Is the bible the word of God or men?

"bible" and "code" appearing in the same sentance is a sort of pet-peeve of mine. the bible is not "encoded" except perhaps in certain specific instances (all of which remain to be demonstrated, btw). ah, see, here's where the problem starts. the story of pardes is itself an allegory. the system of thought came first, and was remembered through the mnemonic "orchard" or pardes. the word "pardes" is an abbreviations for pshat, remez, dresh, and sod. or "literal, allegorical, applied, and mystical." the only part that comes close to being a "code" is the "mystical" part -- where one thing might symbolize another.but other than that, each level is built on the previous, and cannot contradict it. the moral application is built on the deeper meaning of the generalized allegory. that is built on the literal reading.

---

oh, that's boring jewish tradition. what about the books god did not deliver to moses, but kept for himself and his angels? that have "accidentally" fallen into the hands of man.

---

Welcome subconscious,Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.It is usually customary to provide links to online references as opposed to suggesting opponents google for it.As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Abide by the Forum Guidelines and you will be a welcome addition.In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.Please direct any questions or comments you may have concerning this post to the Moderation Thread.

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

arachnophilia,I can see that you didn't read the thread. Perhaps you should read the thread.Edited by trossthree, : err

---

Thanks
trossthree

...bumpEdited by trossthree, : errEdited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you

Hi all,

quote:

---

Please provide some references for your silly claim.

---

I beg your pardon?
This is a known historical fact.The Council of Nicea did NOT choose the books of the Bible at all.
You linked to a page on the council, but you clearly didn't even READ it at all - go back and read your link - you will find no mention therein of the council deciding the books of the bible.

quote:

---

I would be amused to read some more information on your claim.

---

Why didn't you read the facts in the first place?Why didn't you go and check the facts when I questioned your claim?Have a read of the canons of the Council here:
CHURCH FATHERS: First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325)Note the contents - the council did not even discuss the books of the Bible at all.Your claim is false.Iasion

quote:

---

Are you describing that God/elohim/eloheim/yahwah/lol/ has some scripture in Heaven that it delivered to Moses on Mt Sinai?

---

like someone else posted later we have the words of john descibinhg that GOd is the word, mathematically that would look like GOD=word, there was no physical written scripture that YHVH posessed in the heavens, when he spoke to moses on mt.sinai he was orally delivering the word, which in turn according to jewish tradition was later transcribed into the written words of the torah.
so the words spoken to moses were that of the oral torah, it was spoken to moses so that it would be absorbed upon his heart and mind, the metaphor here is that now after YHVH has spoken the word to moses it is now in the hearts and minds of men, to then act out the word to be dilligent followers the jews were required to transcibe the oral torah into the written torah.
so here we see the first five books were delivered orally directly from God to moses, the evidence of this is the written torah, later books of the bible as i have stated are of men inspired by God, but the torah is direct divine passing of His word to moses, thus we can consider the first five books or the torah, the written word of God.was it enoch or moses who saw the face of GOd? if it was not moses then he was in contact with metatron, who is God's direct messenger, which i guess could be considered an elohim of some sort, but when moses asked who it was that is sending him with His message, in exodus 3:14 he staes tell then it is "I am the I am", or "I will be Who I will be", in hebrew translated into YHVH.

quote:

---

the "oral law" or "oral torah" is the talmud.

---

i believe you are just a little inaccurate............
from wikipedia..........
The Talmud (Hebrew: —) is a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs, and history.The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 CE), a discussion of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh. The terms Talmud and Gemara are often used interchangeably. The Gemara is the basis for all codes of rabbinic law and is much quoted in other rabbinic literature. The whole Talmud is also traditionally referred to as Shas (" (a Hebrew abbreviation of shisha sedarim, the "six orders" of the Mishnah).

quote:

---

unfortunately, this is nothing but old tradition. textual analysis (even medieval textual analysis) demonstrates pretty clearly that moshe could not have written the torah. for starters, it describes his death.

---

if you would kindly re-read what i have posted you will see that i have not said that moses wrote the torah, i stated that it was "later" transcribed into the torah.
in fact i agree that the torah was not written by moses.
from my understanding, the torah was not to be written according to jewish tradition until the oral tradition was perfected in the hearts and minds of the men and women. later when they understood the oral torah they were then to write it for edification and further reference.

quote:

---

"bible" and "code" appearing in the same sentance is a sort of pet-peeve of mine.

---

well thank God that the bible was not soley written for just your purposes alone.........a lil rib jab all in good humor......

quote:

---

ah, see, here's where the problem starts. the story of pardes is itself an allegory. the system of thought came first, and was remembered through the mnemonic "orchard" or pardes. the word "pardes" is an abbreviations for pshat, remez, dresh, and sod. or "literal, allegorical, applied, and mystical." the only part that comes close to being a "code" is the "mystical" part -- where one thing might symbolize another.

---

here you are kind of supporting my position.the story may be allegory or metaphor, but some of the greatest teachings of Christ YHSHWH were metaphors were they not?also it is taught that in the jewish tradition YHVH appointed prophets and sages to debate and refine the word so as to provide for those dilligently seeking the word to have reference.
i believe this correlates direcly with the talmud, it is a discussion of debate refining the many intracasies of the "word", it is compared to jewish "code" or rules, this in itself suggests that the word is complicated enough or encoded to the point where a debate considering the many fascets of the jewish faith might have more than one meaning when considering what the word is actually saying.

quote:

---

the word "pardes" is an abbreviations for pshat, remez, dresh, and sod. or "literal, allegorical, applied, and mystical."

