Ganymede

I have recently read Thomas Paine's Age of Reason and have, if I may, a few questions.

Paine makes the assertion that the word prophesy as originally used in biblical texts meant (paraphrase) writing poetry or putting poetry to music, and that only latter did it come to mean "foretelling the future". Is there any support for this notion?

Paine goes to great lengths to show that Moses (I was unaware that he had ever been given the credit for them!) did not write the first 4 books of the OT and dates their actual authorship quite precisely - do his dates stack up with modern thinking?

Finally can anyone fill in the details of the canonisation process - who was involved, when did it take place, are there any records that talk about how close the votes were etc?

Thanks in advance

Dave

Silent Acorns

The word "prophesy" is derived from the word "prophet". Here's what the Oxford English Dictionary says:
LXX is (I think) The Septuagint .

Butters

What Paine claimed was that the HEBREW word for prophecy had changed meaning over time. Unfortunately he did not mention which word, or how he came to that conclusion. I have been interested in this myself, but have not been able to find any info on it. If anyone has an answer to Ganymede's question, I would also be very interested in hearing it.

Thanks!

Bob K

Regardless of the confusions concerning Paine's comments concerning the meaning of the Hebrew word(s) of prophecy (prophets), you should have noticed that in his comments concerning the biblical fictions generated by the Xns writing the NT to prove the fulfillment of prophecies of the OT, which is then validated by predicting the events of the NT, in which case Paine is clearly using the term 'prophecy' to refer to predictions in the OT of J in the NT and the term 'prophet' in the OT to refer to people who predicted J in the NT.

Paine went to lengths to prove that the so-called OT prophecies of the NT J were not prophecies of the NT J but, instead, were prophecies of OT people/things/events, and that, therefore, the NT did not fulfill the OT and therefore the OT was not validated by the NT.

Randel Helms, in Gospel Fictions, augmented the same thesis.

By the way, Paine was not an atheist, as theists may like to claim, but, instead, was a Deist, as were the majority of the US Founders at the US Consitutional Convention, as authorized by the US Continental Congress, as reported by Charles Thompson, the Secretary and official historian of the US Continental Congress, who therefore knew most of the Founders, and Thompson's report was corroborated by the Rev. Dr. Ashbel (Asa) Green, Chaplain to the US Continental Congress, and by the Rev. Dr. Bird Wilson, a minister who functioned as an historian.

For more information, see thus:

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/evdnceofdeismofusfndrs.html

... for Evidence of the Deism of the US Founders.

cpickett

I've never read Age Of Reason, but according to general legend, Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible, which are called the Pentateuch... Today, I think it is fairly common knowledge that he didn't, mainly due to the fact that Deuteronomy contains a detailed account of Moses's death.

doubtingt

True. However, I think theists are correct to regard him and many other diests as the equivalent of an atheist. His conception of God was such that, if he lacked this conception it would have had little bearing on his worldview, politics, or values. Also, like Jefferson he had more respect for atheists who rationally rejected theism than theists who accepted God without question.
It seems highly likely that Paine, Jeffereson and many others would have given up even their deistic notions of God had they
lived into this century. The seeming "design" is always the last argument that doubting theists put forth to themselves and others. Modern evolution goes a long way to undermining and providing an intellectual alternative to this idea.

Also, how many public figures of the day were self-labeled "atheists"?
Many people today, emphatically deny being an atheist, and view themselves as agnostic, and I suspect it has much to do with the social sanctions surrounding the notion of atheism. Given Paine's and others arguments it seems highly likely that a similiar pressure prompted them to hold onto the last vestiges of the
abstract, distant, and relatively inconsequential God that Diesm represents.

philechat

I think Spinoza first casted doubt on the authenticity of the Torah (given his Jewish background and his familiarity with the Hebrew tradition behind it). He noticed textual inconsistency in the book and suspected that the Torah was written by more than one person, and certainly not by Moses.

His religious theory was probably the foundation of the Church-State seperation principles that were epoused by Jefferson, Paine, and others. Paine's argument might actually be based on Spinoza's argument given Spinoza's influence in the American political ideas.

Bob K

No, Paine is to be regarded as a Deist, and not an atheist, or an agnostic.

If you are not aware, there are two types of Deist: (A) The Type-I Deist believes that gods exist, that they created the universe, but do not intervene in human affairs; (B) The Type-II Deist who believes that gods exist, that they created the universe, and that they do in fact intervene in human affairs, and, therefore, can be prayed to.

The Type-I Deist evolved from ancient Greece while the Type-II Deist evolved in 16th century England, and the liberal religion of the time was Deism, and was the religion of most if not all of the Founders who created the US Constitution, as witnessed by Charles Thompson, Secretary and Historian of the Continental Congress, the Rev. Dr. Ashbel Green, Chaplain to the Continental Congress, and others. The Type-II Deist was justified in praying to the god and thereby could participate in Xn services. G. Washington was known for attending Xn churches but not taking Xn communion, in fact, for walking out of service prior to communion, and when addressed as to that fact, eliminated the problem by not attending church on those Sundays when communion was served.

Some historians who have examined church records have argued that no more than 18% of the Colonists were Xns, in contrast to the claims of Xns. The remaining 82% could have included atheists/agnostics, and clearly included Deists.

I look at who is claiming to have proof of the existence or the nonexistence of gods for definitions of who is a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic.

A theist claims to have proof of the existence of gods.

An atheist claims to have proof of the nonexistence of gods.

And Agnostic claims to have neither proof of the existence of gods nor proof of the nonexistence of gods.

Therefore, absent conclusive proof of either the existence or the nonexistence of the gods, the only rational philosophical position concerning religion and the fundamental question concerning religion, Do gods exist?, is agnosticism.

I do not find most people who are atheists claiming to be agnostics.

Fr.Andrew

Richard Elliott Friedman's excellent book Who Wrote the Bible is a very good read and will cast some light on the subject for you.

Fr.Andrew

(BobK): A theist claims to have proof of the existence of gods.
An atheist claims to have proof of the nonexistence of gods.
And Agnostic claims to have neither proof of the existence of gods nor proof of the nonexistence of gods.


(Fr Andew): Not quite.
A theist believes in the existence of God(s).
An atheist simply lacks that belief...no proofs are claimed.
An agnostic admits that he lacks the sort of certain sprititual knowledge (apparently available to others) necessary to make an informed decision with respect to the existence (or not) of God.