Ship of Fools: Would it be possible to radically change the bible?

Thread: Would it be possible to radically change the bible? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029509

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

There are of course differences already between bibles. Catholic bibles have more old testament books and we have various different translations.

The Message contains the following unfortunate verse "A dozen yards or so down the beach, he saw the brothers James and John, Zebedee’s sons. They were in the boat, mending their fishnets" which if you are English paints a very different picture of our first apostles.

In another thread I suggested removing a problematic story. Which of course is not going to happen. But that got me thinking...what if we did?

Anyone can publish a bible. Although the guys at the Conservative Bible Project have stalled in their quest to "remove Liberal Bias" and " avoid unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions".

But what would happen if enough bibles were published with books removed and taken up by enough churches?

What books if any would you remove or add?

Personally I'd strip out any story's where God commits murder or orders his followers to commit murder.

Also I'd put the book of Tobit back into all editions because I really like the bit with the dog.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I'd remove everything by St Paul.
He is anti-female, legalistic, and provides too much justification for today's bigots and nasties.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'd remove everything by St Paul.
He is anti-female, legalistic, and provides too much justification for today's bigots and nasties.

Ohh good call. I remember Paul being quoted during my old church days when arguments for men having dominion over women were being made.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

Lose Paul? And lose one of the most beautiful poems about love ever written (especially as it was written to a church doing the exact opposite)? Or Romans 8, one of my very favourite chapters of the Bible?

And legalistic? Isn't he the one people quote when they want to make a point about the OT Law no longer applying (not saying they're right to do so)? Given some of the crap he had to deal with in his churches, I'm surprised he didn't lay down the law more often.

And I'm not sure about the anti-woman bit, either: I think he can be used in that way, but whether that's how he meant it or not is another matter (bearing in mind he wasn't writing to 21st century westerners). He seemed to have no problems with Priscilla teaching Apollos along with Aquila, and doesn't he list a woman as an apostle in Romans?

This may be a double-edged sword, but I don't think Christianity would like anything like it does now (the good bits and the bad bits) without Paul.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Also I'd put the book of Tobit back into all editions because I really like the bit with the dog.

Me too.
That's the Douai-Rheims reading (thank you, Ricardus) – though I loved the story anyway, with the demon Asmodeus fleeing to the farthest reaches of Egypt. We performed it at a parish camp just before Hallowe'en, when there were great devilish masks available.

GG

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Hmmm. What if we took out 1 Timothy 2, verse 12 but left in the bits about love?

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Just love the 'fishnets' image.

Rather than chop and change the Bible, perhaps we ought to treat it properly - not as a series of propositional proof texts, but as an unfolding revelation of God and creation, written in a variety of genres, by inspired (?) but fallible humans who tried to express what they experienced and understood in the forms, language and culture they were familiar with, but perhaps we are not? This might explain why some forms of Judao-Christian faith (even Muslim faith) accept/reject different possibilities.

(This of course begs the question of whether the revelation is continuing, and if so, how?)

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
There are of course differences already between bibles. Catholic bibles have more old testament books and we have various different translations.

The Message contains the following unfortunate verse "A dozen yards or so down the beach, he saw the brothers James and John, Zebedee’s sons. They were in the boat, mending their fishnets" which if you are English paints a very different picture of our first apostles.

In another thread I suggested removing a problematic story. Which of course is not going to happen. But that got me thinking...what if we did?

Anyone can publish a bible. Although the guys at the Conservative Bible Project have stalled in their quest to "remove Liberal Bias" and " avoid unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions".

But what would happen if enough bibles were published with books removed and taken up by enough churches?

What books if any would you remove or add?

Personally I'd strip out any story's where God commits murder or orders his followers to commit murder.

Also I'd put the book of Tobit back into all editions because I really like the bit with the dog.

Didn't someone already try that? I believe Marcion was his name.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Lose Paul? And lose one of the most beautiful poems about love ever written (especially as it was written to a church doing the exact opposite)? Or Romans 8, one of my very favourite chapters of the Bible?

And legalistic? Isn't he the one people quote when they want to make a point about the OT Law no longer applying (not saying they're right to do so)? Given some of the crap he had to deal with in his churches, I'm surprised he didn't lay down the law more often.

And I'm not sure about the anti-woman bit, either: I think he can be used in that way, but whether that's how he meant it or not is another matter (bearing in mind he wasn't writing to 21st century westerners). He seemed to have no problems with Priscilla teaching Apollos along with Aquila, and doesn't he list a woman as an apostle in Romans?

