THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE.

A few wandering families -- poor, wretched, without education, art or power; descendants of those who had been enslaved for four hundred years; ignorant as the inhabitants of Central Africa, had just escaped from their masters to the desert of Sinai.

Their leader was Moses, a man who had been raised in the family of Pharaoh and had been taught the law and mythology of Egypt. For the purpose of controlling his followers he pretended that he was instructed and assisted by Jehovah, the God of these wanderers.

Everything that happened was attributed to the interference of this God. Moses declared that he met this God face to face; that on Sinai's top from the hands of this God he had received the tables of stone on which, by the finger of this God, the Ten Commandments had been written, and that, in addition to this, Jehovah had made known the sacrifices and ceremonies that were pleasing to him and the laws by which the people should be governed.

In this way the Jewish religion and the Mosaic Code were established.

It is now claimed that this religion and these laws were and are revealed and established for all mankind.

At that time these wanderers had no commerce with other nations, they had no written language, they could neither read nor write. They had no means by which they could make this revelation known to other nations, and so it remained buried in the jargon of a few ignorant, impoverished and unknown tribes for more than two thousand year's.

Many centuries after Moses, the leader, was dead many centuries after all his followers had passed away -- the Pentateuch was written, the work of many writers, and to give it force and authority it was claimed that Moses was the author.

We now know that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses.

Towns are mentioned that were not in existence when Moses lived.
Money, not coined until centuries after his death, is mentioned.
So, many of the laws were not applicable to wanderers on the desert -- laws about agriculture, about the sacrifice of oxen, sheep and doves, about the weaving of cloth, about ornaments of gold and silver, about the cultivation of land, about harvest, about the threshing of grain, about houses and temples, about cities of refuge, and about many other subjects of no possible application to a few starving wanderers over the sands and rocks.

It is now not only admitted by intelligent and honest theologians that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, but they all admit that no one knows who the authors were, or who wrote any one of these books, or a chapter or a line. We know that the books were not written in the same generation; that they were not all written by one person; that they are filled with mistakes and contradictions. It is also admitted that Joshua did not write the book that bears his name, because it refers to events that did not happen until long after his death.

No one knows, or pretends to know, the author of Judges; all we know is that it was written centuries after all the judges had ceased to exist. No one knows the author of Ruth, nor of First and Second Samuel; all we know is that Samuel did not write the books that bear his name. In the 25th chapter of First Samuel is an account of the raising of Samuel by the Witch of Endor.

No one knows the author of First and Second Kings or First and Second Chronicles; all we know is that these books are of no value.
We know that the Psalms were not written by David. In the Psalms the Captivity is spoken of, and that did not happen until about five hundred years after David slept with his fathers.

We know that Solomon did not write the Proverbs or the Song; that Isaiah was not the author of the book that bears his name; that no one knows the author of Job, Ecclesiastes, or Esther, or of any book in the Old Testament, with the exception of Ezra.
We know that God is not mentioned or in any way referred to in the book of Esther. We know, too, that the book is cruel, absurd and impossible.

God is not mentioned in the Song of Solomon, the best book in the Old Testament.

And we know that Ecclesiastes was written by an unbeliever.
We know, too, that the Jews themselves had not decided as to what books were inspired -- were authentic -- until the second century after Christ.

We know that the idea of inspiration was of slow growth, and that the inspiration was determined by those who had certain ends to accomplish.

Good point

Isn't the OT based on the book of J and the NT based on the Q source?

Smiles raises an excellent point and that is why it is crucial to have an understanding of the underlying message of the bible rather than get bogged down in the details.I was raised in a very religious intensive background (compared to most people).However,I had a much more positive and straight forward introduction to these ideas. My parents did not "white wash" these things to me. They just showed me that this was the way it was and thats just how it is.

And specifically? Please go one Mirror...

The writing is from Robert Green Ingersoll. He wrote this in 1849!

There will be more to read for your convenience and perhaps you would like to reflect on his idealogy.

