Questioning the Bible (I): Do we really know who wrote the first five books of the Bible

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers and
Deuteronomy


Whether modern Christians want to believe it or not; Moses is given, by the Church, as the author of the first five books of the Bible.
OK! but the bible itself shows evidence that the author could not have been Moses!
1) The style and manner of the text is altogether written in the third person
2) Numbers 12:3 speaks of Moses being the very most Meek above ALL other men. If Moses wrote this don't you find it stupefyingly bumptious? but if it was written as a narration the terminology asserts a writer in awe of his subject by way of a biography of someone held in esteem.
3) Deuteronomy signifies most, of all the five books of Moses, that of a narration. the narrator introduces his subject then makes way for Moses to speak, then, he resumes his narrative giving his own view. After making account of Moses' final words he then takes over his narrative to finalise the book with an account of Moses' death, funeral and finally the analysis of Moses' character.


Deuteronomy 34:5-6; So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord
And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor; but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.
the terminology; " no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day" speaks volumes to the reader, for it tells us that the writer wrote this, many years, after Moses' death, for if it were written the same day or the next day, week or even year, the narrative becomes less impressive, thus there would be no need for it.

The grammatical evidence shows without doubt that Moses was not the author of any of the 5 books attributed to him. so we must conclude that someone else wrote them, some of you have already come to this conclusion, even some Christians ( mainly because they think the OT has no relevance to the teachings of the NT and JC) but the OT is the beginning of the story, it is why the Council of Nicea included it.

So if we deduce that the first five books of the bible were a narrative, biography, of the life of Moses and not a revelation given to Moses, then the Bible itself loses authenticity.
If we conclude ( as some do) that to the books of Moses were added a narrative later; then the bible loses all authenticity.
my last note is this; even if the books of Moses were written by him through a revelation from God, then that revelation would be to him only, for once that revelation was passed by Moses to others it becomes hearsay, thus the character and credulity of the witness becomes the focus of the story. so! if this is true, why would God use such a flawed concept of communication?

There is a plethora of evidence against the Christian and Jewish view that Moses wrote the books attributed to him. I will mention jut one more;
In the book of Genesis Lot is taken prisoner, when word reaches Abraham, he arms his army and marches off to face the captor, pursuing them unto Dan. This as impossible, for the place Dan did not exist during that time.
the town referred to in Genesis as Dan was actually caled Laish! The town is mentioned in the book of Judges chapter 18 verse 27 as being seized upon by the Danites. this siege took place ( according to the bible, Judges) immediately after the death of Sampson, which is thought to have been 1120yrs BCE, and Moses 1451 BCE. thus the writer of the Genesis calls Laish, Dan, 331 yrs before the name change. it then seems that the book of Genesis was written at least 331 yrs after the death of the Moses. but who wrote it? if we do not know author of this biography, then how is it credible to believe him? The answer is of course, it is not!

Questioning the Bible (II): Moses! example of Gods moral code? or the most evil hearted man in the Bible?

In the book of Numbers, God instructs Moses to tell the children of Israel to take up arms against the Medianites. When victory is achieved, the Israelites return to camp to tell how they had killed all the Kings and men of Median, as according to Gods will; but this apparently was not enough for Moses.
Numbers 31:14-18; And Moses was wroth with the officers of the Host, with the Captains over thousands, and the Captains over hundreds, which came from the battle
And Moses said unto them, have ye saved all the women alive?
Behold, these caused the the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a Plague among the congregation of the Lord
Now therefore Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every Woman that hath known man by lying with him
but all the women Children, that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep for yourselves.

Christians try and tell Atheists that they cannot be good without following the Mosaic laws, the Ten Commandments of God given to Moses on the top of Mount Sinai; but what example does Moses give? this is the man you wish to follow for moral guidance? (he laughs out loud). again I push the realism of revelation, if God revealed these laws to Moses, can anyone hearing the Commandments second hand trust the source, for the revelation was to him only, to anyone else it is hearsay, thus the authenticity is based on the character of the witness; does Moses seem to you a good moral character?

