they went to another village
but to save them. And they went to another village.
Matt. 18:11: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. Matt 18:11: (missing)
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
In just these three verses, in comparison, which do you think most accurately depicts the Truth in Scripture?
oftheherd1
Senior Master
Sorry, to me that seems like a non-answer. I don't agree there is any hairsplitting.
Similar threads