Specifically what?

IS THE OLD TESTAMENT INSPIRED?

If it is, it should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.

It should contain the perfection of philosophy.

It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.

There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.

Its morality should be the highest, the purest.

Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.

It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.

It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.

It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.

It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.

It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.
It should be true.

Does the Old Testament satisfy this standard?

Is there anything in the Old Testament -- in history, in theory, in law, in government, inmorality, in science -- above and beyond the ideas, the beliefs, the customs and prejudices of its authors and the people among whom they lived?

Is there one ray of light from any supernatural source?

The ancient Hebrews believed that this earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon and stars were specks in the sky.
With this the Bible agrees.

They thought the earth was flat, with four corners; that the sky, the firmament, was solid -- the floor of Jehovah's house.
The Bible teaches the same.

They imagined that the sun journeyed about the earth, and that by stopping the sun the day could be lengthened.

The Bible agrees with this.

They believed that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman; that they had been created but a few years before, and that they, the Hebrews, were their direct descendants.

This the Bible teaches.

If anything is, or can be, certain, the writers of the Bible were mistaken about creation, astronomy, geology; about the causes of phenomena, the origin of evil and the cause of death.

Now, it must be admitted that if an infinite Being is the author of the Bible, he knew all sciences, all facts, and could not have made a mistake.

If, then, there are mistakes, misconceptions, false theories, ignorant myths and blunders in the Bible, it must have been written by finite beings; that is to say, by ignorant and mistaken men.
Nothing can be clearer than this.

For centuries the church insisted that the Bible was absolutely true; that it contained no mistakes; that the story of creation was true; that its astronomy and geology were in accord with the facts; that the scientists who differed with the Old Testament were infidels and atheists.

Now this has changed. The educated Christians admit that the writers of the Bible were not inspired as to any science. They now say that God, or Jehovah, did not inspire the writers of his book for the purpose of instructing the world about astronomy, geology, or any science. They now admit that the inspired men who wrote the Old Testament knew nothing about any science, and that they wrote about the earth and stars, the sun and moon, in accordance with the general ignorance of the time.

It required many centuries to force the theologians to this admission. Reluctantly, full of malice and hatred, the priests retired from the field, leaving the victory with science.

They took another position;

They declared that the authors, or rather the writers, of the Bible were inspired in spiritual and moral things; that Jehovah wanted to make known to his children his will and his infinite love for his children; that Jehovah, seeing his people wicked, ignorant and depraved, wished to make them merciful and just, wise and spiritual, and that the Bible is inspired in its laws, in the religion it teaches and in its ideas of government.

This is the issue now. Is the Bible any nearer right in its ideas of justice, of mercy, of morality or of religion than in its conception of the sciences? Is it moral?

It upholds slavery -- it sanctions polygamy.

Could a devil have done worse?

Is it merciful?

In war it raised the black flag; it commanded the destruction, the massacre, of all -- of the old, infirm. and helpless -- of wives and babes.

Were its laws inspired?

Hundreds of offenses were punished with death. To pick up sticks on Sunday, to murder your father on Monday, were equal crimes. There is in the literature of the world no bloodier code. The law of revenge -- of retaliation -- was the law of Jehovah. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a limb for a limb.

This is savagery -- not philosophy.

Is it just and reasonable?

The Bible is opposed to religious toleration -- to religious liberty. Whoever differed with the majority was stoned to death. Investigation was a crime. Husbands were ordered to denounce and to assist in killing their unbelieving wives.

It is the enemy of Art. "Thou shalt make no graven image." This was the death of Art.

Palestine never produced a painter or a sculptor.

Is the Bible civilized?

It upholds lying, larceny, robbery, murder, the selling of diseased meat to strangers, and even the sacrifice of human beings to Jehovah.
Is it philosophical?

It teaches that the sins of a people can be transferred to an animal -- to a goat. It makes maternity an offence for which a sin offering had to be made.

