Special Software Sheds Light on Who Really Wrote the Bible - Is it a hoax?

Originally posted by lostinspace
It's my understanding that Moses had access to ancient documents, which were compiled into the book of Genesis. Shem's record of history was available in the land of Ur. Abram took copies of that record with him when he headed out to the area of the Shepherd Kings. Abram passed them onto Isaac and then they were passed to Jacob. A number of Jacob's 12 sons must have retained a copy of those records by the time Moses appeared on the scene.

what did they use for "paper" in those days ?

or ink ?

or was it all written down on stone tablets ?

I always heard the Hebrew "writings" were "written" in the years around 500 a.d.

before that, it was all supposedly "word of mouth" from generation to generation ?

can somebody confirm this ?

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by lostinspace
It's my understanding that Moses had access to ancient documents, which were compiled into the book of Genesis. Shem's record of history was available in the land of Ur. Abram took copies of that record with him when he headed out to the area of the Shepherd Kings. Abram passed them onto Isaac and then they were passed to Jacob. A number of Jacob's 12 sons must have retained a copy of those records by the time Moses appeared on the scene.

what did they use for "paper" in those days ?

or ink ?

or was it all written down on stone tablets ?

I always heard the Hebrew "writings" were "written" in the years around 500 a.d.

before that, it was all supposedly "word of mouth" from generation to generation ?

can somebody confirm this ?

Maybe clay cylinder seals from the antediluvian world were brought on board the Ark. The cylinder seal technology was probably the best medium to keep written records preserved.

I'm not sure if Abram would have brought cylinder seals with him to the Shepherd King's area. Abram could have brought a cart full of seals with him. He was a rich man when he left Ur.

Cylinder seal and impression from Mesopotamia

I found this History Channel Documentary
on who wrote the Bible. I am watching it now
but decided to go ahead and post the first of the
12 video collection for your perusal.

who wrote the Bible part 1

reply to post by boondock-saint


I don' need some israeli software to understand that The bible was written by many people. I think it is interseting if the acuracy is true tho.

Read the book for yourselves...then, make your own decision. Now, before you go saying..."Ive read the B.I.B.L.E.", let me ask you...how long did it take you to read? Also, did you get anything? Or do you think it's just a book of don't do this, don't do that...blah, blah, blah???

I can assure you, most of the people bashing God's word, haven't even bothered STUDYING it. Yes, STUDYING IT. It's not a book that can be read like Nancy Drew. It must be studied. And, unless you've dedicated, AT LEAST 3 YEARS to studying it....it's best NOT to speak of things which you do not know...and are only speculating on.

I will say this....that very B.I.B.L.E. that you refuse to believe in....is the VERY principles the NWO, PTB, who-ever, are using AGAINST YOU! Do you HONESTLY believe TPTB want you liberated by the truth.

Example: Back in 2008, when the banks were being bailed out....G Dubya gave a speech as to WHY they needed to be bailed out....So banks could keep lending and you could keep borrowing. However, the B.I.B.L.E. is clear, on borrowing and clearly states that the 'borrower is slave to the lender'. That's just 1 example of how the B.I.B.L.E. is being used AGAINST YOU.

Remember, God said...HIS people are destroyed for lack of KNOWLEDGE.

And this i'll also say, if you're not fully convinced and completely know God's word, your chances of winning a debate are slim to none. You gotta know that word, inside and out..because Satan knows it better than you! In the beginning was the Word......and Lucifer was there with HIM.

reply to post by xuenchen

I always heard the Hebrew "writings" were "written" in the years around 500 a.d.

??? The Hebrew scriptures were translated to Greek in 300 BC, it's called the Septuagint or LXX.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I always heard the Hebrew "writings" were "written" in the years around 500 a.d.

??? The Hebrew scriptures were translated to Greek in 300 BC, it's called the Septuagint or LXX.

??? did they use those originals for these tests

if not, where are those now ?

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I always heard the Hebrew "writings" were "written" in the years around 500 a.d.

??? The Hebrew scriptures were translated to Greek in 300 BC, it's called the Septuagint or LXX.

??? did they use those originals for these tests

if not, where are those now ?

Dude, i don't know. The Septuagint was translated in 300 BC by 70 of the best Greek-speaking Hebrew writers of their time. (That's why it's called the Septuagint) Heck, even the last NT book "Revelation" was written in 95-96 AD.