I am not judging God ( for how can I judge something of which I do not ascribe too) I am judging Moses and the authenticity of the five books supposedly written by him.

to give you some scale of the debauchery; Numbers 31:35; And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known a man by lying with him.

This verse comes at the end of a long list of spoils that the Army of Israel had reaped from their attack on the Medians.
to any standard that is an immense number.
what detestable debauchery done in the, supposed, name of God. let us not forget that it was Moses who gave the order, one HE says was given by God. What kind of a just man could give such an order?
do you still think Moses is the right man to base your ethics, principles and morals on? I do not!!
The christian community should question the revelations in the Bible. The books of the bible were not written by the people to whom they are attributed, they are the work of manipulators and heinous men, men that use the fear of God to gain power and money. You do not need religion to find your God! The Bible is not the word of God, it is a gathering of myths, put together to fit an agenda.

Questioning the Bible (III)): Is the book of Joshua an accurate account of events?

First of all, similar to the books of Moses, the book of Joshua is written in the third person. It would have been absurd and vain-glorious for Joshua to speak of himself when writing - ch7:27: "....and his fame was noised throughout all the Country"
In the final Chapter ofthe book, verse 31, Joshua is spoken ofin the past tense; 24:31; "And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders, that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel."
But the most perpleing evidence against the validity of the book of Joshua, is the fantastic tale of the Sun standing still upon Mount Gibeon. Ch 10:13; " And the Sun stood still, and the Moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies, Is this not written in the book of Jasher? So the Sun stood still in the midst of Heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day". This tale, fable, could not have happened without the whole world knowing!
Why would the Moon have to stand still? what use could it have ben during the day? this speaks more of Poetry than History, thus the validity of the book is questionable. No other counrtry, including Egypt, makes note of the miraculous event, wouldn't one side of the world wonder why the Sun had not risen? would the other side ponder why the Sun had not fallen?
A lot of people have argued this point with me, but I still have to disagree. The fact that Joshua Sun and Moon stayed still in the sky, is poetic licence born from the fact that, in their time, it was thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth. So a better interpretation would have been that the Earth stood still.

Moving back to the evidence within the text that reads in the third person with a narrative and biographical feel, we move to chapter 8;

8:28 - " And Joshua burnt Ai, and made an heap for ever, even in desolation unto this day". Here the writer, once more, speaks of events passed tense, not only that, but with emphasis on the age of the desolation. The words " ..even in desolation unto this day" is used to give emphasis on the huge destruction of that city, that it was soo catastophic, that itis still a waste land, EVEN, today".

If this verse was written by Joshua himself, what would be the point of making such a claim, for if it was written at the time of the destruction, lets say the next day, week, month, year, the claim loses its impact and awe. So it would be reasonable to believe that the writer lived in a time long after the event took place, giving the claim its awe, thus Joshua was not the writer ofthis book. Again if this is so Authenticity of the book is questionable

my queries are not directed at God, they are directed at the authenticity of the bible, that, in my opinion the bible is the work of men, that in my series of questions I hope to be able to, hopefully, let you question the scripture yourself, in doing this you will have a clear path to your God, or, you may find, as I, that the biblical God, Jehovah, is nothing more than myth. The Bible cast a powerful spell on humanity, one that has taken away all reason and logic from the faithful, it is my aim to show the Christian that they do not need the bible to find their God, they only need look inside themselves, for true enlightenment come from within


A belief in God should be a personal enlightened epiphany and not something you are taught.

Questioning the Bible (IV): why do the books, Chronicles & Ezra, seem to overlap?