It was wicked to give birth to a boy, and twice as wicked to give birth to a girl.

To make hair-oil like that used by the priests was an offence punishable with death.

The blood of a bird killed over running water was regarded as medicine.

Would a civilized God daub his altars with the blood of oxen, lambs and doves?

Would he make all his priests butchers? Would he delight in the smell of burning flesh?

And these are all the things (and more) that Jesus claimed he did NOT COME TO CHANGE. Yet Christians have changed them in his name.

All these things you are printing, Smiless, are proof of the hand of humans manipulating others through the use of religion. It is not just Christianity that has evolved in this way. Christianity just happened to be in the right place at the right time, in history, for powerful and manipulative leaders to utilize it to thier own end. Succeeding leaders continued to utilize (and change) Christianity for the same reasons.

It was only a stoke of luck that allowed Christianity (in all its forms) to progess to the point of proclaiming the greatest number of adharents.

Like all other religions, this one (Christianity) will continue to evolve, the hope is that people will find more relavent and purposful beliefs to fill their spiritual needs. Perhaps a strong sence of belonging to the universe from within humanity, as a whole, would fill the need of belonging, while working to strengthen the bond of every human to every other one could fill the need for spirituality.

I too hope that humans will find more peaceful spiritual practices that show no imprint of atrocities used by force or guilt on people.

It will be difficult because Christians made sure to keep their religion in tack having their cronies involved in politics, wars, and splurged all over the global system including the use of their calenders (Gregorian) and celeberating new years the birth of christ. It doesn't matter where you go Christians are doing a good job in making sure their religion stays alive even if it is losing members in certain parts of the world.

Except for China they seem to celeberate new years in February instead and don't follow too much of the rules Christians enforce.

It hasn't been long since people found the courage to say something about the truth of any mediterrenean mythology without being persecuted or found guilty of heresy.

I hope this trend continues to teach more people the truth about these religions and how spiritual well being can be attained without dogmatic writings of people who had other intentions at the time.


Yes I also believe that many people misunderstand what Jesus was trying to do in that time of history.

Well thank you Red for you comment. It is much appreciated

Humans wanted a savior, a messiah, and thats what we got. Jesus didnt come to change that. He came as a fullfillment of that.

The council of Nicaea.....

> In tracing the origin of the Bible, one is led to AD 325, when
> Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of
> 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council
> was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those
> of questionable origin.
> The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated
> project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an
> atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and
> bigotry.
> At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the
> church into two factions. Constantine offered to make the little-known
> Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would
> settle their differences. Apparently, he didn't particularly care what
> they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief. By compiling a
> book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give
> authority to the new church.

Sounds historically correct to me

Smiless,

Some of your statements have no backing, nor any understanding of context of many of your statements.

It sounds more like a rant to me, than real scientific assessments of the origins of the bible.

People can say "I agree" all they want but that doesn't make it true. How many years did people say the world was flat? Many, but it never made it true, just some common held belief, confirmed by other people of the same belief.

To Clarify: I think you should look at the facts themselves, instead of just stroking your own belief system. You'd be surprised on how accurate the bible is on many topics. I'm not saying it's 100% (because I haven't checked it all, nor do we have all the info). But that you should dig deeper. :)

Christianity, Muslim, and Judaism are dangerous religions to follow. I hope at your age you will realize this one day. If not then realize there will be people out there that will refute this religion ensuring that people will not be persecuted, manipulated, converted, or looked down on because of their individual belief sytem that makes them most happy.

I for one will do my part in ensuring whoever crosses my path to understand that there are far better spiritual and faith systems available that has less atrocities and contradictions in its teachings.

To look at the history of this faith system click on link.

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/218521

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with this statement. Evolution is just as dangerous. Survival of the fittest? Wow...talk about something that works with almost every dictator...

At the end of the day, every belief system is "dangerous". In one form or another. Although Christianity (if you look at Christ's teachings) is a strong preacher of love. So is Judaism. Muslim, hmm, if you read some of the teachings, it frankly endorses certain destructive practices.