I have no idea where you got this "500 A.D" stuff at.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

How long will it be before technology
will prove the Bible and/or religion
a hoax ??? Will this software aid
in that process ???

please discuss, I want to hear
your opinions. Do we take accept
the results of the software tests
or call it pseudo science ???

I won't say that this software is a hoax because that would be unfair to the developers. I think what we have hear is a lack of understanding. We are talking about ancient times here, how could anyone, or any software for that matter fully understand what the writer is really trying to say. To many things such as slang and metaphors come into play. I'm not saying those things can't be understood, but the only way it is possible is to have a solid understanding of the original language and what every word means in certain context. I don't think there is any software that would ever be able to pull this off with 100% accuracy or even 1% percent for that matter.

As always, the scripture is under attack. As I said before, one has to question why so much effort is being made to debunk this faith. It is clear to me that there is nothing but hatred and jealousy.

reply to post by boondock-saint


I don't think asking, 'is the bible a hoax' is the best question to ask. We know that the bible was wrote my multiple authors at various times. The question to ask is who collected the texts together, left others out and translated the texts to sympathise with their agenda. It's more a case of investigating whether it was a tool of propaganda and manipulation.

To consider it a hoax sounds like some group got together and made every line up and then left the page out that says 'all characters and events in this book are entirely fictional.....". that's a scenario that was mentioned in Douglas Adams/Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy if i remember correctly

I hope this new technology gives us a better understanding of these texts but I'm not sure it could ever settle the debate that the bible was put together by men, to further their agenda. Those who believe it's purely the words of God can still theorise that it came from God.

this doesn't prove anything.

do we get names? how accurate is it?

run that through the koran and gone with the wind or dune.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I always heard the Hebrew "writings" were "written" in the years around 500 a.d.

??? The Hebrew scriptures were translated to Greek in 300 BC, it's called the Septuagint or LXX.

??? did they use those originals for these tests

if not, where are those now ?

Dude, i don't know. The Septuagint was translated in 300 BC by 70 of the best Greek-speaking Hebrew writers of their time. (That's why it's called the Septuagint) Heck, even the last NT book "Revelation" was written in 95-96 AD.

I have no idea where you got this "500 A.D" stuff at.

yes,

my error.

i was mistaking for this;

HEBREW The original manuscripts for the OT. Written between 1450 BC and 400 BC. Written in archaic Hebrew, gradually changed to modern square script Hebrew after 400 BC, and still used to this day. Around 500 AD the Masoretes developed a system of vowel and accents to punctuate the text, they also standardised the text and content, preparing it for printing much later (Psalter 1477, Full OT 1488). The oldest surviving material was the Masoretic from the 9C, until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 from 2-1C BC

Certain portions of the OT (Daniel and Ezra mainly) are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was used from 900BC onwards. Aramaic was used by the common people, while Hebrew remained the language of religion and government and of the upper class. Jesus and the Apostles are believed to have spoken Aramaic, and Aramaic-language translations (Targums) of the Old Testament circulated. Aramaic continued in wide use until about 650AD, when it was supplanted by Arabic.

www.gentles.info...

Ahh, I see okay.

The Messorites also re-defined Judaism at that time because they had not had a Temple in Jerusalem for quite some time.

Wellhausen's hypothesis (i.e. the P in JEDP), Spinoza's sidenotes & other writers/thinkers have taken the Bible to task in terms of multiple authorship not traditionally attributed to specifc books of the Bible. So with regard to "intriguing new hints about what researchers believe to be the multiple hands that wrote the Bible," I see nothing new here. Moreover it's not clear whether or not this software is evaluating the Septuagint, Masoretic Text, or perhaps books sourced from Qumran's scrolls. In addition to that there is the question of whether this software is capable of recognizing where scholarship agrees that redaction has occurred. A good benchmark--in my mind--would test whether this software is capable of pinpointing redactions where they are known (or agreed) to have occurred. If so then perhaps its utility would be worth investing in. If not then I give this software one skeptic point.

Another question is whether or not the designers consulted with Ancient Near Eastern scholars (e.g. philologists) during the design phase. If the designers simply plugged in a lexical database without specifying the rules of language, nuance, idiom, et cetera specific to a particular language, then one skeptic point goes to the software. This point is especially important, too, as parsing language requires a significant degree of skill & know-how. But on the basis of this bit here, "Michael Segal of Hebrew University's Bible Department, who was not involved in the project" it seems that Ancient Near Eastern scholars were not part of the of the design process or even consulted.