This may be a double-edged sword, but I don't think Christianity would like anything like it does now (the good bits and the bad bits) without Paul.

Of course you can't remove St. Paul. It's a very silly idea.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Hmmm. What if we took out 1 Timothy 2, verse 12 but left in the bits about love?

Oh, go on then, if you must... walks away shaking his head and muttering

Though I prefer...

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:

Rather than chop and change the Bible, perhaps we ought to treat it properly - not as a series of propositional proof texts, but as an unfolding revelation of God and creation, written in a variety of genres, by inspired (?) but fallible humans who tried to express what they experienced and understood in the forms, language and culture they were familiar with, but perhaps we are not? This might explain why some forms of Judao-Christian faith (even Muslim faith) accept/reject different possibilities.

(This of course begs the question of whether the revelation is continuing, and if so, how?)

...this. Very much this (although part of me gets a little nervous as to whether the progression is a linear through the Bible as this way of looking at it can imply). And I wonder if treating the Bible in this way can help us to see that we humans only ever have a limited view of God and we are prone - as prone as those whose writings are captured in the Bible - to getting it wrong and acting on that wrong view of God?

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

There was a couple of threads on this in Kerygmania a couple of years ago, but they seem to have been deleted (can't find them in Oblivion).

I certainly wouldn't get rid of Paul. We'd just need to recreate most of his corpus to re-found christian theology.

I'd probably fight for the inclusion of 4 Ezra, as it is very useful in understanding second temple Judaism and the messianic hopes which were around in Jesus' time.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
In another thread I suggested removing a problematic story. Which of course is not going to happen. But that got me thinking...what if we did?

You would gain, and you would lose. Would the gains balance the losses?

Gain: No bits that require thought to understand
Loss: No bits that require thought to understand

Gain: A nice, safe book with nothing dangerous
Loss: A nice, safe book with nothing dangerous

Gain: A good source of sound bites to support your views
Loss: A good source of sound bites to support your views

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Yes, it would be possible to radically change the Bible:

All the "begats" to go in a pull-out family tree as an appendix at the back.
Leviticus to be pruned of spurious medical advice and made readable, or possibly produced as a small standalone easy-reference pamphlet.
The Song of Songs to be dropped.
The Apocrypha to be in, in their entirety.
Mark’s prose to be polished, and if he can’t supply an ending it may be necessary to put a disclaimer in.
Paul’s letters to be issued as a separate supplement.
John’s Gospel not to be included – it was written a century after the event and doesn’t read like a genuine account of what actually happened.
A review of the remaining Gospels to be made – is it really necessary to have all three? The solution may be to have one merged Gospel.
The non-canonical Gospels to be looked at again.
Revelations also to be dropped.

You did say "radical".

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

@Ariel

I love this but drop Song of Songs!

I kind of like navels.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Lose everything except the Sermon on the Mount.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
@Ariel

I love this but drop Song of Songs!

I kind of like navels.

I think it's an enjoyable and sometimes beautiful piece of poetry but it doesn't fit with the rest. It could be made available online for download instead.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

I was at a wedding last year which had Solomon 4-8 (yes, the whole of 4-8) as a reading.*

It also formed the basis of the sermon.

*and thinking back, potentially even more than 4-8 - it did go on for 10 minutes or so.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

I was wondering if there were any writings contemporary to biblical times that condemn slavery that could be added but perhaps unsurprisingly I can't find any.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'd remove everything by St Paul.
He is anti-female, legalistic, and provides too much justification for today's bigots and nasties.
Ohh good call. I remember Paul being quoted during my old church days when arguments for men having dominion over women were being made.

Our pastor is pretty conservative, but woe betide anyone who even whispers about male headship without appropriate reference to the context and responsibilities.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

We'd still need a context for the Sermon on the Mount.

The rest of the Gospels and indeed what we call the Old Testament provides that.

Perhaps I'm stuffy but no, I wouldn't lose any of it - but I'd hope to be become more able to approach it as Felafool suggests.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

I would probably add some Augustine, some Aquinas, some Abelard, some Emerson, and some Martin Luther King Jr.

[ 09. September 2015, 14:28: Message edited by: fausto ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'd remove everything by St Paul.
He is anti-female, legalistic, and provides too much justification for today's bigots and nasties.

