When was the Bible put together?

Question

If there were thousands of years between the Creation and Jesus, was the Bible going around in pieces until someone said, OK, we have enough to finish the Bible, so now let's put it all in one book? When was it put together, and who decided what to put in and what to leave out? And how come there isn't any mention of dinosaurs, even though we have their fossils?

Answer 1

basically yes that is how the bible started out. It was in several different scrolls. The jewish bible or Old Testement was canonized before the time of Christ.

The Jews recognize the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible as the Tanakh. Evidence suggests that the process of canonization of the Tanakh occurred between 200 BCE and 200 CE. The first suggestion of a Jewish Canon comes in the 2nd century BCE. The book of 2 Maccabees, itself not a part of the Jewish canon, describes Nehemiah (around 400 BCE) as having "founded a library and collected books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings" (2 Macc 2:13). The book also suggests that Ezra brought the Torah back from Babylon to Jerusalem and the Second Temple as described in Nehemiah 8. Both I and II Maccabees suggest that Judas Maccabeus likewise collected sacred books. They do not, however, suggest that the canon was at that time closed; moreover, it is not clear that these sacred books were identical to those that later became part of the canon.

Additional evidence of a collection of sacred scripture similar to portions of the Hebrew Bible comes from the book of Sirach (dating from 180 BCE and also not included in the Jewish canon), which includes a list of names of great men in the same order as is found in the Torah and the Nevi'im (Prophets), and which includes the names of some men mentioned in the Ketuvim (Writings). Based on this list of names, some scholars have conjectured that the author, Yeshua ben Sira (Joshua son of Sirach) had access to, and considered authoritative, the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve minor prophets. His list excludes names from Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther, Daniel, and Job, suggesting that he either did not have access to these books, or did not consider them authoritative. In the prologue to the Greek translation of ben Sirach's work, his grandson mentions both the Torah and the Nevi'im, as well as a third group of books which is not yet named as Ketuvim (the prologue simply identifies "the rest of the books"). Based on this evidence, some scholars have suggested that by the 2nd century BCE the books of the Torah and Nevi'im were considered canonical, but that the books of the Ketuvim were not.

When Christianity began, it had no well-defined set of scriptures outside of the Septuagint[1]. The New Testament refers to the "Law and Prophets", for example the Gospel of Luke 24:44-45 records Jesus stating: "written. . .in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. . .the Scriptures" and Acts of the Apostles 24:14 records Paul of Tarsus stating: "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets". The earliest Christian canon is found in the Bryennios manuscript, published by J.-P. Audet in JTS [3] 1950, v1, pp 135-154, dated to around 100 AD, written in Koine Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew; it is this 27-book OT list: "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, 4 of Kings (Samuel and Kings), 2 of Chronicles, 2 of Esdras, Esther, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Minor prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel" (2 of Esdras might include 1 Esdras; Esther, Jeremiah and Daniel might include their Septuagint additions; Jesus Nave[2] is an early translation of Joshua son of Nun). Early Christianity also relied on the Sacred Oral Tradition of what Jesus had said and done, as reported by the apostles and other followers. Even after the Gospels were written and began circulating, some Christians preferred the oral Gospel as told by people they trusted (e.g. Papias, c. 125 AD).

