> Michael wrote: > Yes, and what I was refering to was the fact that it's not really that way. > I'm studying a commentary which puts specific emphesis on the words used, > where they are used and how. Of course, I'm using the original Hebrew so I > don't see the multiple sources. Maybe if I used greek, latin or english I > would.
I haven't studied this stuff for 20 years so I'm way out of my depth, but I don't think Hebrew is the original language of the Bible. If I remember, the original language is unknown which makes sense. How would we know what the original language is? Further it would make sense that the biblical stories existed way before writing did, so the Biblical stories would've been word-of-mouth until someone decided to write them down. Then there is the whole issue of which stories were Biblical and which ones weren't (canonization). Who decided what went in and what didn't? Do we assume that this group was directed by God or do we assume that they exercised free will? I'm interested in your take; my study of the Bible years ago and focused on the pentatuch, but it convinced me that the Bible is a human creation and that the stories, while inspired by God, are not to be taken literally. This is where I disagree with the Bible = word-of-God. I think the Bible is inspired by the word of God, but not written by him. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:140152 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