This query highlights the way in which the, supposed, word of God, was bound together with such disorder.
the last two verses of Chronicles read as follows; 22) "Now in the year of Cyrus, King of Persia, that the word of the Lord, spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah, might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, King of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout his Kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying 23) Thus saith Cyrus, King of Persia, all the Kingdoms of the earth hath the LordGod of Heaven given me: and he hath charged meto build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? the Lord his God be with him, and let him go up."
Go up where? This abrupt end/break shows, as I have already said, the disoder and ignorance of the text, in which the bible was mashed together, as you can see by the first three verses of Ezra; 1:1-3;.

" Now in the frst year of Cyrus, King of Persia, that the of the Lord, by the mouth of Jeramiah, might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, King of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his Kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying 2) Thus saith Cyrus, King of Persia, the Lord God of Heaven hath given me all the Kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah 3) Who is there among you of all his peole? his God be with him, and let him go UP to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of theLord of Israel ( he is the God) which is in Jerusalem.


This proof, among others, shows the uncertainty of the authors, we just need look at the first three verses in Ezra and the last two verses of Chronicles; for by whatkind of cutting and shuffling has it been that the three first verses in Ezra, which comes after Chronicles in the bible, should be the same as the last two verses of Chronicles, or is it that the last two verses in Chronicles should BE the first three verses inEzra. To look at this it is hard to believe that the authors knew their own work at all, or tha,t the most likely explanation, was that the compilers of the bible didn't know the authors work, thus the text becomes just page after page of work that has no titles, no beginning and no end. It feels like this was the case, that the compilers read what they wanted to read and then placed it into the bible, giving the names it required to give the word credability, but paying no attention to the layout. The over lap is an oversight, probably done by another compiler who had no knowledge of the other compilers work.
This aside, the books are nothing more than a history of the jews and has no more relevance to the word of God, than a history of the civil war!

Genesis I:are creationist bending the word of the bible to fit in with scientific fact?

Romans 3:4; "......let God be true, but every man a liar..." isnt this the code for bible worship? for all those that follow the bible teachings, those that don't accept the "days" of creation are, not reading, but interpreting scripture to fit with modern day scientific knowledge. to quote Martin Luther " The days of creation were ordinary in length. We must understand that these days were actual days ( Veros Dies), contrary to the opinion of the Holy Fathers. Whenever we observe that the opinions of the Fathers disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders. Nevertheless, we DO NOT, depart from the authority of scripture for their sake" - Plass, 'what Martin Luther says, a practical in-home anthlogy', 1523. Is not the bible the word of God? then how can modern creationist like - G, Archer in his "Survey of the Old Testement" 1994 p196-7 - conclude that "..the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.."

J Boice in "Genesis, An Expositional Commentary" 1982, p64 " We have shown the possibilities of God having formed the Earth and it's life in a series of creation days, representing LONG periods of time. In view of the apparent age of the Earth this is not only possible, it is probable" The 'Prince of Preachers' Charles Haddon Spurgeon stated that Christians should not " ...Take our bibles and shape and mould our beliefs according to the evershifting teachings of ....scientific men. What folly is this"1887. In other words Christians should build their faith on the bible , not on science! This lack of faith in the first book of the bible is based on natural facts, for the age of the Earth is now well known to greatly surpass the knowledge of the bible, this has led to creationists grasping at straws so as to make their philosophy fit in with fact, sadly this is not acceptable to their faith, for as Professor Marcus Dods points out;if, for example, the word "day" in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty- four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless" - Expositors Bilble, Edinburgh, 1888, p4 and cited in D kelly's ' creation and change' 1997 p112

The main focus of this question is to point out the blatent lie's of the Christian faith leaders, lies that penetrate the conscience of children, thus recruiting a new generation of follower slaves. If the book of Genesis can be manipulated to something other than its literal meaning, what else could they have done?

please move on to question 2 which looks at the interpretation of the Hebrew word "Yom" meaning "day" and look at the biblical referrences to try and understand why this one word can cause so much controversy

Genesis II: The Hebrew word "Yom"= "day, in Genesis; is it a 24hr hour day or millions of earth years

