just give a 150 words response to each person discussion answer.LaurenDiscussion Post One Even though the critical view, the compositional view and the common view on how the Old Testament is composed differ from one another, the intention to learn more about God’s word is the same. The reason that there are three differentiating views on how the old testament is composed is due to scholars researching the best ways to better understand and learn about the bible. Although it was not the intention of the authors of the three different views, the views are more similar than different. All three views provide the opportunity to research in hopes for a better understanding of God’s word and vision for creation and his plans for man. They contrast because they each answer the questions of how and why the Old Testament was written differently. The Critical view on how the Old Testament is composed describes the Old Testament “simply happened” (Sailhamer,1998, p 35) and without any planning1. The belief that the way the Old Testament is written is not to be questioned but researched for further understanding. The text gives the example of the Grand Canyon to compare to this view of the bible. The Grand Canyon “is to be viewed as a long slow process” just as the Pentateuch is the “end result of a long and complicated process” (Sailhamer, 1998, p.35)1. The text explains that researchers studied the formation of the Grand Canyon and that we as believers should research the bible in the same manner. The common view is self-explanatory in a sense. Meaning, “the common view simply assumes the bible was written as any other book” (Sailhamer, 1998, p. 37)1. This view is easily relatable. The thought process is that anyone can pick up the bible, open the book and begin to read at the start of Genesis. This is a simplified version of understanding the bible. The approach is to not think about the how it all happened and focus on the fact that it did happen. The compositional view believes that the Pentateuch is composed with a specific purpose and reason. This view has the idea that all the pieces of the Old Testament came together because God designed it that way. The text, compares the Old Testament to the Grand Canyon but this time as the “Grand Canyon Ride” at Disney (Sailhamer, 1998, p. 36)1. This means that one has to take the train ride to understand and fully see the Grand Canyon. In comparison, one has to read the bible to piece together and better understand God’s hope for man-kind. The desire and need to better understand God and his plans for man-kind is the ultimate reason the Old Testament creation views are similar. The views all have the same goal of learning from the bible. The importance of learning from God’s word is apparent in all three views. The difference is that the views contrast on how one should learn from the biblical passages. Although the critical view, the compositional view, and the common view on how the Old Testament is composed differ, the intentions to learn more about God’s word are the same.AshleyWhile all three views, the critical, compositional, and common, in relation to the Old Testament, were written with the Bible being the end result they are all expected to have arrived at this result a bit differently.Throughout time it has been discussed and thoroughly debated on how we got the Bible. In relation to the Old Testament one of the ideas is the critical view. This view according to Sailhamer (1998, pg. 33) is a lengthy and complex process. During that time, as is in today’s time, everyone needed a way to cope with situations they may have been encountering during their time. It is said that the critical view was just a bunch of writings that circulated to serve the purpose of helping others cope. With this, through their numerous uses, they were eventually put together as different versions of the “stories” that were presented and captured. Valarde (2009) talks about some common misconceptions about the Bible and notes how it “is not “instant” Scripture and it wasn’t all written down around the same time. Instead, the books of the Bible were written over a lengthy period of time by different people inspired by God.”Then you have the compositional view. The way that this view is different is that it was designed to be read and interpreted in a certain way and in a particular sequence. It is believed to have had a plan in place the entire time during its creation. The books weren’t placed together after the fact all willy-nilly. They was a purpose. There was a lot of thought and planning that went into it.Lastly the third, and most common view, is the common view. Just like we view the “Synoptic Gospels” in the New Testament we view and read all the works of the Bible in the Old Testaments and view them as “seen together.” We simply read it, enjoy it, follow it, and learn from it without overthinking it. We immerse ourselves into the writing and appreciate it for what it is.Sailhamer gave many analogies for each view and it made it easier to comprehend and understand how each view was expected to have been created. His explanation of the critical view is that it was “fastened together,” the compositional view was “woven together by bits and pieces to form a big picture,” and the common view was “sewn together as one piece.” I love how it painted the picture for us to understand that if you believe or follow the critical view for how the Bible was created then you are able to view the books as a whole, understanding that there may be layers, but take the books as a compilation versus viewing them as being written by individuals. And the same can be said for the compositional and common views.Regardless of which view someone has on the Bible the end result is the same. As I previously discussed, we read it, learn from it, and enjoy it in its entirety.