Is the bible the word of God or men?

or mt. horeb. depending. the "oral law" or "oral torah" is the talmud. unfortunately, this is nothing but old tradition. textual analysis (even medieval textual analysis) demonstrates pretty clearly that moshe could not have written the torah. for starters, it describes his death.there are a host of other problems. some of the more obvious issues are the anachronisms, things that moshe should not have written about living between 1400 and 1100 BC (and not phrased as prophecy, either). the grammar indicates a much later date for the torah, between 900 and 600 BC. another of the more obvious issues are the duplications. through them, it becomes clear that the story is being told by two separate voices, who have been stitched together very craftily by an editor.

---

"bible" and "code" appearing in the same sentance is a sort of pet-peeve of mine. the bible is not "encoded" except perhaps in certain specific instances (all of which remain to be demonstrated, btw). ah, see, here's where the problem starts. the story of pardes is itself an allegory. the system of thought came first, and was remembered through the mnemonic "orchard" or pardes. the word "pardes" is an abbreviations for pshat, remez, dresh, and sod. or "literal, allegorical, applied, and mystical." the only part that comes close to being a "code" is the "mystical" part -- where one thing might symbolize another.but other than that, each level is built on the previous, and cannot contradict it. the moral application is built on the deeper meaning of the generalized allegory. that is built on the literal reading.

---

oh, that's boring jewish tradition. what about the books god did not deliver to moses, but kept for himself and his angels? that have "accidentally" fallen into the hands of man.

---

oh, no, i did. and contributed some to it. i'm just saying that it's relatively run-of-the-mill tradition. and that you should see the goofy stuff.

---

what i was pointing out is that saying "oral torah" (torah means "law") is the wrong kind of term, as the oral law is the talmud. punch "oral torah" into wikipedia, and see where it redirects too.in neither popular judeo-christian tradition, nor actual academic studies, does the torah seem to have gone through an oral phase. in both, it is primarily a collection of written documents. this is not to say that academics confirms tradition. just the opposite. well, sorry for misunderstanding. but this is still "moses wrote the torah" once removed. all you've done is further complicate the matter, while keeping the focus on moses recieving the word of god. this does not match the reality of the construction of the torah at all, and to presume it does would require a good degree of fracturing between the "oral" word of god given to moses of horeb, and the actual recording and recombining of the book -- which means that the it's not the same words.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

well, the thing is that it wasn't written for whatever purpose anyone cares to apply to it, especially those that disregard the meaning and treat the text as a "code." the "bible code" (as one continuous phrase) is perhaps the worst example of this, turning the bible into (a rather bad) fortune-telling device. not to mention that it's mathematically unsound. indeed they were. it is important to separate the literal reading from the "truth" or accuracy of the accounts, and jesus's parables are the perfect example of this. the stories are actually fictional, but it doesn't matter. and the first level of understanding what they mean is on a literal basis: what happens in the story. the next level is how it applies to a general case. and the level after that is what we can learn from the general case. one might even be able to argue that jesus understood the basis of a system much like pardes.also, it's customary to include vowels in english transliterations here, unless the vowels are questionable. hebrew and aramaic are easily understood without vowels, but it just doesn't read as smoothly in english. people typically leave the vowels off yahweh as a sign of respect, making the name unpronouncable, but it's rather unusual to do the same thing for yehoshua who had a relatively common hebrew/aramaic name, and one found elsewhere in the bible belonging to very mortal men. however, also feel free to simply write and . i promise i'll understand you. nevi'im are generally thought to have spoken for god, more or less directly. the word seems to come from the word meaning "to bubble up" as in words just coming to their mouths. i'm not sure if we could say this is a refinement process -- just god continuing to speak to his people as time goes on. god's words were not timeless and generally applicable -- they were scathingly specific, and very to the point. it is only from the application, the higher steps in the pardes system, that we learn timeless truths. ah, it's the old joke abd two rabbis having three opinions between them. people disagree. people fight. people debate. it's a simple fact of life, and one should not read the talmud as anything other than disagreements of the nature we often have here. there is even debate recorded in the bible, for that matter -- which alone is bound to spawn even more debate. it's not that it's "coded" or vague -- it's just that there's a lot of content and it doesn't all agree. i was not neccessarily trying to disagree. this is qabala you are speaking of. that is a whole separate discussion, and one i am admittedly not well versed in. in genesis, god creates by speaking. this is a common theme, and in many targums the name of god became something that would reflect that aspect -- this is probably the origin of this whole "word" concept. we are looking at stuff from around the time of christ. there is no good biblical evidence that hebrew was the language of god. god gives his own name as a hebrew verb, but this is often thought to be just what moshe was supposed to tell the hebrews he was called. at babel, the languages are divided, and there is nothing to say that the sons of eber kept the original tongue, if anyone did. this is the important thing to remember. this is all tradition. and really, just tradition. frankly, i don't care to subscribe to any of it. i'd rather approach the text accurately and honestly, ignoring dogma. and i'd rather approach the traditions historically. yes and no. under pardes everything is actually both.also, a tip: to reply, you can hit the "little green reply button" on the bottom of the post you are referencing. it makes following conversations easier, and sends that person an email that someone has posted a response.

