Hans

I recently downloaded an electronic version of the King James Bible. After reading the first few chapters of Genesis I quickly realized there were a lot of exuberant claims I wasn't previously aware of. Specifically, that in what are the early days of humanity according to the book, people lived for multiple centuries. A fact that apparently isn't widely communicated as I have never heard of such a thing. Curious!

Anyway, It led me to wonder who is believed to author this and the other books of the old testament.

Is there an online resource for this info that anyone is aware of?

Thanks.

cloudyphiz

scholars tend to believe that the first 5 books of the bible were not written by moses, rather they were redacted from multiple sources.

if you're looking for more info,
<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm" target="_blank">here's a good place to start</a>

that's a general overview, but it should give you some good keywords you can use to search google for.

-gary

Hans

Thanks Gary.

Marduk

The idea that people before the flood lived great lifespans is common to many middle eastern cultures, check out the Sumerian King list, some of them reigned for several thousand years. The Egyptians also have a list of antediluvian kings going back 'to the days when the gods, not man lived on earth' from the Atrahasis. 'There were giants in the Earth in those days' Gen. 6, another common ancient myth, a race of super beings that existed before humans.
The Babylonians called them the Annunaki, and claim they gave civillization to mankind as kind of a reward for being their servants for so long.

Hans

I caught that statement about the giants when I was reading Genesis. It seemed ambiguous to me. Was the author trying to convey that giants lived among the people or was everyone a giant? My reading is the former but I'm to unfamiliar with ancient writing to be sure.

Previously I've only read one of the NT books, Mark or Luke? This when I was a teenager. The only thing that sticks in my memory from that reading was Jesus responding to an inquisitor who asked whether he, the inquisitor, should pay taxes or not. Jesus went on to explain that he should look at the coin and ask who's picture is on it. He then went on to argue that since the coin contained the picture of the king-ruler the inquisitor should give the coin to him. Thus he should pay taxes. Hardly the great wisdom I would have thought to hear from such a wise soul!

I guess giants living for centuries is not a big selling point for modern Christianity. It would explain why I've not heard of it before.

======

I've heard before that many of the Christian stories resemble other myths of that time. The examples you provide may be good reading as well.

ShottleBop

Check out Richard Elliott Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible." It is a well-written, short and informative book.

Liquidrage

The Bible Unearthed also makes claims that make sense. Basically, it rips the Bible apart while someone managing to still be pro-Xian.

However, even if the book is basically correct, I was dissapointed with the authors ability to back up his claims with clear references. I found to many conclusions with solid evidence. While the evidence may exist, the author assumes we'll just take his word on it.

Jayhawker Soule

Yes it does.

That is neither its intent nor its effect.

Ridiculous. Suggesting that Finkelstein/Silberman managed to "still be pro-Xian" is laughable.

You were clearly more than dissapointed; you were woefully confused.

I liked it as well.

The author assumes no such thing. Re-read the damn book! Good grief ...

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Marduk

"I caught that statement about the giants when I was reading Genesis. It seemed ambiguous to me. Was the author trying to convey that giants lived among the people or was everyone a giant? My reading is the former but I'm to unfamiliar with ancient writing to be sure."

Yes, the Giants lived along side the regular folk (check out 'The Book of Enoch' and the Dead Sea Scrolls 'Book of the Giants' both available online) In the book of Numbers Joshua battles the giants, reffered to as the Nephilim, Anakim or Raphaim, Goliath was one. The authors though paint themselves into a corner however, in Genesis all the giants should have been killed off in the flood but they keep popping up later. Naturally they write this off by saying "but that was a new batch of giants" oh really, then they were related to Noah right? well... er.. ah.. I guess, blah blah blah

"I guess giants living for centuries is not a big selling point for modern Christianity. It would explain why I've not heard of it before."

No, it's very silly. Unless you buy the Sitchin theory that they, along with Angels and The Sons of God were Space Aliens violating the prime directive by teaching humans secret knowledge and making whoopee with the Earth women!

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: marduck ]</p>

Liquidrage

ReasonableDoubt,

I stand by my take on the book and was not confused.

Just because you got something different out of a book does not mean you should result to insults.

The book does rip the Bible. Not in a preschool "ha ha the Bible sucks" manner, but by attempting to show that the OT is full of inaccuracies.

Pro-Xian might have been a poor choice of words on my part. The NT is left intact and there are allmost no philisophical or religious conclusions, which is good from my standpoint. What I meant by Pro-Xian (and again I admit to poor wording) is that outside of a fundie, a Xian could read this book and come away with their faith intact.

I also stand by my point of "too many conclusions without solid evidence".

The book includes an extensive bibliography and for this I applaud the authors. However, I believe it would have been better to incorporate a little more of the knowledge contained in the references as opposed to just a conlusion based off of them.

As a non-theist, this book basically told me what I wanted to hear. I am always fearfull when this occurs because I am prone, just like anyone else, to accepting a like view easier then an opposing view.

Is the book worth reading? Yes, or else I wouldn't have mentioned it.