Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Recommended Posts

  • Members

There are several places within the book of Deuteronomy itself that relate God directly telling Moses what to write, including the account of his death - that means it was written by him, during his lifetime - not hundreds of years later. That philosophy just creates doubt and uncertainty about the Word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Deuteronomy 31:22
Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

I guess that means Moses wrote at least some of the book of Deuteronomy right then and there. No need for other people to write out the rest hundreds of years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 3/24/2021 at 1:12 PM, Ukulelemike said:

The issue with what was "added" in italics, isn't that it wasn't there, it was that the Greek or Hebrew from which it was translated had it, but they didn't translate directly into English, so it was added to show the meaning of the phrase in the Greek and Hebrew. But they placed it into italics to maintain honesty that it had to be added to clear the meaning.

I have seen an interesting theory on genesis, that it was actually initially written down by the people it was written about, for instance, Adam wrote part, Seth wrote part, Abraham wrote part, etc, and they compiled the writings at the behest of God, and they were kept until Moses, who compiled them together into one book, both from those writings, as well as, perhaps, the Lord filling in any other information he wanted recorded. Of course, it is just a theory.

No, the italicized words in I John 2:23 were not there. 

Would Moses refers to himself in the third person? Because there's plenty of times he would have if he wrote the books himself.

I don't see the problem with the Pentateuch being written by one of his scribes as Jeremiah had Baruch, Paul had his writers, the four gospels of Jesus Christ not being written by Jesus.

22 hours ago, Jerry said:

Deuteronomy 31:22
Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

I guess that means Moses wrote at least some of the book of Deuteronomy right then and there. No need for other people to write out the rest hundreds of years later.

Yes, but then why not write, "Therefore I wrote this song..." if he wrote Genesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed. The very essence and agenda of the liberal belief system.  

No, "the liberal belief system" would say that Genesis was made up of five different textual sources all compiled and edited together as one with some Babylonian mythology thrown in for good measure probably around the time of king Cyrus or the building of the 2nd Temple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Every time Baruch wrote down Jeremiah’s words, God was honest enough to tell us (otherwise you wouldn’t even know he did so!) - so why wouldn’t He do so in an earlier book of the Bible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Also, the partial verse in italics in 1 John was not in certain manuscripts at the time that it was translated - but it was in other manuscripts in the family of the textus receptus. It is not like the KJV translators invented that phrase or created it out of thin air. They obviously believed that the phrase belonged in the Bible, but were honest enough to put it in italics to indicate it was not in all the manuscripts. I have various tr-based Greek New Testaments (and access to several in the Swordsearcher Bible program that I no longer have access to due to not having a computer now) that have that phrase as part of the Greek text, and nothing in the footnotes to indicate that it did not belong there. I know one Greek NT was Stephanus’, but at the moment can’t remember the other main one I had.

*Maybe someone with access to pre-KJV English Bible translations, such as Tyndale, etc. can look this verse up in those Bibles, and see how the translators prior to the KJV dealt with that verse.

Years ago, I did study out some of the manuscript evidence for this verse, though I can not remember the specifics now, and I do not even have access to those same materials now. If it really matters to this thread, I am sure some online research will shed more light on the issue.

Edited by Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 4/10/2021 at 11:24 PM, Jerry said:

 That philosophy just creates doubt and uncertainty about the Word of God.

On 4/11/2021 at 7:14 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed. The very essence and agenda of the liberal belief system.  

10 hours ago, SureWord said:

No, "the liberal belief system" would say that Genesis was made up of five different textual sources all compiled and edited together as one with some Babylonian mythology thrown in for good measure probably around the time of king Cyrus or the building of the 2nd Temple.

Sorry, Brother SureWord, as per my quotation above of one specific part in Brother Jerry's posting, I was not responding to any of the specifics that the liberal belief system presents concerning any specific book of the Holy Scriptures.  Rather, as per that quotation, I was responding to the general motivation of the liberal belief system.  Brother Jerry stated, "That PHILOSOPHY just creates doubt and uncertainty about the Word of God."  I responded to that statement only by indicating that creating doubt and uncertainty about the Word of God is the VERY ESSENCE and AGENDA of the liberal belief system (as a whole, not just in relation to the books of Moses).  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 4/10/2021 at 4:55 PM, Danny Carlton said:

Before writing was invented, people greatly respected the integrity of oral history. The narrative would then have been passed down from the various people involved. Adam would have been the author of the beginning of Genesis, various others might have contributed based on relevance and importance of their contribution. But it was Moses who authorized and ordered it being recorded into writing and those he authorized continued to write it to include his death. That would be Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. Deuteronomy was added later during the reign of Josiah when another written record was found. There's no mention of who authored it, but it matches the first four books enough to verify it's accuracy. 

There is no perfect answer this side of glory, so it may be possible. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 4/10/2021 at 11:16 PM, Jerry said:

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
 

Pretty sure Jesus’ OT study included the book of Genesis, as there is much in that book that also teaches about Christ, including some very clear types.

The Bible itself teaches Moses wrote the five books of the Law. Even if there were some remnants of oral or written history prior to the time of Moses, God told Moses what to write (ie. inspired him to write it), and we have no reason or Biblical evidence to conclude that he used any man-made sources to do so - and no NT writers question Moses writing of the books of the Law.

Jerry, Genesis pre-dates the law recorded by Moses. Is there a reference scripture for "the Bible itself teaches Moses wrote the five books."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 4/11/2021 at 7:14 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed. The very essence and agenda of the liberal belief system.  