By the end of the 1st century, some Letters of Paul were collected and circulated, and were known to Clement of Rome (c. 95 AD), Ignatius of Antioch (died 117 AD), and Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 115 AD) but they weren't usually called scripture/graphe as the Septuagint was and they weren't without critics. In the late 4th century Epiphanius of Salamis (died 402) Panarion 29 says the Nazarenes had rejected the Pauline epistles and Irenaeus Against Heresies 26.2 says the Ebionites rejected him. Acts 21:21 records a rumor that Paul aimed to subvert the Old Testament (see Romans 3:8, 31). The Disciples of Yeshuwa claim that passages such as Romans 3:10 show Pauline corruption, where Paul allegedly misquoted the words of Psalm 14:1 ("The fool hath said in his heart: 'There is no Elohiym'. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good") by, they believe, substituting his own words "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10). Opponents of this view believe that Paul was referring not only to the first verse of Psalm 14, but also to verses 2-3, where the phrase occurs (v. 3, see Psalm 53:1-3 also). The Zohar gives a similar statement in the Midrash Hane'elam: "there is no righteous person upon earth" (vol. 6, §23, ¶ 323 [4]). The Disciples of Yeshuwa point to Ephesians 4:8 as a further example where Paul allegedly corrupted the words ". . .He received gifts among men" (Psalm 68:18) to instead read ". . .he gave gifts to men" (Ephesians 4:8) [5]. However, there have been various explanations offered for this difference, including the idea that the Hebrew word can be understood as both "give" and "receive" depending on context (Peacock), that the Greek could be understood either way with only a sight change in grammar, and hence Paul probably relied on an earlier edition of the Septuagint than that which is now extant (Bloomfield), or that he was citing an early Christian hymn (Wallace). It is also noteworthy that the Syraic, Arabic and Aramaic (Targum) translations use "gave" rather than "received" in Psalm 68:18. 2 Peter 3:16 says his letters have been abused by heretics who twist them around "as they do with the other scriptures." In the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.38 says the Elchasai "made use of texts from every part of the Old Testament and the Gospels; it rejects the Apostle (Paul) entirely"; 4.29.5 says Tatian the Assyrian rejected Paul's Letters and Acts of the Apostles; 6.25 says Origen accepted 22 canonical books of the Hebrews plus Maccabees plus the four Gospels but Paul "did not so much as write to all the churches that he taught; and even to those to which he wrote he sent but a few lines."

Eusebius: c. 300, listed a New Testament canon in his Ecclesiastical History 3.3 and 3.25 [13]: Recognized are four Gospels, Acts, 10 traditional Letters of Paul, Pastoral Epistles, 1st Peter, 1st John; Disputed are Didache, Barnabas, Hermas, Diatessaron, Gospel of the Hebrews, Hebrews, Acts of Paul, James, 2nd Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Revelation, Apocalypse of Peter; Rejected are Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Matthias, Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, and unnamed others.

Many modern Protestants point to four "Criteria for Canonicity" to justify the books that have been included in the Old and New Testament, which are judged to have satisfied the following:

Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.
The basic factor for recognizing a book's canonicity for the New Testament was divine inspiration, and the chief test for this was apostolicity. The term apostolic as used for the test of canonicity does not necessarily mean apostolic authorship or derivation, but rather apostolic authority. Apostolic authority is never detached from the authority of the Lord. See Apostolic succession.

It is sometimes difficult to apply these criteria to all books in the accepted canon, however, and some point to books that Protestants hold as apocryphal which would fulfill these requirements. In practice, Protestants hold to the Jewish canon for the Old Testament and the Catholic canon for the New Testament.

Answer 2

The Old Testament is really a hodge podge of Judaic oral traditional stories, poems, laws etc...passed down for several generations. Some stories are actually several stories put together. Some details left out, some added... kinda like your typical legend.... The creation story is mythology....a way of describing a religious truth (according to christians.... .)

The New Testament was written by scribes over periods of time...many years after the supposed life and death of "christ". These were split up into gospels, acts of the diciples and letters...

I'm not an expert obviously... but I believe that the bible is simply a book of laws and riddles...a way to live life...but it's very contradictory is some places...and certain things were left out or added depending on the events or culture going on during that time.

The reason there are no dinosaurs mentioned...well, that's a really good question. These people did not know of the rest of the world... how could they know what lies beneath the surface of an area of the world thousands or miles from them? Dinosaurs did NOT exist during the time of homo sapiens... We would not have survived. A major climate change-brought on by a massive cosmic impact probably wiped out most species of the planet long before we evolved. Yes....we evolved. There is so much evidence of these things that it makes me laugh at those who do not accept it...

