The Bible~How'd they know the particulars???

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

As I sat reading my Bible last nite, it made me wonder....all these conversations, how did the original author(s) of the Bible know verbatim what all of these people said over the many years the Bible spans? I can understand tradition being passed down and eventually being written down but the exact words? Different conversations?

Someone care to help me out on this one? :) Thanks~

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), December 05, 2002

Answers

Doin' da bump

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), December 05, 2002.

Divine inspiration! The Holy Spirit of God granted them the knowledge, memory, understanding, etc. to be able to write down these conversations EXACTLY as they were.

Good question Jackiea - I hope others will elaborate on this.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 05, 2002.


I am reading a book called "The Layman and his Conscience," by Monsignor Ronald A. Knox, an Englishman who I think of as sort of the Catholic C.S. Lewis. In the section about the Holy Rosary, he says that it has traditionally been believed that Luke spoke with the Blessed Virgin Mary herself and got a lot of stories from her before she died -- for example, who else but Mary would have been able to describe the Annunciation, her Visitation to Elisabeth and Zechariah, Jesus getting lost in the Temple, etc.?

He also thinks that after Christ's Resurrection, but before the Ascension, He spent some time talking with His apostles and telling them many of the things that had happened during His lifetime which they would not have been able to know about otherwise - for example, His passion in the Garden of Gethsemane, which the Apostles wouldn't have known about since they were asleep.

It's really interesting to think about things like this, isn't it? Good questoin, Jackiea! :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), December 05, 2002.


There is no reason to expect that the biblical writers remembered the "exact words" of the people they quoted. What they remembered is the essence of what people said, and the essence of events that occurred. This is why different biblical writers may describe certain events and certain quotes in slightly different words, yet both really say essentially the same thing. Also, some of the things the writers described were things they had personally witnessed, but they were not present at other events they described, like the birth of Jesus, so they must have gotten that information by talking to people who were there. Their information came from various sources, but it was the Holy Spirit who guided the writers in setting it down, and the church in determining which writings would go into the Bible.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 05, 2002.

Good morning, Jackiea :)

I am no Biblical scholar, or any scholar for that matter, but I do believe the writers were guided by the Holy Spirit.

I write for a hobby and there are times when words come out of me that I never heard of before (my spiritual writings), and I know those words had to come from the guidance of the Holy Spirit because the Lord wants me to use my writings to glorify Him, to get the message to others so He gives me the words.

You are not the only one who has questioned that, Jackiea, many people wonder the same thing - especially since the Bible was written so many years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. It had to be the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), December 06, 2002.



Jackie

The Bible consists of many books and in those books many of the stories are hebrew symbol and not directly accurate. I would suggest that you read further books from eminent theologians who have studied texts and books in detail. Also Christine, it is also purely hypothetical that Jesus spoke to the apostles after resurrection and before ascension. Are we suggesting Catholic propaganda?

Michael

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 06, 2002.


Michael,

What do you mean it is purely hypothetical that Jesus spoke after the Resurrection and before the Ascension? Could you elaborate further on this?

Thanks

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 06, 2002.


It is true that many scriptural writings are symbolic and not to be taken literally. The first step in valid scriptural interpretation is recognizing which passages are literal, and which are not. Which is why Catholics do not try to interpret the Bible for themselves, but look to the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, for accurate exegesis and correct teaching. It is utterly UNTRUE that the appearances of Jesus to His apostles (and others) during His post-Resurrection days on earth are "hypothetical". These events were carefilly recorded by eye witnesses, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt their accuracy. These accounts, on the face of them, are at least as reliable as any historical accounts of any historical events, even if you are ignorant of the additional fact of divine inspiration.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 06, 2002.

Sorry, one more question, if many, but not all, were written with Hebrew symbols, what other languages were used for those books not written in Hebrew symbol?

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 06, 2002.


The Old Testament scriptures were written in Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek. Abundant symbolism is found in both. Some passages, such as the parables Jesus told, are clearly symbolic (or analogical if you prefer) no matter what language they are translated into. Like any good analogy, they stand on their own and do not require a lot of specific knowledge in order to understand them. But understanding the symbolism of some scriptural passages requires prior understanding of the cultural climate and beliefs which produced them. For example, what symbolic significance did such recurring ideas as fire, water, wind, and breath have for the Jewish people? Or such frequently used numbers as 3, 7, and 12?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 06, 2002.


