The Bible: Is the Author God, Man or Both?

The authors of the stories found in the various Bibles are the product of men of a given culture, era, ethos and mythos; they evolve over time as their society evolves. The "Bibles", as anthologies of anthologies, are also the product of men and again the content, the Canons, reflect the culture, mythos and politics of their society.

Lost me there completely. Using over 2000 year old material hardly seems like something an engaged god might do.

Still lost me. Yet you also said : If it is just another example of man's understanding and beliefs it is not God's revelation.Of course it does not preclude God from working in the hearts, minds and imagination of people today, but that is totally irrelevant to the topic.

Moses, if there ever was a Moses, is unlikely to have had anything to do with the authorship of any of the Books of Moses.The Ten Commandments (whichever version you want to discuss) almost certainly are not a revelation from God. The fact that there are several different versions is pretty clear indication that they are just mythos.They also aren't that unusual for the most part, and not even monotheistic; rather they are very tribalistic in nature. Shouldn't we also consider the possibility that Reverend Dodgson was influenced by God in what he wrote, or Mark Twain, or Kipling or Dawkins?Why does God connecting directly to us involve anything to do with the authorship of any of the various Biblical and extra-Biblical stories?

Not coveting is not so much a 'heart thing' as it was a practical rule to minimize conflict in small closely related tribal groups.I thought you said "Somebody, presumably Moses came up with the 10 commandments. Was that a revelation from God? "

Which is still unrelated and irrelevant to the topic.The question is about the author of the loosely called 'Bible" and so far all the evidence I have ever seen shows that it is totally the product of man.

Nonsense. No where does it mention or even hint at finding joy in what someone else has even when you don't have it yourself. That's just stuff you are making up.That part of the commandments was meant to keep peace in the tribe. But again, that is totally irrelevant to who the authors of the various stories were that made it through the writing, editing, redacting, selecting process.Working through hearts and minds says nothing about authorship of Bible stories.Edited by jar, : fix quotebox

Again, that is just supposition piled on supposition.Small tribal societies can't survive if the members are not getting along and so it is reasonable to try to keep inter-family squabbles from starting. One way is to say that you can't want your neighbors wife or goats or tent or donkey.

But it only says "don't want what your neighbor owns", not "don't want a wife, or donkey or goat". It says don't want the exact object your neighbor already has, but it's fine to want one just like it or even better.It has NOTHING to do with feelings and everything to do with behavior.

Except there is NOTHING about not resenting someone in the ten commandments.

I don't see how the term "cognitive dissonance" has any relevance to the issue.

But even if that were true, it is not an example of "cognitive dissonance" and so far you have not shown any evidence that GDR suffers from cognitive dissonance.

I have followed the conversation but believe you are simply incorrect in claiming that GDR shows "cognitive dissonance".Where do you see GDR holding two mutually exclusive beliefs?

Pardon me, it was the disciples you were referring to in that post and not GDR.The case still stands.How were the disciples showing 'cognitive dissonance'?

Of course I have been following along and still I made an error.Deal with it.However I think your assumption is totally unfounded.In fact, I'd say that the various Gospel stories (and the Epistles) show the disciples (and the Apostles), far from suffering from cognitive dissonance, were dealing with reality rather well.If we begin with that classic idea of a Jewish Messiah, one who will rise up, throw out the overlords and lead Israel to an Independent status, then Jesus death would have quashed that idea.But then almost immediately the disciples experience the Resurrection, and so the concept of what a Messiah would be changed to fit the new reality. No cognitive dissonance there.It's pretty clear that the first generation of followers, disciples and Apostles, believed that the world would end within their lifetime. But it became clear that was not going to happen so again they revised their expectations; they moved Jesus return (the Second Coming) to an indefinite period in the future. Again, far from cognitive dissonance.In each case, whether you are looking at Gospels or Epistles, what is seen is evolution. When beliefs are shown to be wrong they changed the beliefs instead of trying to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs.So where do you see the 'cognitive dissonance'?