Question about the authorship of Moses and the gospels

The fact that the book of Deuteronomy closes with the writing of Joshua adding the footnote to Moses' biography - detailing his death and burial does not negate all the works of Moses. Christ and the NT authors attribute the books of Moses TO Moses -- where they also "in error"??

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all written by the stated author. There is no reason to invent stories about them lying about it. But the question remains as to what source they used. Did Luke borrow from Mark and Matthew?

The question of compiling and borrowing is most applicable when it comes to Luke since he gives us no reason to think that he was walking around with Christ as we know John and Matthew were doing. Not only this - but he explicitly tells the reader that his work is a result of careful inquiry and research.

Now I know of course that many evolutionists on this board adopt the motto "doubt God first - believe the Bible last - trust man always" -- but Bible believing Christians have no need for such agnostic values.

In Christ,

Bob

 

There is a fair chance that Deut was written during the Babylonian captivity in the opinion of Donald Harmon Akenson.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]I've read a couple of your threads, and I think you are listening too, and reading the wrong people, these people do not believe the scripture, they have no faith.

 

Faithful scholarship means not only examining the Scripture text for what it says, but also means taking into account the results of a variety of other disciplines -- literary criticism, archaeology, history, etc. The process of thinking is not the same as the process of believing. One may think, on the basis of scholarship, that a traditional author is not the actual one, and still believe in the content of the revelation.

 

Taking the wild guesses of mankind over God's Word led many to believe that NOTHING in the books of Moses COULD have been written by Moses since formal writing did not exist in those days!

Later - they "discover" that the wild guesses of man were "Wrong". So (just as in the case of atheist-darwinist evolutionism) the question is "how much faith should we place in the guesswork of man"?

That becomes the real issue.

 

I think the answer lies in how the Scriptures were compiled.

First, none of the Gospel writers (and I, by the way, think that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote them as the titles imply) knew they were writing the Bible. They were, in the context of their time, writing to people in various cultures about what Jesus had said and done, and especially about His gift of salvation through the Cross and resurrection.

It's reasonable to expect that God did not dictate, but guided the research and minds of the writers. Each Gospel account differs in details, not because they are flawed, but because each one addresses a different set of concerns, and because each of the Gospels resulted from different experiences, recollections, and sources.

I think Mark wrote his first. Was he an eyewitness? Likely he was there at the arrest (only in Mark do we see a young man running off without his nightshirt). Matthew's was likely next, then Luke, all working with a combination of the previous writer's work, their own experiences, and the recollections of other eyewitnesses they had spoken to. It is my contention that Matthew, Mark, and Luke completed their work around AD62, before Paul was martyred and before the destruction of Jerusalem. John's Gospel was apparently written without regard to the chronology or content of the Synoptics and around AD100.

And al -- all -- were inspired by God and are reliable sources of doctrine and spiritual truth. "Inspiration" is not "dictation," it is guidance.

 

The LDS uses the same argument and they also change their documents when it is convenient for their current theology.

People who worship the Bible don't trust the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth. They trusted the HS to edit a book.

 

You are right - God could simply have used Luke as His Penman - He could dictate in a dream or vision as He did with Daniel.

The book of Daniel is a good comparison of the different methods God uses. In the first 6 chapters you see stories told - some visions are included there - but most of it is simply relating history of what happened - what really happened to Daniel and the various kings living while Daniel served in court.

But then you also have direct visions where Daniel then writes down what he saw. In some cases Daniel says "the Angel said ......" and tells you exactly what the Angel said.

John does the same thing in Revelation. But in the BOOK of John he almost never says "THE angel said - In the beginning was the word..." He does not tell the story of John 4 "the woman at the well" in the form of "the angel said...".

God inpsires the Bible authors as they write the text no matter how they actually accessed the material. Vision, Dream or research or memory about their own history (as in the case of Dan 1-6)

The point is "God OWNS it" but He uses various methods to get the information to the Bible writer!

We know without a doubt that NT authors quote OT authors and they don't always give a "reference note" when they do it.

We know that much of the book of revelation uses language from Isaiah.

But this does not mean they were not inspired. God has no moral/principle such that one part of God's Word MUST NEVER be referenced or quoted in another part of His Word. Rather He seems to want us to see the various sections tying back together with other sections.

I don't see this as arguing against inspiration.

Christ quoted the OT quite a bit - that did not lessen His role as the Messiah.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I like this idea that the bible always existed in God's mind. I mean doesn't this make sense? God is omniscient, then didn't he always know how the bible would look like word for word? If he always knew how the bible would look like word for word then this means that God made sure that everybody wrote it down exactly the way he wanted it. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, that's more a discussion of sovereignty than of how the Bible came to exist.

The biggest difficulty in understanding the idea of inspiration vs. dictation (if you'll allow me to state it in this fashion) is that some books record the same events in different ways. Some books miss the historical chronology or make a simple geographic mixup. It doesn't happen often, and it doesn't challenge at all the reliability and authority of Scripture.

Yet if God dictated the Scriptures, they'd be 100% accurate in all points at all times. Thus it is apparent that Scripture, divinely inspired and absolutely, unshakeably authoritative, wasn't written mechanically, as if Paul or Peter's hand was under the direct manipulation of the Almighty; but was inspired in the minds, hearts, and spirits of those God directed to write.

Yes, there are sections wich are direct dictation. For example, prophets (and John, in Revelation)were told "write...," and they did, verbatim.

xdisciplex, keep asking. Keep seeking. But take care that you ask and seek from a place secure in the knowledge of Christ.

 

By the way, xdisciplex, a note about the "Textus Recepticus" mentioned by your preacher friend: This was the best manuscript in existence at the time of the translation to the KJV. Since then, arguably more reliable manuscripts and manuscript families have been found. It's interesting to note that, even though this is so, the KJV remains alongside the newer translations (NIV, NASB, NLT, etc.) as a reliable source of doctrine and spiritual truth.