Thank you Paul, those questions were actually intended for Michael, but thank you for your responses. I was actually trying to understand Michael's approach from the little he wrote because it seems he is knowledgeable about the Scriptures as well as the scholarship surrounding it, but makes certain claims without really justifying them. For example, he claims the inaccuracy of the Hebrew symbols, but does not really state in what way. Also, I am not sure he is talking about the symbolism inherent in the bible, or the actual Hebrew symbols that make up the language.

Thanks again though for clarifying those few things.

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 06, 2002.


Paul

May I firstly apologise if you believe me to be ignorant in respect of divine inspiration and your angry response. It's a shame you believe me to ignorant even though you have to spell UNTRUE in capital letters to try and get it through to me. Then again, what does ignorant mean in your terms? I note you refer to the Catholic Church and that the faithful should follow the Catholic Church.

The problems I find with Catholocism is that certain Catholic priests that I have encountered are not as knowledgable (or sympathetic) as I thought they would be. Hence, I contacted a Catholic priest in Newcastle, UK near where I live regarding a passage of the Bible and he referred me to a totally different, and inaccurate, passage of the Bible.

I then contacted a Church of England minister who immediately gave me the correct passage details and even contacted me afterwards to advise me of a relevant old testament reading.

I also note what the other person said and of course there are further languages in the Bible apart from Hebrew.

However regarding Divine Inspiration. Divine Inspiration is between God and Man and no-one has the right to be presumptious to assume that Divine Inspiration is confined to any person or religion. Or even to you Paul.

"Young men see visions. Old men see dreams!"

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 06, 2002.


Dear Michael,

My response to you was not angry at all. It was simply intended to be explanatory. My use of "you" in my final sentence was not intended to be personal. It did not mean "you, Michael". It was a general "you", meaning "even if one is ignorant of the fact". I guess I should have stated it that way, I'm sorry. Yes, I did emphasize UNTRUE, since the statement I was responding to was not merely incomplete or misguided, but absolutely and totally without any basis in truth at all, and I thought that fact was worth emphasizing. I agree that some priests are not as knowledgeable or sympathetic as we would wish. Priests are people, and some outshine others in every characteristic you can name. I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say a priest referred you to "an inaccurate passage in the Bible". I don't believe there are any inaccurate passages in the Bible. If you mean that he referred you to something that was not really relevant to your question, well what can I say? Not all priests are scripture scholars, though most of them do have a pretty good working knowledge of the Bible. On the other hand, some people in other Christian churches are also quite knowledgeable in scriptural studies. As for divine inspiration, every Christian person can receive personal inspiration from the Holy Spirit, to help us in our personal lives. However, when it comes to defining official doctrine, it is painfully obvious that the Holy Spirit is not responsible for the thousands of conflicting manmade denominations that exist. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to all truth, which is another way of saying that divine inspiration regarding doctrinal matters is a gift to His Church - His ONE Church - the one He personally founded - which history clearly reveals to be the Catholic Church. That's why His Church has not fragmented into denominations, and has no conflicting doctrines, after 2,00 years. Do other Christian churches have any truth at all? Well of course they do, or they wouldn't be Christian! And the truth they have came to them from the Catholic Church, which was the only place Christian truth existed for the first 1,000 years after Christ. Peace, Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 06, 2002.


In response to Jackiea and elaborating in what Paul sai.

There are many apostolic catholic churches out there other than the Roman cathloic Church. There is the: Anglican Church, The Orthodox Churches (Romanian, Greek (founded by Paul), Russian,....), The Syrian Orthodox (founded by Peter and Paul Acts 11:19-26, Galatians 2:1-21.), Coptic, Armenian,.. Any one these could have the truth.

In truth, not every word in the Bible comes from God (Yahweh) or Jesus our Lord.

Prophets had revelations and dreams some of which they tried to interpret. You will notice a lack of dates in many prophecies. The prophet didn't want to be embarrased in case it didn't happened the way he interpreted it. How could that be possible? Example: The prophet Isaiah tells king Hezekiah that he will die. That night Hezekiah prays to God, and Yahweh allows him 15 more years. Isaiah 38:1-8. God can change prophecies.

