N
nablaise
Guest
I need help to understand how the first 3 or 4 Chapters where made…i mean how the verses in those chapters were assigned and by who.
thanks in advance
thanks in advance
- Status
P
PJM
Guest
I’m curious why this is important?
The preface to THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE [The One used for Catholic Mas]} attributes the authorship to a multitude of authors. This is consistant with how the OT history was recounted, spread and handed on, by WORD OF MOUTH and stories; ALL INSPIRED AND GUIDED BY GOD HIMSELF.
God Bless,
Pat
H
HickmanJosh
Guest
I think the first five books of the Bible were authored by Moses or rather as the previous poster said:God working through Moses en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Several subjects are there is there a particularly subject to focus on? Generally Moses is credited with the first 5 books which are mostly verbal history. The Council of Nicea assigned the order, as far as I know.
P
PJM
Guest
I too have heard this claim. That God “dictated” [perhaps too strong of a word…“inspired” suits better our understanding], and this was done so the hebrew nation would know it’s roots and origin.
It seems like a logical explaination; but like you, if true what is the evidence that supports the report?
God Bless,
Pat
B
buffalo
Guest
P
patrick457
Guest
Short answer: Archbishop Stephen Langton in the 13th century and (probably) the Masoretes.
J
Jesus_123
Guest
**
Article 2 - THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
81
Sacred Scripture is **the speech of God **as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.
Article 3 - SACRED SCRIPTURE
104
In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it ** not** as human word, "but as what it really is, the Word of God."
to meet his children, and talks with them.**
"And the
Word
was made flesh,
and dwelt among us,
and we saw his glory;
the glory as it were of the
only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth."
John 1:14
:bible1:
PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
Article 2 - THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
81
Sacred Scripture is **the speech of God **as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.
Article 3 - SACRED SCRIPTURE
104
In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it ** not** as human word, "but as what it really is, the Word of God."
is in heaven comes lovingly
to meet his children, and talks with them.**
:bible1: “How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand …” Psalms 139:17-18b
:bible1: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 55:8
:bible1: “So shall **my word **be that goeth forth out of **my **mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which **I **please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto **I **sent it.” Isaiah 55:11
:bible1: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but **my words **shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35
:bible1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1
"And the
Word
was made flesh,
and dwelt among us,
and we saw his glory;
the glory as it were of the
only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth."
John 1:14
:bible1:
. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+
. . . our
"Father Who Art in Heaven"
we love Thee+
. . . thank You Dear Father+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+
. . . our
"Father Who Art in Heaven"
we love Thee+
. . . thank You Dear Father+
T
Teresita99
Guest
Genesis 1:1-2:3 is actually a post-Exilic synagogue litany chanted by Jewish congregations to put them in the frame of mind for worship much like our own Litany of the Saints. In this version of creation, man and woman were created on the very last day. Genesis 2:4-25 is much older, it dates from around the time of the division of Israel into the Northern Kingdom and Judah. That creation story has man created at the very beginning, then the animals, and finally woman. Ezra assembled the Torah around 460 BC and he made a single narrative from the two strands. The chapter divisions were assigned before this was understood.
B
buffalo
Guest
Properly understood Gen 1 is written from God’s perspective and speaks to the order of creation. Gen 2 speaks to the importance of man. They are complementary texts.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
I’ve put together footnotes from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church on half of Genesis here ocsb.wetpaint.com/
J
jomoco
Guest
Hey there Copland,
I went to your website and read the commentary there on Genesis 3:22
I noted that your commentary speaks of God booting Adam and Eve from the garden to prevent them from eating “again” from the tree of life.
Now I have spoken to the Bishop of the San Diego Diocese here in person about Genesis and the distinctions between the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. He agreed with me that they are two distinctly separate trees, and I believe that most if not all Catholics hold the same belief.
So either your website’s commentary is mistaken, or you must hold a different view of the matter.
I just wanted to bring the seeming discrepancy to your attention in case you’ve made an innocent error in your commentary Copland.
Respectfully,
jomoco
C
Crumpy
Guest
I think post severn comes closest to answering the question, who overlayed chapter numbers and verse numbers in the Bible.
I don’t know if that Bishop was the one to do it, but the 13th century is the timeframe that I heard associated with that numbering in the Bible.
That numbering is not inspired, and chapter headings generally are not inspired. The psalms usually start with a comment, and those are part of the original inspired text.
My reading of modern Jewish commentary says that Genesis was redacted (edited) to contain 12 sections. The evidence for this are some minor transition words between the sections, that shows the ultimate organization of the book.
The repetition of these words is more obvious in Hebrew, because they’re the same words for the transition each time. As translated, the words cannot be so easily connected and reveal the pattern.
I have not read in the commentary any further literary analysis of the resulting 12 sections of Genesis. For example, the sections are not meant to represent 12 equal periods of time in the book. I can’t say either whether the sections are equal in length.
However, the divisions seem to support the idea that Genesis is stitched together from many stories.
I can’t particularly say, either, that story lines end on these boundaries or whether they sometimes span a boundary.
The upshot is that the modern numbering into 50 chapters does not reflect the original organization of the book, and may not have any special significance in itself, either.
I don’t know if that Bishop was the one to do it, but the 13th century is the timeframe that I heard associated with that numbering in the Bible.
That numbering is not inspired, and chapter headings generally are not inspired. The psalms usually start with a comment, and those are part of the original inspired text.
My reading of modern Jewish commentary says that Genesis was redacted (edited) to contain 12 sections. The evidence for this are some minor transition words between the sections, that shows the ultimate organization of the book.
The repetition of these words is more obvious in Hebrew, because they’re the same words for the transition each time. As translated, the words cannot be so easily connected and reveal the pattern.
I have not read in the commentary any further literary analysis of the resulting 12 sections of Genesis. For example, the sections are not meant to represent 12 equal periods of time in the book. I can’t say either whether the sections are equal in length.
However, the divisions seem to support the idea that Genesis is stitched together from many stories.
I can’t particularly say, either, that story lines end on these boundaries or whether they sometimes span a boundary.
The upshot is that the modern numbering into 50 chapters does not reflect the original organization of the book, and may not have any special significance in itself, either.
N
nablaise
Guest
thank you everyone. This is helping alot.
If it is generally agreed that the numbering is ‘not inspired’ as someone pointed out, should’t the Church rectify it or make more clear the ordering? I think some part can cause serious confusion like the first part of Genesis 2.
If it is generally agreed that the numbering is ‘not inspired’ as someone pointed out, should’t the Church rectify it or make more clear the ordering? I think some part can cause serious confusion like the first part of Genesis 2.
N
nablaise
Guest
Thank you very much.
I have a strong sense that either Gen 2:1-3 should have been part of the first chapter or a chapter by itself. I am more for it being a chapter by itself.
however you never know, perhaps there is more wisdom in the way it is.
God bless
P
patrick457
Guest
B
BerhaneSelassie
Guest
Interesting, because Genesis 1:1-Genesis 2:3 all the verses start with a vav, with the exception of verse 1:1 (which is a beit), and all of those have a v sound with the exception of Verse 30, where the vav is a shuruk makes a “u” sound.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
I answered exactly the same question on another post, I’m not sure if it was you or someone else. But for one, my commentary never says that both trees are the same, at all. Second of all my commentary (via Aquinas quotation) makes the distinction clearly in the verse that first mentions both trees, and that is verse 2:9. If you are going to search a commentary concerning the distinction between both trees then you would be better off looking at verse 2:9, not 3:22. Here is the comment on the disticntion between both tree in my commentary
- Status