Would I call this software pseudoscience? I coudn't say. I'm sure the developers are quality hackers & produce interesting results, but this question--from my point of view--is for Ancient Near Eastern scholars to hash out. Notwithstanding the question of pseudoscience, I highly doubt software will ever prove that the Bible or religion is a hoax. After all, how would designers prove the algorithms that prove that the Bible or religion is a hoax?

All-in-all, this software probably has the potential to develop into a useful tool for scholars.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Google, Yahoo, Bing ...whatever your preference "documentary hypothesis" for an answer to your question. That is, your question regarding P (Priestly).

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
If there were two Isaiah authors then Jesus lied.
I can't accept that.

maybe the original book of Isaiah was written
by one author and somehow later pages got
torn or destroyed in it's travels and had to be
re-written by a more modern author. This
re-writing might not have matched the original
authors penmenship. Doesn't mean that Jesus
lied. We just don't know enough facts about how
the books came to be in their present condition.

What looks two authors in Isaiahs case may have had to do with what we would call today some sort personality shift.....you know without saying the man demonstrated some dule personality disorder. It has been demonstrated to effect writing. He may have been tramatized and if fact this shows up in some of his actions although these actions may have been additional trama...like walking around naked for there years playing a stinged insturment of some type. Its safe to say that many considered him a loon even if a prophet. And/or like you say it could have been two writers recording the events.

Originally posted by DrHammondStoat

I hope this new technology gives us a better understanding of these texts but I'm not sure it could ever settle the debate that the bible was put together by men, to further their agenda. Those who believe it's purely the words of God can still theorise that it came from God.

Many folks say that without ever really considering the men God used to talk through. Thats really the way God wanted it apparently....to talk through men...even His son was a man for that matter. God has His reasons for using human messengers.

So if one considers that God spoke to one man and then as that man spoke some other man wrote it down....as it is in some cases...the real question is did God speek through men.

Now what they need to do is move the thing up to patterns, topic patterns, subject patterns ect

This is actually nothing new. scholars have been using statistics on vocabulary and style for these sorts of arguments for decades now. They are notoriously unreliable. A really amusing thing happened when 2 English scholars Morton and McLeman published a book based on computer analysis that Paul didn't write many of the letters attributed to him. Well a scholar at Harvard used the exact same computer program but fed their own book into the computer and it returned that they had not written several chapters of their own book.

Author's use different language and style in different circumstances as their disposition or emotional state of mind might dictate. Statistical data cannot account for that. With Paul's letters in the NT. It's important to know that in the first century, letters were written with a reed pen using ink made from soot, gum and water on to 9 1/2” x 11” papyrus sheets which could hold around 150–250 words.Since even Paul’s shortest letter, Philemon, contained 335 words, all of Paul’s letters joined the papyri sheets to form a scroll. Because this was an expensive and labor intensive process, one could ill afford false starts. Due to this and the general lack of education, trained scribes called amanuenses were frequently employed for writing letters. For example, from Romans 16:22 we learn that Tertius was Paul’s amanuensis. Similarly, Peter tells us in 1 Peter 5:12 that he used Silvanus as his secretary. It also appears to be standard operating procedure for the actual author to compose a final salutation in his own hand (2 Thess. 3:17; Gal. 6:11). A crucial issue to New Testament scholarship is the degree of freedom an amanuensis had in vocabulary and style. It seems natural that the more trusted and familiar the relationship, the more editorial the role. According to Carson and Moo,

Many scholars think that the influence of various amanuenses may explain the differences in Greek style among the Pauline letters, rendering it difficult, if not impossible, to draw conclusions about authorship based on such criteria.

D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005) , 335.

This is a vital yet overlooked fact in modern authorship disputes. Still yet, even highly critical scholars must face this issue as a potential defeater to their arguments. Computers cannot account for this fact either.

This thread reminded me of writing analysis done on the Book or Mormon to determine who the authors of it really were. Check out the Youtube series starting with the 1st video below.

www.youtube.com...

It doesn't come as a surprise that the bible has been written by multiple authors. Most importantly it might help people understand that the bible has been edited and modified multiple times by different people to justify their actions.