Noah's Arc did not exist. Do you know how insanely big the thing would have to be in order to carry every species of the earth? The bible is simply symbolic...mythology...

Just as we believe the Romans and Greeks were silly to believe in Zeus and the like....so will future generations look back on us and think we are silly for believing in Jesus...

Also, do some religious history research. The story of Christ is not new. There are other "virgin birth" gods that exist in other cultures.

Answer 3

Yes, different parts of the Bible were written by different men. They were all Jews and God used them to preserve scripture as it was handed down from generation to generation. The Old Testament was brought together and taught in the synagouge. The New Testament was formed by being made up of the writings of the apostles. There were thirteen, the twelve disciples and Paul. The criterion for acceptance as Scripture was divine inspiration of the apostles. They were brought together by churches.
I also believe that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. Try Job 40. It talks about a mighty creature called Behemoth, with a tail like a cedar tree. Sounds like a brachiosaur to me. Scripture is perfectly compatible with the fossil record we have today. Evolution doesn't fit. God's Word is Truth.

Answer 4

No ! The roman emperor Constantine ordered the bishops to compile a single book of beliefs to represent all of what Christianity should be taught . this was due to the fact that there were many different gospels being preached 30+ ! They are known as the gnostic Gospels ! The bishops chose four unnamed gospels and dubbed them John , Mark , Mathew and Luke . To represent the facts as they saw them , but bare in mind these four men had been dead for century's before there stories where put into the bible !

Have you ever played the telephone game ? Now multiply that by hundreds of years !

Answer 5

You have the old testamentt and the new testamen. The old testament was written by those who led the Israelites. Over the period of time the books were collected and kept with priest. during the time of the new Testament the disciples of Christ and followers of Him wrote books. during the time of Constantine, pagan had joined in the Christian church. Because the Christian faith was spreading. Thus you have the beginning of the Roman Catholic church. After that King James was in inspired to put together the King James version. I know my answer is a bit sketchy, however I hope it will get you started in finding the answers you need.

Answer 6

The King James Version of the Bible (both Old and New Testament since God is all-knowing) fell down from the heavens amidst a chorus of angels when Moses was on Mount Sanai.

Answer 7

At the council of Nicea (however it is spelled). Some Bishops got together and picked what books to put in the new testement. I don't know if they edited the old testement.

But a portion of the old testament was an oral tradition passed down from generation to generation long before it was ever written.

Answer 8

The New Testament was put together by the Emporer Constantine when he made it the state religion. He picked the books he liked and banned the rest.

The Old Testament was mostly written during the exile in Babylon by community leaders to help keep their people together.

More political than divine I think.

Answer 9

The Catholic Church put together the Bible. Catholic Bishops put the Bible together in:
The Council of Rome (382 A.D.)
The Council of Hippo (393 A.D.)
The Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)
Pope Innocent I closed the Bible in 405 A.D.

Dinosaurs could be part of Genesis 1:21-24
Genesis was a symbolic book. Do not take it literally.

Answer 10

It was in parts for many years.
The Council of Nicea put the canonized version together in 325 AD.
Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible.
The word Dinosaur was invented until LONG after the Bible was written.
Behemoth is in there and there are also "beasts".

Answer 11

I think everyone addressed the first portion of your questions. Let me address the final one instead.

The jury is still out as to who and when Job came to be, whether he belonged to antediluvian or postdiluvian era. My educated guess would be antediluvian or before the Great Flood. And no one can truly identify from whence he came, a place called "Uz" --which is different from "Ur", where Abraham came from and it is located south of Babylon along the River Euphrates...

Because it is in his book [Job, Chapter 40, I think?] that mentions God talking about the 'behemoth' and the 'leviathan'. Read it for yourself and try to conceptualize what is/are being described there and you may be fascinated as to how close it describes and resembles what a DINOSAUR [behemoth] is, and what the urban legendary LOCH NESS monster [leviathan] seems to be... Enjoy!

Peace be with you!