---

wait, what? no. you're possibly being confused by the fact that after the jewish rebellion circa 70ad, when the romans burned down the second temple, the area began to be called "palestine." the roman empire did this as an insult to the jews.see, the word we're really talking about here is palushtim, which in your bible is probably rendered "philistines" -- in general the heathen peoples of the surrounding nations, but in specific the people on the west coast of the levantine region, just outside the kingdom of judah (modern gaza). now, i'm not saying these are ethnically or genetically the same people. they might be, they might not be; i don't know.but the romans stopped calling judea "judea" after the rebellion, and gave it the name of the jews enemies, calling it "philistia" or "palestine." the term stuck until the 1940's, so the people that were there before the establishment of the modern state of israel were "palestinians" regardless of cultural heritage.but jews were jews. as far as we can tell, they've always been in the area, and the biblical philistines are a separate cultural group. modern palestinians before 1948 almost certainly included jews -- but since the creation of a "homeland" for the jews, pretty much all of the jewish people in the area at the time began identifying themselves as "israelis."it should also be noted that israel includes arabic people, too. arabic is an official language in israel, and there are many muslim holy sites. there are jewish people that live in palestine, but it's mostly the result of shifting borders and people not liking relocation -- and they generally do not call themselves as "palestinian."edit: because until 1948, the area was called "palestine." the newspaper change its name to "the jerusalem post" in 1950, shortly after the establishment of the state of israel.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

yes, i've talked to IAJ before.

yes. but it's also a hard situation. when the state of israel was established in 1948, there were a lot of people who lived there already. regardless of how legitimate the creation of the state was, people were displaced, and there is still a lot of resentment about it. many of the "jewish invaders" were holocaust survivors for europe -- that was the intention of establishing israel, afterall, to give these people a place to go.it's certainly not the case that "all israelis are invaders of arab lands." frankly, a fair percentage of the population of israel is arab, and gets along without any problems. the promised islamic genocide of israel seems to be one of those rhetorical politican claims in the arab world, like lowering taxes for us. nobody actually DOES it, people just want to hear it. israeli, on the other hand, has been holding its own with a very strong military force, one of the best in the world. and should a bigger country like iran decide to pick a fight, they'd very quickly have to face the US and brittain as well. which they don't want to do.and i'm not sure that there isn't any UN resolution regarding the issue. yes. well, no. sort of. the jews in palestine were called "palestinians." the term "palestinian" post-1948 means something a little different than it did pre-1948. thus the name change of the newspaper. yes and no. arabs continue to live in israel. let's not mix up "arab" and "palestinian." one is a subset of the other, and most of both groups are also muslim. there are a number of muslim holy sites throughout israel, and israeli is generally very tolerant of islam. it's really only the palestinians they are constantly fighting with.the issue of a soveriegn claim is basically that they lived there, and people came in and took their country away from them. regardless of what deals went on, they basically feel gypped. this is basically the same nonsense as the islamic leaders saying that israel isn't a real country. they don't recognize it as being legitimate sovereignty. the "there was never a palestine" is the product of a western view of the world. similarly, we didn't recognize native american nations in this country, because their lines weren't drawn by our cartographers.only with the added confusion that the lines around palestine were in fact drawn by brittish cartographers in the first place. if their other countries in the area are legitimate, why not palestine? just because they change their minds later doesn't mean it never existed. people don't like relocation. why should people living on the west bank be forced to move to jordan simply because they're arab? every palestinian i've ever heard from has been muslim. i'm not sure what you're on about, but you're clearly not quite in touch with reality on this issue. the palestinians want their own state. israel wants them to be part of israel. one or both of them should suck it up, and they should work out their differences. and, i think, it's going to be on israel to turn things around and give aid and such. while the problem may be with palestine, the only way to work things out is for israel to make it harder for palestinians to view them as the bullies. take away the poverty, and you take away the terrorism. i'm not sure what jordan would say about that. jordan and israel have been on pretty good terms for the last... 40 years or so? since the six days war. i don't think it's a good idea to write jordan into the "problem" column, and certainly not with the ideas that they should give their land to israel.and they certainly were not part of the modern jewish state. or even the ancient one, really. modern israel covers about the same land as the ancient kingdoms of israel and judah, and maybe a little bit extra. they WERE part of palestine under brittish mandate. but that's most definitely not the same thing as a jewish state.you're basically saying that because brittish mandate palestine was divided into israel and jordan, and you like israel, that brittish mandate palestine = israel, so jordan = israel. this is the same logic that leads to "moses was a christian (or muslim)." flawed all around. yes. the jordan river was the boundary to the promised land. west of the river, to the sea. except for philistine lands on the coast, to the south (gaza). no, the philistine lived around the 10th century onward. they seem to have come from the sea (cyprus?), and settled in the area. today's palestinians are probably more from the arabian peninsula.but again, the whole exodus/joshua story seems to be a fabrication anyways. as far as archaeology can tell, the israelites were not invaders, but native semitic peoples. i wouldn't call ruth a "history." it's a novella. as in "coming from history?" yes. as in "recordings of history?" not generally. as i said, exodus and joshua seem to be complete fabrications. after about the 10th century, it starts getting more accurate, because the books were closer to being contemporaneous to the events, and not mythological stories regarding origins. stylistically, the book of kings is a history -- the book of ruth is not. there's a big difference between a bedtime story and an academic work that cites sources and provides dates.

---