While I agree that Paul provides cover for far too many bigots and misogynists, the reality is, he is actually quite progressive and provides the best justification for female equality. Pruning him from the Bible would strip us of our very best arguments for women's ordination and domestic equality. We need to keep Paul but read his entire arguments rather than sniping out parts without regard to context or intent.

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

The Message contains the following unfortunate verse "A dozen yards or so down the beach, he saw the brothers James and John, Zebedee’s sons. They were in the boat, mending their fishnets" which if you are English paints a very different picture of our first apostles.

Um... asking with some trepidation... I'm as clueless as my fellow American Eugene Peterson here... what's the cross-pond significance here? Some double-entendre no doubt?

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You would gain, and you would lose. Would the gains balance the losses?

Gain: No bits that require thought to understand
Loss: No bits that require thought to understand

Gain: A nice, safe book with nothing dangerous
Loss: A nice, safe book with nothing dangerous

Gain: A good source of sound bites to support your views
Loss: A good source of sound bites to support your views

This

[ 09. September 2015, 15:22: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Fishnets are what you might wear if you're a hardcore fan to a performance of the Rocky Horror Show.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Fishnets are what you might wear if you're a hardcore fan to a performance of the Rocky Horror Show.

Oh, sure, we have those here too of course. Just didn't make the connection. From the reaction I thought it must be a euphemism for... something else.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Ariel: Yes, it would be possible to radically change the Bible:

All the "begats" to go in a pull-out family tree as an appendix at the back.
Leviticus to be pruned of spurious medical advice and made readable, or possibly produced as a small standalone easy-reference pamphlet.
The Song of Songs to be dropped.
The Apocrypha to be in, in their entirety.
Mark’s prose to be polished, and if he can’t supply an ending it may be necessary to put a disclaimer in.
Paul’s letters to be issued as a separate supplement.
John’s Gospel not to be included – it was written a century after the event and doesn’t read like a genuine account of what actually happened.
A review of the remaining Gospels to be made – is it really necessary to have all three? The solution may be to have one merged Gospel.
The non-canonical Gospels to be looked at again.
Revelations also to be dropped.

You did say "radical".

Singing frogs. I think it also needs singing frogs.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

No.

If people don't like the Bible and want to read something a bit less challenging they wouldn't have to bother bowdlerising the Bible, they could just get something by Rick Warren or some other heretic. Alternately if they want something that doesn't even pretend to be Christian they could just go down to their local bookshop and browse the shelves full of New Age rubbish in the 'Spirituality' section of the shop.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

*tangent* what is this "bookshop" of which you speak?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Rick Warren or some other heretic

I'm quite interested to know why Warren is a heretic. Is it something to do with his stance on DH topics?

ETA: because RW doesn't seem to be very consistent on some of those..

[ 09. September 2015, 16:13: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Start out by making a list of the books of the Bible you want to keep. Throw the remaining 3/4 of the book into the dustbin. Then, start taking a razor to the portions of the new canon you find offensive. What you have left is your new bible. Let me suggest publishing it as a collection of Facebook memes.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I've always liked this quote by Buechner:

quote:
“There are good reasons for not reading it. Its format is almost supernaturally forbidding: the binding rusty black like an undertaker’s cutaway, the double columns of a timetable, the print of a phone book, cluttered margins, and a text so overloaded with guides to pronunciation… and so befouled with inexplicable italics… that reading it is like listening to somebody with a bad stutter… The often fanatical nationalism… The self-righteousness and self-pity of many of the Psalms, plus their frequent vindictiveness. The way the sublime and the unspeakable are always jostling each other…

In short, one way to describe the Bible, written by many different people over a period of three thousand years and more, would be to say that it is a disorderly collection of sixty-odd books which are often tedious, barbaric, obscure, and teem with contradictions and inconsistencies… And yet—

And yet just becuz it is a book re both the sublime & the unspeakable, it is a book also re life the way it really is…& it is also a book about God. If it is not about the God we believe in, then it is about the God we do not believe in. One way or another, the story we find in the Bible is our own story…
If you look at a window, you see flyspecks, dust, the crack where Junior’s Frisbee hit it. If you look through a window, you see the world beyond.

Something like this is the difference between those who see the Bible as a Holy Bore and those who see it as the Word of God, which speaks out of the depths of an almost unimaginable past into the depths of ourselves.”

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
@Ariel

I love this but drop Song of Songs!

I kind of like navels.

I've heard that the original Hebrew word doesn't really mean navel....