There is NO doubt in my mind about God being the progenitor of all recorded truth in our KJV Bibles. That is not at question here [2 Peter 1:21]. Who God used as scribe IS in question. I have not seen a scripture yet that ascribes the 'scribe' for Genesis. Some of the early accounts are so much like a first hand account that I can accept the possibility God used someone besides Moses. It also might be possible pre-fallen man (Adam) could have had the ability to speak and write. I refuse to believe the Genesis account came years or centuries after the death of Moses, that is not in question for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm not trying to one better anyone here. I don't know the answer to the OP question. It was just an interesting thought brought on by some things my pastor was teaching during a Sunday evening service. 

There is a lot of thought going into this and none of us may know the answer before we sit at the feet of Jesus Christ, Lord of Glory! I can say this without any doubt... "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him." [1 John 5:1] "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." [1 Peter 1:23] Amen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 4/11/2021 at 6:59 PM, SureWord said:

No, the italicized words in I John 2:23 were not there. 

 

 

Yes, they weren't there, because they didn't need to be there in the original language-it was added for clarification, because it didn't translate directly into English the way it read in the Greek. So yes, it was added, but the thought was there, it just didn't translate. Some thing. Like Spanish has certain word that are in the female sense, and some in the male sense, Hermano and hermana, both of which translate as friend, but one, we would write as male friend, the other as female friend, because English doesn't have all the words words to specify male and female that way; (those we had, like actress and actor, have been dispensed with, as people think them sexist.) Same idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 3/24/2021 at 11:13 AM, SureWord said:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. - I John 2:23

Italics. Everything after the colon was ADDED by the KJV translators yet we still consider them the inspired words of God yet then deny the translators were under any kind of inspiration (according to Job 32:8 inspiration gives understanding). Curious. I think we confuse "inspiration" with "revelation" when it comes to the scriptures. 

The workers in Exodus who built the tabernacle we in a sense under the inspiration of God. Exodus 31:1-6

It think we've boxed in what the term "inspiration" means.

Now, the term "revelation" is a whole 'nuther ball game. There are no more revelations, at least, not until the Great Tribulation.

Use whatever terminology we want, inspired or preserved, but those words after that colon were not in the "originals" (that nobody has ever seen or read in nearly two thousand years).

I've seen Christians disfellowship each other over semantics when at the end of the day they both believe the same exact thing, i.e. that the KJV is the inspired/preserved word of God.

Now back to Moses. 

I don't see why the Pentateuch can't be attributed to Moses yet not written by him but by someone else. We have the gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ yet we know he didn't write them but they are still about him and his wondrous works. I don't see why that can't be applied also to the 5 Books of Moses.

Yet, this isn't something I would harp on. 

 

On another forum in another place, there was a man who stated that the KJV was "doubly inspired." He was a Ruckmanite and was very adamant about those words in italics. They were supposed to be the inspired Word of God. There was no concession in his mind that God put them there. To me, that was sad. It was hard for me for many years to believe that ANYONE would hold the view of "double inspiration." It's not Scriptural. And, we have to remember that there was another ENGLISH translation available before the KJV. Another sad thing was that this person couldn't agree on which version of the KJV was actually the "inspired" version. I'm not questioning the validity of the KJV. I'm KJV PREFERRED, not KJVO. I do use other versions in Bible study at times for clarity. But, I have to say that when someone puts KJV 1611, and then carries one from the 1870s, it bothers me that they don't want to acknowledge the error in their way of thinking. Those italicized and words put into parenthesis don't make the KJV any less the Word of God or any less reliable, nor do they detract from it being God's inspired Word. I love my KJV. I started as a child with the Schofield Bible. Then I went to the Thompson Chain Reference. I actually need to get another TCR, as the one I've got, I've had for well over 30 years, and it's falling apart. It never ceases to amaze me at how the adversary will try to place doubt in ones mind over something so trivial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

On another forum in another place, there was a man who stated that the KJV was "doubly inspired." He was a Ruckmanite and was very adamant about those words in italics. They were supposed to be the inspired Word of God. There was no concession in his mind that God put them there. To me, that was sad. It was hard for me for many years to believe that ANYONE would hold the view of "double inspiration." It's not Scriptural. And, we have to remember that there was another ENGLISH translation available before the KJV. Another sad thing was that this person couldn't agree on which version of the KJV was actually the "inspired" version. I'm not questioning the validity of the KJV. I'm KJV PREFERRED, not KJVO. I do use other versions in Bible study at times for clarity. But, I have to say that when someone puts KJV 1611, and then carries one from the 1870s, it bothers me that they don't want to acknowledge the error in their way of thinking. Those italicized and words put into parenthesis don't make the KJV any less the Word of God or any less reliable, nor do they detract from it being God's inspired Word. I love my KJV. I started as a child with the Schofield Bible. Then I went to the Thompson Chain Reference. I actually need to get another TCR, as the one I've got, I've had for well over 30 years, and it's falling apart. It never ceases to amaze me at how the adversary will try to place doubt in ones mind over something so trivial. 

Yes, standard Ruckman error. I mean, his tenacity on the reliability of the KJV is commendable, but his reasons were faulty. I believe the Bible teaches the position of preservation, not a second inspiration. Now, I DO believe the translators were guided in the wording they used, because they all believed they were dealing with the very Word of God, and had the right heart as to what they were doing. They wanted an accurate, as well as beautiful, translation, word for word, yet poetic and magnificent. But they didn't need inspiration, merely guidance and wisdom of God in their work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...