---

thank you for refreshing me on the actual definition of pardes. but again i think you are helping my standpoint, maybe we agree and don't know it........YHVH created using different combinations and vocalization of the 22 letters of the alef bet, the hebrew alphabet correct? he created the ten emanations of the upper worlds or the heavens right, the ten sefirot- tree of life, in metaphor could we not consider this the dna strand of the universe in accordance to Gods creation? is dna not an encoded formula of genetics for the human?
if God "is the word", and the word was first emanated through the divine vocalization of the alef bet and its many combinations that would mean that the hebrew language was used before the oral torah was even delivered to moses on mt.sinai, thus showing that the word was a code before men understood it as letters and words.
if there are levels or emanations of the tree of life or ten sefirot using the hebrew alphabet, there must be levels or emanation of the "word" of God that we are considering.
with that being said, and according to jewish tradition and the fact of prophets and sages who were instructed to debate the word to find its many meanings, and to have the talmud as reference to jewish law, it would only make sense that the words pshat, remez, dresh, and sod. describing pardes, were found by ones in the orchard to have meaning through dilligent debate of the word that there might be more than one level or emanation of the "word" to consider.
this is all jewish tradition, and who are we as men to pick and choose which we subscribe too,we are to follow all the rules. it may have bben allegory how it was thought of, but it was thought of within the context of jewish law and thought, which in my eyes makes it ligit to say the word is indeed coded, as a metaphor, and that the word also has its literal points.

oh, no, i did. and contributed some to it. i'm just saying that it's relatively run-of-the-mill tradition. and that you should see the goofy stuff.

---

what i was pointing out is that saying "oral torah" (torah means "law") is the wrong kind of term, as the oral law is the talmud. punch "oral torah" into wikipedia, and see where it redirects too.in neither popular judeo-christian tradition, nor actual academic studies, does the torah seem to have gone through an oral phase. in both, it is primarily a collection of written documents. this is not to say that academics confirms tradition. just the opposite. well, sorry for misunderstanding. but this is still "moses wrote the torah" once removed. all you've done is further complicate the matter, while keeping the focus on moses recieving the word of god. this does not match the reality of the construction of the torah at all, and to presume it does would require a good degree of fracturing between the "oral" word of god given to moses of horeb, and the actual recording and recombining of the book -- which means that the it's not the same words.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

well, the thing is that it wasn't written for whatever purpose anyone cares to apply to it, especially those that disregard the meaning and treat the text as a "code." the "bible code" (as one continuous phrase) is perhaps the worst example of this, turning the bible into (a rather bad) fortune-telling device. not to mention that it's mathematically unsound. indeed they were. it is important to separate the literal reading from the "truth" or accuracy of the accounts, and jesus's parables are the perfect example of this. the stories are actually fictional, but it doesn't matter. and the first level of understanding what they mean is on a literal basis: what happens in the story. the next level is how it applies to a general case. and the level after that is what we can learn from the general case. one might even be able to argue that jesus understood the basis of a system much like pardes.also, it's customary to include vowels in english transliterations here, unless the vowels are questionable. hebrew and aramaic are easily understood without vowels, but it just doesn't read as smoothly in english. people typically leave the vowels off yahweh as a sign of respect, making the name unpronouncable, but it's rather unusual to do the same thing for yehoshua who had a relatively common hebrew/aramaic name, and one found elsewhere in the bible belonging to very mortal men. however, also feel free to simply write and . i promise i'll understand you. nevi'im are generally thought to have spoken for god, more or less directly. the word seems to come from the word meaning "to bubble up" as in words just coming to their mouths. i'm not sure if we could say this is a refinement process -- just god continuing to speak to his people as time goes on. god's words were not timeless and generally applicable -- they were scathingly specific, and very to the point. it is only from the application, the higher steps in the pardes system, that we learn timeless truths. ah, it's the old joke abd two rabbis having three opinions between them. people disagree. people fight. people debate. it's a simple fact of life, and one should not read the talmud as anything other than disagreements of the nature we often have here. there is even debate recorded in the bible, for that matter -- which alone is bound to spawn even more debate. it's not that it's "coded" or vague -- it's just that there's a lot of content and it doesn't all agree. i was not neccessarily trying to disagree. this is qabala you are speaking of. that is a whole separate discussion, and one i am admittedly not well versed in. in genesis, god creates by speaking. this is a common theme, and in many targums the name of god became something that would reflect that aspect -- this is probably the origin of this whole "word" concept. we are looking at stuff from around the time of christ. there is no good biblical evidence that hebrew was the language of god. god gives his own name as a hebrew verb, but this is often thought to be just what moshe was supposed to tell the hebrews he was called. at babel, the languages are divided, and there is nothing to say that the sons of eber kept the original tongue, if anyone did. this is the important thing to remember. this is all tradition. and really, just tradition. frankly, i don't care to subscribe to any of it. i'd rather approach the text accurately and honestly, ignoring dogma. and i'd rather approach the traditions historically. yes and no. under pardes everything is actually both.also, a tip: to reply, you can hit the "little green reply button" on the bottom of the post you are referencing. it makes following conversations easier, and sends that person an email that someone has posted a response.

---

I'm not sure why people can't see that the bible contains writings that come from many different sources and in many different ways. There seems to be a difference between a letter a MAN writes to the Romans, vs a MAN writing down what somebody said or some history, vs MEN incorporating legends that existed before the bible was written, vs what OTHER WORLDLY BEINGS who appeared to some prophets told them to write down. So some of the bible is the word of man and some is the word of supernatural beings. It can't be all credited to one source. It's like asking a librarian if the books in the library are fiction or nonfiction.

Elkhardt Alrighty then, the question I ask is how do you tell that the verses written down by prophets are what an OTHER WORlDLY BEING told them to write?

---

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."Albert Einstein

...bumpEdited by trossthree, : errEdited by trossthree, : errEdited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you