There are several different meanings for the word "Day" an example of this could be " Back in my Grandfather's day(1), it took twelve day's(2) to drive across the country during the day(3)"
1) the word day refers to an era
2) the word day - accompanied by a number - refers to 24hrs
3) the word day refers to the period of daylight hours
so the word "day", differs with context, but to specific rule's
"A Hebrew & English Lexicon of the OT" - Brown, Driver & Briggs, Oxford 1951 p398 - gives the meaning of "Yom" in concordance with these rules, defining the creation day's of Genesis1as ordinary days under the heading " day defined by evening and morning" and the fact that the word"Yom" is attached with a number. The term "evening and morning" along with a number is used in Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23 &31 to define the day's of creation.
outside Genesis1, Yom is used with a number 359 times, each time referring to an ordinary 24hr period; Why would Gen1 be an exception?

Also, outside of Genesis1, "Yom" is used with the word 'evening' and ' morning' 23 times. 'evening' and 'morning' appear in association, but without "Yom", 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to a 24 hr ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be an exception to these rules?
In Genesis 1:5 , "Yom" occurs in context with the word "night". outside of Genesis1, " night" is used with Yom 53 times, each time the text refers to a 24hr period; Why would Genesis1 be the exception?
The plural of "Yom" which does not appear in Genesis1 is often used to communicate a longer period of time.
There are words in the Biblical Hebrew Dictionary that communicate long or indefinite periods of time, such as, "Olam" and "Qedem", though suitable for Genesis1, neither were used, confirming that the meaning of "Yom" in Genesis1 was a 24hr period, one ordinary day

Is this not Common Sense

Genesis III: Why six day's? & Why do Christians feel a need to change the meaning of Genesis1?

Why six days?; first the bible says that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, this is what the text suggests when read literally, as it is supposed to be read. The bible gives the significance for this in the book of Exodus
Exodus 31:12-16; "...the Lord spoke to Moses. Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the Sabbeth therefore; for it is holy unto you: everyone that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbeth of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbeth, he shall surely be put to death.
Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbeth, to observe the Sabbeth throughout their generations for a perpetual covenant"......this was the writers of the bible were making, Genesis states six days of creation and the seventh for rest, for it became a symbol ofthier covenant with the creator, which was ratified in the Fourth Commandments "For in six days the Lord mad ethe heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbeth day and hallowed it. This is what the bible teaches, THIS is what the Christians were first taught, This is why they worship on Sundays, THIS is biblical truth, SO, why have they droppedthis in favour of the "thousand year day" theory? could it be denial and deciet?
in answer to tise of you that believe the sun was not being created until the fourth day; As Christians you are taught that God is omnipotent, thus the first thing God created for the earth was light - Genesis 1:3 - "this light was then replaced by the constant power and energy of the Sun on the fourth DAY"

Why do modern Christians refute the six days of the bible? the answer is simple; Science. Science has proven that the earth is billions of years old, that he Universe is older still, that the earth crusts and fossil layers are full of of decayed fossilised lifeforms that have been there for hundreds of millions of years. This fact leads to the realization that death, bloodshed, disease, thorns and suffering MUST have existed BEFORE the , supposed, original sin of Eve. This has led to creationist using Scientific facts to influence their interpretation of the Genesis text all the while trying to keep the credibility of the original sin intact, for without the original sin of Eve, there would be no need for the Atonement of Jesus, the main doctrine of the Christian faith.

please read the content of Genesis again without external influence as the text is written, then you will realise that the writers meant to mean what they actually written, then you will realise that the modern day creationist theories are nothing but propaganda released to deceive the faithful and justify their doctrine.

This series of questions was inspired by a visit from two Jehovah's Witnesses. Although the OT is not as significant to Christians it is by way of the original sin. Modern creationist are trying to mould scientific fact together with biblical scripture, endorsing neither, evolution nor the six 24hr day creation. This "middle ground" is an insult to both, if you want to project the bible as the written word of God, then you should not have the audacity to change his meaning. Hypocrisy has become the way of the Christian.