There are 'flaws' in every belief system. Even non-major religions and non-religious belief systems. Mainly because WE ARE ALL FLAWED. So, at the end of the day. It's difficult to argue "who's right and who's wrong". Good luck in your continued search. :)

How accurate is it? Not very. Moses lead all those people out of Egypt, but there is no mention in any of the Egyptian writings about it. A group of that size spent forty years in the desert and their is no archeological evidence for it. Surely also another group of people or civilization would have seen them and made mention of it, but there is none. Just a small example.
Let's take one from the NT. Jesus is said to have been from Nazareth, but there is no archeological evidence to show the existence of Nazareth until around a hundred years after his death. There are volumes and volumes of contradictions and inaccuracies in bible. Perhaps you are the one who should dig deeper.

- I'm not sure if I could confirm this. But regardless, I think your assuming something. That people knew what was going on 20 miles away. They didn't. When's the last time you walked 20 miles to your job? Or 100 miles to see family, in another city?

Reality is, EVEN IF there isn't documentation, just because there is no outside documentation, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means there is not outside documentation. Assuming is for fools, in science, in religion, in anything. Don't assume ANYTHING. Just because a 3rd party didn't confirm it, doesn't it didn't happen, it could possibly happen, but there is just little/no verification of it. (So there should be healthy caution/skeptism.)



- Actually I think there is. Some of my hardcore Christian friends, could cite empirical proof that there was evidence that hints that the events in the OT happened. I couldn't. I haven't studied enough to do a good service to this. And sadly there are very few Christian articles on the web but maybe you could find the Christian response.



- Again, this goes back to my original response. Don't assume the world was small, it was very large back then. (Meaning 500 miles meant a few weeks travel, not a plane ticket and an a few hours of flight.)



- ... Did you read this? Maybe you miss worded something because it clearly states your CONFIRMING THE BIBLE and not refuting it.

Your saying "The bible said x but it wasn't until the past few hundreds that there was evidence of x." Umm, just because there is no recorded data, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

If that was true. You didn't exist until they printed a birth certificate of you, with verifiable evidence that you were you (dna, finger print, pictures/portrait, etc.)

I'm sorry but I disagree. You existed, when you were conceived. Now, without that document, or any document, it would be difficult to prove you existed but the truth remains, you were born, on the day you were born.

I could take this analogy to an extreme. Some of your logic might also indicate, if there were no one to 3rd party records, therefore, you don't exist. Even if your own family kept a semi-detailed account of your life. We need to throw that out because it's not a 3rd party. (Sorry, but I think, that your family photo album/diary DOES have merit.)



- I've looked at both sides to many "contradictions" in the Bible. I haven't sifted through *all* of the "contradictions" but I've only found <20 that have some merit, and that's searching through thousands of "supposed" contradictions. LESS THAN 20!!!

There is more error regarding Leonardo DaVinci's life than the Bible.

(Also, you haven't named one...I look forward to seeing your "contradictions". I'm not a scholar but I'm sure when you find the contradictions, you could easily google the opposite side and you'll see the rational explanation.)

Finally, it seems that you haven't looked at the other side (the Christian responses). If you have, you'd be a little more humble about this but your not. Your acting as if I know nothing, when I know a lot, but not all.

There is no way you can ABSOLUTELY prove something. I'm not preaching Agnosticism but I'm preaching that everything (religious and non-religious) should have healthy skepticism. Check out my view on this, in a little more detail. http://www.joshuasciarrino.com/blog/doubt-is-a-godly-thing-not-sin/

Not posting on the Origin of the Bible is complete without mentioning the many times the Bible has been translated, transposed (with errors intentional or not), edited, interpreted and rewritten along with the broadly known elimination and destruction of gospels not seeming to fit by the powers that controlled the writing and distribution of various Bibles.

It is clear, given the history of the book over time these are the words of man not of God.