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

What's wrong with navels in the Song of Songs? or vaginas/vulvas, if you take that view? Being compared to a cup full of good wine is if anything a compliment--and possibly a prelude to a Really.Good.Time.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Start out by making a list of the books of the Bible you want to keep. Throw the remaining 3/4 of the book into the dustbin. Then, start taking a razor to the portions of the new canon you find offensive.

Thomas Jefferson did that a long time ago!

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What's wrong with navels in the Song of Songs? or vaginas/vulvas, if you take that view? Being compared to a cup full of good wine is if anything a compliment--and possibly a prelude to a Really.Good.Time.

Not so sure about having a Really Good Time with someone with teeth like sheep and hair like goats, but YMMV.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

The breasts like towers sounds erm... interesting.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Jack o' the Green: The breasts like towers sounds erm... interesting.

Didn't Madonna do that once?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
The breasts like towers sounds erm... interesting.

That's Total Recall not the Bible.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Jack o' the Green: The breasts like towers sounds erm... interesting.
Didn't Madonna do that once?

Ha ha!! I was thinking that when I was typing that.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
The breasts like towers sounds erm... interesting.
That's Total Recall not the Bible.

Two or three towers?!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
No.

If people don't like the Bible and want to read something a bit less challenging they wouldn't have to bother bowdlerising the Bible, they could just get something by Rick Warren or some other heretic. Alternately if they want something that doesn't even pretend to be Christian they could just go down to their local bookshop and browse the shelves full of New Age rubbish in the 'Spirituality' section of the shop.

Yeah, hand-wave people's very real moral and ethical problems with some oh-so-superior jibing.

As every fucking time.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Jack o' the Green: Two or three towers?!

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
The breasts like towers sounds erm... interesting.
That's Total Recall not the Bible.
Two or three towers?!

Yeah, I read three for some reason.

Shows where my mind is, huh. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

OK, I know the title of this thread is rhetorical, but the problem with changing the Bible 'radically' is not that it couldn't be done by some bunch of academics somewhere (and it probably has been), but that imposing the results on all the world's ordinary Christians in their 1000s of denominations and expecting them to be acquiescent would be impossible.

In fact, I think this thread is really about control: how can we control what Christians believe, particularly at the more conservative end of things? I don't think we can. At least, not by openly trying to change the biblical canon. Some more cunning strategy would need to be employed.

Changing people's reading habits is hard anyway. My mother was once given an inclusive language Bible by the church as a gift. I don't think she ever spent much time on it. She knew which Bible she wanted to read, and it certainly wasn't that one.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I am very much in the Felafool camp here. The problem is not with the Bible as such, it is with the way that people [mis]interpret and [mis]use it. Whatever you did to the bible, some people would take it and abuse the context to prove their point. The problem does not lie in the source material as such, but in the people.

So maybe we should leave the bible, and change people?

The bible as we have it is the story of people struggling to find and engage with God. That should be a wonderful, powerful story to inspire us, help us, encourage us. The fact that people get is wrong sometimes (often) is encouraging. The fact that people express this struggle in a variety of forms is encouraging.

The fact that some people treat it as is being suggested, cutting away all of the bits we don't like, retaining the bits that we do because they condemn others whom we don't like, that is just a sad reflection on the paupacy of their imagination.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

Couldn't we stick to the first five books? It would be much shorter and easier to understand. I know there are a bunch of rules in there, but not that many.

After that it goes downhill, like one of the those movie franchises that goes on way too long. Any when they get a different person playing the 'God' character two-thirds of the way through - that just nuts.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I am very much in the Felafool camp here. The problem is not with the Bible as such, it is with the way that people [mis]interpret and [mis]use it. Whatever you did to the bible, some people would take it and abuse the context to prove their point. The problem does not lie in the source material as such, but in the people.

So maybe we should leave the bible, and change people?

The bible as we have it is the story of people struggling to find and engage with God. That should be a wonderful, powerful story to inspire us, help us, encourage us. The fact that people get is wrong sometimes (often) is encouraging. The fact that people express this struggle in a variety of forms is encouraging.

The fact that some people treat it as is being suggested, cutting away all of the bits we don't like, retaining the bits that we do because they condemn others whom we don't like, that is just a sad reflection on the paupacy of their imagination.

