Did the bible copy other scriptures?

[Sneaglebob]

Hello everyone

I’m asking this since I was watching a documentary about a group of people who find the alleged remains of Sodom and Gomorrah and in the documentary it mentioned that a library was found in a digsite nearby with the names of all of the cities that were wicked that were mentioned in the bible and they were written down in the same order as in the bible and I was wondering if this was another account that was outside the bible or if the bible actually copied off of this library when it comes to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Thanks everyone

 

[pablope]

Hello everyone

I’m asking this since I was watching a documentary about a group of people who find the alleged remains of Sodom and Gomorrah and in the documentary it mentioned that a library was found in a digsite nearby with the names of all of the cities that were wicked that were mentioned in the bible and they were written down in the same order as in the bible and I was wondering if this was another account that was outside the bible or if the bible actually copied off of this library when it comes to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Thanks everyone

Hmmm…welcome here…you will have to be more specific in your question. Which channel, which group produced it? Their sources/references? You will have to provide more info.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

Hello everyone

I’m asking this since I was watching a documentary about a group of people who find the alleged remains of Sodom and Gomorrah and in the documentary it mentioned that a library was found in a digsite nearby with the names of all of the cities that were wicked that were mentioned in the bible and they were written down in the same order as in the bible and I was wondering if this was another account that was outside the bible or if the bible actually copied off of this library when it comes to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Thanks everyone

I’ve thought about that question and this is how I look at it. When news happens, you can read about the same event from many sources. When 9/11 happened you got the news from millions of different sources, it doesn’t mean the event didn’t happen just because more than one source reports about it. So in the same way, if they find some ancient Indian scrolls describing Sodam and Gamora being destroyed it just proves all the more that the event happened, it doesn’t mean that the Bible copied off of any other texts. They found ancient texts from all kinds of cultures all over the world where they described a flooding event just like how the Bible does. That just proves all the more that it happened and was a world wide event. So just think of it as the same event told from different magazines or newspapers when other ancients texts seem to have the same events in them. Other texts could have copied the Bible or they could have just reported the same event that the Bible mentions which in my opinion strengthens what the Bible says since it’s like more than one witness.

 

[Publisher]

Hello everyone

I’m asking this since I was watching a documentary about a group of people who find the alleged remains of Sodom and Gomorrah and in the documentary it mentioned that a library was found in a digsite nearby with the names of all of the cities that were wicked that were mentioned in the bible and they were written down in the same order as in the bible and I was wondering if this was another account that was outside the bible or if the bible actually copied off of this library when it comes to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Thanks everyone

Scripture came to us in layers upon layers. Oral traditions/folk stories were passed down for generations before any of it was ever put to “paper”. The Torah was redacted and compiled over decades after the Return from Exile. Throughout the Hebrew scriputes various books were mentioned that didn’t make it into the sacred literature of the Jews.

With the Diaspora and the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek in the various versions of the LXX, more books were added and seen as reflecting the sacred story of Israel.

Were the books used to compile the Hebrew scriptures seen and understood as “scripture”? Don’t know…what came to be the sacred story of Israel was finally considered scripture by the first century BCE with it’s variations depending on the Hebrew text used in Palestine or the Greek text used among the Diaspora.

 

[edwest2]

That is not accurate. The Catholic Church determined which books would be in the Old and New Testaments. The Bible was written by men as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is complete in all its parts as God willed.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Publisher]

That is not accurate. The Catholic Church determined which books would be in the Old and New Testaments. The Bible was written by men as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is complete in all its parts as God willed.

Peace,
Ed

The Catholic chuch did not compile the Jewish scriptures nor did the Catholic church determine which Jewish books would be used in the Hebrew scriptures. Those books used in first century BCE in Palestine, were of a different number than those used among the Diaspora. When the Hebrew scriptures were written and compiled the Catholic church was a far off yet to be institution.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Sneaglebob,

There is no reason why the sacred authors could not, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, consult uninspired sources as well as inspired sources.

The bible itself alludes to this several times. Here are some examples :

See 1 Chronicles 29,29 :

The story of King David, from beginning to end, is it not written in the book of Samuel the Seer, the book of Natan the prophet, the book of Gad the Seer, with his entire reign … ?

2 Chronicles 35, 26

The rest of Josias’ story… all this is written in the book of the Kings of Israel and Juda.

2Macchabees 2,23

… all this having been related in five books written by Jason of Cyrene, we shall try to summarize them in one book…

Unlike Islam, which claims that the Coran was dictated to Mohammed by an angel, the sacred writers were not necessarily aware that they were guided by the Holy Spirit. They wrote as any other author, using all the means at their disposal.

Have your concerns been addressed?

Verbum

 

[adrift]

That is not accurate. The Catholic Church determined which books would be in the Old and New Testaments. The Bible was written by men as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is complete in all its parts as God willed.

The Catholic chuch did not compile the Jewish scriptures nor did the Catholic church determine which Jewish books would be used in the Hebrew scriptures. Those books used in first century BCE in Palestine, were of a different number than those used among the Diaspora. When the Hebrew scriptures were written and compiled the Catholic church was a far off yet to be institution.

