CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

So...

Where did it come from? What IS it?

I mean, I've started actually reading the Bible for the first time in... my life, and although it is... deep, and powerful, I can't help but wonder how credible it is.
I mean, I KNOW it's God's word, but what exactly IS it?

For instance, the Old Testament. When was it written? Especially the earlier books, like Genesis. I'm sure paper and writing utensils weren't around, so was the story of Adam and Eve just passed on from generation to generation to generation until someone finally wrote it down? Or were people completely clueless of the story of Adam and Eve until a time when paper and pencil were available and God told the story to someone?

And in the New Testament, Jesus' words, what he says (highlighted in red =P) did some guy follow him around writing down EVERY exact word, or did some guy just have God tell him what happened?

I'm not exactly sure I understand how it works... I even googled it and I'm really not sure how it works.

My problem is- how for real documentation IS it? I mean, if it's God just... telling people what happened, then it's completely faith that ANY of what happened in the Bible ACTUALLY happened, which I don't have a problem with. But explaining to someone, who is a non believer, that the Bible is just "stories told by God" as opposed to historical documentation... or something.

I don't know.

If someone could just... explain it to me I'd be very grateful. Thank you ^_^

This link may help. I find CARM's website so helpful in learning how to talk to nonbelievers and learning about Christian apologetics.

http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible

The trouble is, there's no set time for a lot of the books being written, especially given that some of them seem to have been edited or merged with other texts (e.g. 'E' and 'J' of the Documetary Hypothesis). It seems likely though that much of the Old Testament was finalized in the Exilic or early post-Exilic periods, although that does not necessarily indicate the time of composition of individual portions.

In general though, variations of the documetary hypothesis make up the opinion of the majority of scholars working on this subject.

I second the recomendation for carm. And throw my two cents into the ring.

Viewing the Bible as a whole as history does little justice to it. I'm not saying that that means its untrue, I am saying that we need to recognize that it does have many different forms of writting within it and that sometimes the intent of the author wasn't to make a history of a certain event. For example, in the case of the Old Testament, we do see history based books, however it's important to mention that these weren't the historical records the jews held. Instead, books like 1 and 2 Samuel, were an attempt to combine theology with history in order to explain why certain events happened. Also in the Old Testament we have poetry, which obviously needs to be read differently then any narrative piece. And then there is apocalyptic literature...if I said anything would probably be a little to controversial...

My advice for you while you read through the bible is to do your research. Find a variety of sources about whatever book/verse/chapter you are reading containing different view points and don't be afraid to ask questions. There are a ton of sources online like CARM that can help you to learn more about God's word, in fact...I could probably make up a list of them if you're interested?

Edit: Quick comment on the Documentary Hypothesis theory. There is a rather glaring problem with it (warning: what follows is based off of my rather vague memory on the subject...in other words I could be remembering said glaring problem entirely wrong as a result of me not having my notes near me...) there isn't any physical evidence for it. Its mostly based off of textual criticism...so its really a product of the times. Those times being the Modern Era. Anyway, we haven't found a "Jahwist" text or any of the other texts. I still do think (and this is personal) that it has some truth to it. Its not unreasonanble to assume that the early books of the Old Testament weren't created by gathering various pieces of literature and putting them together. However, I don't want you to think that its a perfect theory about where the early books of the Old Testament come from.

Yes, look into resources that help with understanding the Bible. Take some classes if you have that opportunity. Even a little research will probably answer most of the questions you have. Read The Case for Christ; you'll learn a lot about the background of the New Testament. Mere Christianity is also a good one, but that might be difficult to understand.

Peanut wrote:Viewing the Bible as a whole as history does little justice to it. I'm not saying that that means its untrue, I am saying that we need to recognize that it does have many different forms of writting within it and that sometimes the intent of the author wasn't to make a history of a certain event. For example, in the case of the Old Testament, we do see history based books, however it's important to mention that these weren't the historical records the jews held. Instead, books like 1 and 2 Samuel, were an attempt to combine theology with history in order to explain why certain events happened. Also in the Old Testament we have poetry, which obviously needs to be read differently then any narrative piece. And then there is apocalyptic literature...if I said anything would probably be a little to controversial...

Quoted for truth and emphasis. This is very important to understand in order to really know what the Bible is talking about.

You've hit upon something important here. In this age, The Bible is our primary source of information on the founding history of our faith, but it's not a sufficient means of proving our faith. It's not that it's faulty or incoherent. People simply can't be convinced of something they're not willing to accept, regardless of its truth.

What this means here is that in order to believe in The Bible, we must first believe in God. The Bible does not prove God. God proves The Bible. Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, knew the Old Testament inside and out, and, even though he had the authority to speak on his own, constantly referred to it to clarify and justify his arguments. He also promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that future texts about him may be considered as reliable as those before. To believe in Jesus, to trust his guidance, is to trust the texts he trusted. To deride them is to place one's own wisdom above God's.

Thanks to everyone who posted links. We now have a rough summary of the different theories regarding The Bible's relation to history. I would encourage any wishing to vigorously hash out the validity or nuances of these theories to do so via private message.

A book I chose to read when I was going through Biblical Interpretation was a book called "From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible". I thought it was very informative, but I got a little lost when it got into the higher criticism and such. Still, I thought it was good.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Us-How-Got-Bible/dp/0802428789/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239809629&sr=8-1

Okey dokey.

Thank you very much everyone ^_^
This has been very informative and helpful.

Thanks again!

Cap'n Nick (post: 1305040) wrote:You've hit upon something important here. In this age, The Bible is our primary source of information on the founding history of our faith, but it's not a sufficient means of proving our faith. It's not that it's faulty or incoherent. People simply can't be convinced of something they're not willing to accept, regardless of its truth.

Hooboy, you know I always thought I was a weirdo for thinking this. I was often a pariah in my Ministry program in college for having "unorthodox" thoughts like these, but my Mentor/Adviser was a fan of saying that the full scope of Faith could best be explained by the three books: The Book of Revelation (The Bible), the Book of Reason (philosophy), and the Book of the Earth (Science).