Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,918,389 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Most members here recognize that the NT books were not written in the order that they are included in the bible.
However, little discussion has been brought forward of the structure of the OT.
I would be interested in the perspective of apologists, anyone who may have done some biblical studies, and lay people who have a good understanding of how the bible was constructed. I have a particular point of view, however, will leave my own comments to latter in the discussion, along with giving some background as to why my perspective has at least some credibility.
Good link, and I was aware of most of those discussion points previously. There are many who take a literal viewpoint, and view the OT as one continuum. In fact, many literalists view the Pentateuch as being written by Moses, and do not consider that there are many authors, and Moses being a mythological entity as opposed to a historical one. The discussion of Deuteronomy is especially relevant, as some see it a the "establishment" writing, of which the others were built on, similar to Paul's writings on which the gospels eventually were developed from.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,918,389 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Short answer: No.
Agreed, but that is not the way many literalists see it. That being said, what WAS the, dare I say the word, evolution of the OT? Any agreements on that?
Agreed, but that is not the way many literalists see it. That being said, what WAS the, dare I say the word, evolution of the OT? Any agreements on that?
Cultural traditions written down on paper most likely. Until we actually get a pre biblical document it's going to be difficult to say though.
Agreed, but that is not the way many literalists see it. That being said, what WAS the, dare I say the word, evolution of the OT? Any agreements on that?
OK? And? Some "literalists" think the KJV was handed down by God. Doesn't mean it was, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Most members here recognize that the NT books were not written in the order that they are included in the bible.
However, little discussion has been brought forward of the structure of the OT.
I would be interested in the perspective of apologists, anyone who may have done some biblical studies, and lay people who have a good understanding of how the bible was constructed. I have a particular point of view, however, will leave my own comments to latter in the discussion, along with giving some background as to why my perspective has at least some credibility.
Why would one think they were written in that order they appear?
What order would you suggest we use, even? The Jewish people have a different arrangement than what Christians use.
Most members here recognize that the NT books were not written in the order that they are included in the bible.
However, little discussion has been brought forward of the structure of the OT.
I would be interested in the perspective of apologists, anyone who may have done some biblical studies, and lay people who have a good understanding of how the bible was constructed. I have a particular point of view, however, will leave my own comments to latter in the discussion, along with giving some background as to why my perspective has at least some credibility.
The Bible is organized as follows:
The writings are sometimes chronological within their subgroups, but this is not always the case. For example, Paul's epistles are in order of size and not chronology. The same is true of the other epistles of the New Testament.
Several of the minor prophets wrote before any of the major prophets. Hosea, Joel, and Amos are older than Isaiah.
The order of the Minor Prophets was supposed to be chronological ... sort of, but definitely isn't. Joel and Amos are probably written earlier than Hosea.
Malachi does genuinely appear to be the last work of the OT composed. This is interesting as it stands in stark in contrast with the NT where the Revelation of John most definitely is not the last written work.
When considering the entire Bible, you'd have to be a complete idiot to presume chronology. Chronological order clearly wasn't terribly important to the folks that decided on the order of the books of the Bible.
The writings are sometimes chronological within their subgroups, but this is not always the case. For example, Paul's epistles are in order of size and not chronology. The same is true of the other epistles of the New Testament.
Several of the minor prophets wrote before any of the major prophets. Hosea, Joel, and Amos are older than Isaiah.
The order of the Minor Prophets was supposed to be chronological ... sort of, but definitely isn't. Joel and Amos are probably written earlier than Hosea.
Malachi does genuinely appear to be the last work of the OT composed. This is interesting as it stands in stark in contrast with the NT where the Revelation of John most definitely is not the last written work.
When considering the entire Bible, you'd have to be a complete idiot to presume chronology. Chronological order clearly wasn't terribly important to the folks that decided on the order of the books of the Bible.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,918,389 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
The Bible is organized as follows:
The writings are sometimes chronological within their subgroups, but this is not always the case. For example, Paul's epistles are in order of size and not chronology. The same is true of the other epistles of the New Testament.
Several of the minor prophets wrote before any of the major prophets. Hosea, Joel, and Amos are older than Isaiah.
The order of the Minor Prophets was supposed to be chronological ... sort of, but definitely isn't. Joel and Amos are probably written earlier than Hosea.
Malachi does genuinely appear to be the last work of the OT composed. This is interesting as it stands in stark in contrast with the NT where the Revelation of John most definitely is not the last written work.
When considering the entire Bible, you'd have to be a complete idiot to presume chronology. Chronological order clearly wasn't terribly important to the folks that decided on the order of the books of the Bible.
When one reads the OT, it certainly would appear that whoever wrote Deuteronomy did so to give the Jewish people a history. As such, Joshua or whatever the character Joshua was in reality, was probably much more real, then Moses. It would also appear that Deuteronomy was written centuries after the supposed events occurred. That certainly is the case if one looks at the archaeological evidence that has been presented in the last 50 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OT: Were the books written in the order we now know them?