The Jewish Canon was not set until after the Christians started to use them to show that Jesus was the Messiah. Your statement might have been correct if it were the Catholic Church did not write the Jewish scriptures but you said they didn’t compile them. Compile means to collect and I have right now in my possession a Bible which is a collection (compile) of inspired writings. Yes the Church determined what would be compiled. It is different than what the Jews compiled. As I already have stated, the Jews compiled their version of what is Scripture only after the Christians were using them.
To quote from Wikipedia

The process by which scriptures became canons and Bibles was a long one, and its complexities account for the many different Old Testaments which exist today. By about the 5th century BC Jews saw the five books of the Torah (the Old Testament Pentateuch) as having authoritative status; by the 2nd century BC the Prophets had a similar status, although without quite the same level of respect as the Torah; beyond that, the Jewish scriptures were fluid, with different groups seeing authority in different books.[15]

The scriptures were translated into Greek between about 280-130 BC.[16] At this stage (i.e., around the time of Christ) there was no collection of these scriptures - the various texts were read as separate scrolls. It was only in the early centuries of the Christian era that the scriptures began to be bound together into books and that Bibles as we know them today came to be invented. The Greek translations, called the Septuagint, contained several books (using that term loosely) not found in the modern Hebrew Bible (1-2 Esdras, Judith, Tobit, 1-4 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, and numerous additions to other books), based loosely on chronology and “literary typology” (i.e. subject matter).[17] It continues in use to this day as the Old Testament of the Eastern Orthodox Church.[18]

 

[aragonjohn1]

The Catholic chuch did not compile the Jewish scriptures nor did the Catholic church determine which Jewish books would be used in the Hebrew scriptures. Those books used in first century BCE in Palestine, were of a different number than those used among the Diaspora. When the Hebrew scriptures were written and compiled the Catholic church was a far off yet to be institution.

First, numerous non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament. These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah (alluded to in Hebrews 11:37), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren’t these writings in the canon of the Old Testament?

well what about the 300+ scriptures qouted by Jesus and the apostles from the septuigent?

Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: “The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man’s speech disclose the bent of his mind.” Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ’s words on the occasion of this feast: “Is it not written in your Law, ÔI have said you are gods’? If he called them Ôgods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?” Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being “set apart,” just as Judas Maccabeus “set apart” (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called “apocryphal” books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob’s Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12)— as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.

• catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

Shalom
God bless you on you’re journey

 

[aragonjohn1]

The Jewish Canon was not set until after the Christians started to use them to show that Jesus was the Messiah. Your statement might have been correct if it were the Catholic Church did not write the Jewish scriptures but you said they didn’t compile them. Compile means to collect and I have right now in my possession a Bible which is a collection (compile) of inspired writings. Yes the Church determined what would be compiled. It is different than what the Jews compiled. As I already have stated, the Jews compiled their version of what is Scripture only after the Christians were using them.
To quote from Wikipedia

very succint

thank you

Shalom

 

[Publisher]

First, numerous non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament. These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah (alluded to in Hebrews 11:37), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren’t these writings in the canon of the Old Testament?

well what about the 300+ scriptures qouted by Jesus and the apostles from the septuigent?

Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: “The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man’s speech disclose the bent of his mind.” Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ’s words on the occasion of this feast: “Is it not written in your Law, ÔI have said you are gods’? If he called them Ôgods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?” Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being “set apart,” just as Judas Maccabeus “set apart” (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called “apocryphal” books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob’s Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12)— as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.

• catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

Shalom
God bless you on you’re journey

That the writers of the New Testament were Greek speakers is not in question. That the writers of the NT used the LXX as their reference and the writers of the gospels used the LXX as the Greek LXX was the only “scripture” those Christians of the Jewish Diaspora used, as many if not most of the Diaspora no longer used Hebrew or Aramaic. Of course the LXX was quoted in the NT…that’s the Jewish scripture version used.

Did Jesus quote from the LXX? Highly doubful as he was a Palestinian Temple Jew and the Hebrew/Aramaic texts were used.

 

[Publisher]

The Jewish Canon was not set until after the Christians started to use them to show that Jesus was the Messiah. Your statement might have been correct if it were the Catholic Church did not write the Jewish scriptures but you said they didn’t compile them. Compile means to collect and I have right now in my possession a Bible which is a collection (compile) of inspired writings. Yes the Church determined what would be compiled. It is different than what the Jews compiled. As I already have stated, the Jews compiled their version of what is Scripture only after the Christians were using them.
To quote from Wikipedia

I hope you understand my statement was concerning the Jewish scriptures used by Jews as I referenced first century BCE. Those Christians of the first and second century CE used the Greek scriptures of the LXX. Toward the end of the first century CE most of those who called themselves “Christian” were not Jewish, especially after the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE, those Greek speaking Jews that wrote the NT used the LXX as well, which had not yet been “canonized” by the proto Orthodox/Catholic communities.