Many books are doubles of others (that is, there is material found in other books: Exodus and deuteronmy (see feasts, ten commandmenents...), Samuel and kings with Chronicles, Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John, 1 cor. 11 and 15, Acts and Galatians 1-2.

The Book of the Wars of Yahweh and the Book of Jashar are now found in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronmy, and Judges. Some books are no longer originals. Later copyists added material. God appeared to Moses as Yahweh (see Exodus ch. 3). Before that, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph knew him as El. But you will find God's name in Genesis first 10 chapters, which tells you that that section came after God's name came of use. Unfortunately, if you are not reading the jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation in English, French, or Spanish you won't see God's name. La Biblia Latinoamericana, a catholic translation in Spanish also has God's name.About 40 -50 % is God's or Jesus revelations or sayings, the rest is commentary, abbreviated history, or simply, doesn't or shouldn't be in the Bible. Examples: Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom,and (Job?).

Besides Greek and hebrew, traces of Aramaic are in daniel and Esra/Nehemiah. As was mentioned before, numerology had a certain significance in the Bible: 3, 7, 10, 12, 50, 100, 400, 1000, 10000 and 6. Such is the case of 666= once you add the value of each hebrew letter even though the Book of Revelation is in Greek. K (Kaisaros= King) Domitsinos= Domitianus. He is the 8th ( the beast). He ruled the Roman Empire 81-96 AD. The 6th is Vespasian, the 7th Titus. The 5 fallen are: Augustus D. 14AD, Tiberius d. 37 AD, Germanicus D. 41 AD, Claudius, D. 54AD, and Nero D. 68 AD.(These were recognized in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. The 7 hills is the city of Rome and the Roman Empire, not the Roman catholic Church. Revelation Ch 17.

And the list goes on, but because I want to be brief, I left too much material out, for others to elaborate even more. What is important is that most of what is written ( about 90 %)you can be sure could be from God or inspired by God.

Some translations are not accurate anymore.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 06, 2002.


The Anglican Church is Protestant, not Catholic, and certainly not apostolic - unless Henry VIII was an apostle. The Orthodox do have some claim to apostolicity, but only because of their adherence to Catholic doctrine. They are in schism from the Church founded by Jesus Christ, but they still hold to its teaching (except of course the teaching about the primacy of Simon Peter and his successors). Unlike Anglican and other Protestant churches, the Orthodox have remained orthodox in their doctrinal beliefs. However, while they are apostolic and orthodox, they are not Catholic, since they reject the divinely appointed Vicar of Christ. Peter and Paul had nothing to do with any "Orthodox Church", since no Orthodox Church existed until the 11th century.

If we cannot be sure that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired, then we cannot be sure that any given passage is divinely inspired. A work which is partially inspired and partially non- inspired could never be quoted as "The Word of God", because we would simply have no way of knowing whether the passage we are quoting is one of the divinely inspired ones or not. It's clearly a case of "all or nothing".

Prophets did not give dates for the events God fortold through them because God did not provide them with the dates. What they prophesied came true. Isn't that enough? Even if they did provide dates by their calendar, such dates would be meaningless in terms of our calendar. The prophecy to Hezekiah which you mentioned was in the form of a warning of what would happen if Hezekiah did not change his ways. He responded to the warning, and was allowed to live longer. There is no inconsistency in that.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 07, 2002.



As the Holy Spirit enters the body, those that receive also receive information that is hidden to others. If an author of religious texts needed further information, that information would have automatically been given when required, by vision, dreaming, or spoken word by the Lord himself. All that was reqired was for the author to ask. Differences occur due to interpretation, after all we are all but a man/woman.

-- Christina (lapis@chariot.net.au), April 14, 2004.

Besides all the elements you people have mentioned there in another one to take into account: The Bible was transmitted for a long time by oral tradition. Wrting for Hebrew was not yet invented at the time of Abraham or Moses.

The people accustomed to oral tradition have terrific memories. Some Mexican indians that don't know how to read and write can recite for hours the stories, legends and traditions of their communities. From personal experience I can tell you that I have heard the same stories repeated verbatim by various persons.

So it could happen that many Bible writers had verbatim versions of what happened longtime before them.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