The church in later centuries would hash out what books were to be used as scripture, but that was decades, if not centuries after the NT was written.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

First, numerous non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament. These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah (alluded to in Hebrews 11:37), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren’t these writings in the canon of the Old Testament?

well what about the 300+ scriptures qouted by Jesus and the apostles from the septuigent?

Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: “The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man’s speech disclose the bent of his mind.” Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ’s words on the occasion of this feast: “Is it not written in your Law, ÔI have said you are gods’? If he called them Ôgods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?” Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being “set apart,” just as Judas Maccabeus “set apart” (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called “apocryphal” books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob’s Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12)— as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.

• catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

Shalom
God bless you on you’re journey

The Book of Enoch is very interesting!

 

[aragonjohn1]

The Book of Enoch is very interesting!

Thanks

Shalom on you’re journey

 

[adrift]

I hope you understand my statement was concerning the Jewish scriptures used by Jews as I referenced first century BC. Those Christians of the first and second century CE used the Greek scriptures of the LXX. Toward the end of the first century CE most of those who called themselves “Christian” were not Jewish, especially after the fall of Jerusalem in AD, those Greek speaking Jews that wrote the NT used the LXX as well, which had not yet been “canonized” by the Pôrto Orthodox/Catholic communities.

The church in later centuries would hash out what books were to be used as scripture, but that was decades, if not centuries after the NT was written.

I understand that what you intended but I also understand that you were responding to this statement

That is not accurate. The Catholic Church determined which books would be in the Old and New Testaments. The Bible was written by men as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is complete in all its parts as God willed.

I saw you post as intending to dispute that the Catholic Church determined the books of the Bible. You used the term it did not compile and you misspoke. In fact your entire response was incorrect as I have already explained
I have unrelated question. Why do those who use the term common era (what is common is unexplained) use the CE when normally we write 2012. The year 70 would automatically be understood to be AD. I despise the hypocrisy in this usage.

I just did a spell check the BCE was suggested to be BC. I changed it to the correct spelling. It also didn’t like CE so I changed it too. Did another spell check and it accepted all by when I wrote those terms.

 

[Publisher]

I understand that what you intended but I also understand that you were responding to this statement

I saw you post as intending to dispute that the Catholic Church determined the books of the Bible. You used the term it did not compile and you misspoke. In fact your entire response was incorrect as I have already explained
I have unrelated question. Why do those who use the term common era (what is common is unexplained) use the CE when normally we write 2012. The year 70 would automatically be understood to be AD. I despise the hypocrisy in this usage.

I just did a spell check the BCE was suggested to be BC. I changed it to the correct spelling. It also didn’t like CE so I changed it too. Did another spell check and it accepted all by when I wrote those terms.

I’m glad I was able to clarify my point that I was not disputing the church several centuries into the common era determined which books of the “Old Testament” would be used by the church. Before the common era in Palestine while there was no official “canon” those books of Greek origin in the LXX had a limited use in Palestine, used primarily by the Diaspora.

BCE and CE are valid designations…if you do not chose to use them…you shouldn’t.

 

[adrift]

I’m glad I was able to clarify my point that I was not disputing the church several centuries into the common era determined which books of the “Old Testament” would be used by the church. Before the common era in Palestine while there was no official “canon” those books of Greek origin in the LXX had a limited use in Palestine, used primarily by the Diaspora.

BCE and CE are valid designations…if you do not chose to use them…you shouldn’t.

I am not understanding you because of my own ignornace but what do you mean by LXX. I didn’t say they weren’t valid only asked what is meant by the term common and why a usage that is not commonly used.

 

[Publisher]

I am not understanding you because of my own ignornace but what do you mean by LXX. I didn’t say they weren’t valid only asked what is meant by the term common and why a usage that is not commonly used.

“LXX” is the abreviation of the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures and literature used as the “standard” of Catholic and Orthodox groups for the “Old Testament”…books included, but not all, by the Catholic church, and books used by the Orthodox, which the Catholic church does not use.

“CE” = common era…“BCE” = before common era, in our diverse Western culture made up of not only Christians, but Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, Sikhs and other faith traditions, “BCE” and “CE” seems more fitting to me as useage of referencing dates, since not everyone identifies as a “Christian” nor feels “BC” before Christ or “AD” anno domini (year of our Lord) appropriate.

If using “BC” or “AD” is how you wish to denote lineal time references, by all means do not stop if you consider useing “BCE” or “CE” “hypocritical”. Adhere to your conscience regardign the subject…as I will adere to mine.

 

[Sneaglebob]

Thanks everyone for all your answers but I’m still kinda stuck (I’m just a teen and I need to learn more). What you are trying to say is that the authors of the bible could copy off if the holy spirit told them too?

 

[Farsight001]

Thanks everyone for all your answers but I’m still kinda stuck (I’m just a teen and I need to learn more). What you are trying to say is that the authors of the bible could copy off if the holy spirit told them too?

Copy off what? Most of these connections to older religions aren’t actually real. Most of the claims can be traced to a single book written in the 1800’s, and is not supported by any historical evidence whatsoever.