I have to disagree with you there Cat Who Is Alive and Dead. The problem is with the text. The text contains the smiting, the genocide and the in places batshit insane legal code. Not merely in how people use it. It's just there. That doesn't mean we should just chuck it out, for all sorts of reasons, but we can't pretend it's just people misreading it. It's there in the plain reading.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Couldn't we stick to the first five books? It would be much shorter and easier to understand. I know there are a bunch of rules in there, but not that many.

After that it goes downhill, like one of the those movie franchises that goes on way too long. Any when they get a different person playing the 'God' character two-thirds of the way through - that just nuts.

No we can't. They're some of the worst. Joshua and Samuel make a good play at it as well, but the first five do contain a mass killing and some bonkers laws.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Which 5 books are we talking about? I'd keep Matthew-Acts over the Pentateuch.

From the OT, I'd take the prophets. The rest I could leave altogether.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I was talking to a good friend yesterday about something very close to this topic. My problem is not so much with the content of scripture (it is what it is) but the way in which people are encouraged to read it.

There is a strange kind of "two truths" at work. At theologicial colleges more or less across the denominational divide, serious study of scripture involves some application of historical critical methodologies. Here's cliffdweller commenting on another current thread.

The real issue is how far those understandings of scholarship percolate down to the lay membership. The honest answer appears to be "not very much". And so many folks may be left with pretty simplistic understandings of scripture and how it may be applied (or lot) in our lives today. That's not wise.

I think there is a need to grow up about these "protective" attitudes. I reckon they do more harm than good.

[ 10. September 2015, 09:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

It sounds like we're saying that someone who has the good fortune to be exposed to higher criticism (or whatever we want to call it) at a theological college has the tools to properly engage with the faith, whereas all the other poor plebs in the pews who do not have access to this kind of education is going to be left to stew with bits and pieces of biblical text that don't mix well together.

Isn't this an argument for a very intellectual form of faith which can only be properly understood by very few educated people?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I was talking to a good friend yesterday about something very close to this topic. My problem is not so much with the content of scripture (it is what it is) but the way in which people are encouraged to read it.

There is a strange kind of "two truths" at work. At theologicial colleges more or less across the denominational divide, serious study of scripture involves some application of historical critical methodologies. Here's cliffdweller commenting on another current thread.

The real issue is how far those understandings of scholarship percolate down to the lay membership. The honest answer appears to be "not very much". And so many folks may be left with pretty simplistic understandings of scripture and how it may be applied (or lot) in our lives today. That's not wise.

I think there is a need to grow up about these "protective" attitudes. I reckon they do more harm than good.

The less the laity is exposed to the hisrorical critical method the better because, to be honest, it's mostly bollocks. If ever there was a way to read the scriptures detached from the faith it's via the historical critical method. Avoid it like the plague, I say.

My two pence worth.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have to disagree with you there Cat Who Is Alive and Dead. The problem is with the text. The text contains the smiting, the genocide and the in places batshit insane legal code. Not merely in how people use it. It's just there. That doesn't mean we should just chuck it out, for all sorts of reasons, but we can't pretend it's just people misreading it. It's there in the plain reading.

But the problem is that this is treated as How God Actually Is, and How We Should Be, rather than, as I tend to see it, part of the exploration of a people into who God was. Some of this is places where they got it wrong.

Some of the legal codes are interesting - my question is not "This is stupid, we should lose it", but "Why is this here, for these people, at this time, and what relevance (if any) does it have for me today?"

I think the problem is that "it is there in the plain reading", but that takes it out of the context. It assumes that everything is right and appropriate, that the plain reading is the only valid one and definitive for us. Sometimes, it is an example of a really bad mistake that we should try not to make again.

The danger of WBC is a very easy one to make. They read the bible through their core principle that "God hates everyone, especially gays", and everything they read there is coloured by their core belief. So for them, the entire bible reads like a condemnation of Others.

The problem is, we all do the same. One way of countering this is by taking the difficult passages, and struggling with them to see how they apply, what the right context is to read them in. One crucial part of this context is the rest of the bible - in that context, we can see how some aspects of God seem to be aberrant, and we can come to understand that, however deeply embedded these ideas are, they are not normative.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

The Sermon on the Mount doesn't just benefit from a bit of contest. It is nothing short of scandalous without the context of the Eucharistic discourse from John's Gospel, and the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

I should add count me in on the side of not changing anything. The word judges me - I don't judge the word.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
we can't pretend it's just people misreading it. It's there in the plain reading.

The problem in your argument there is that "plain reading" is as much a form of reading the text as allegorising or reading it as poetry. If the problem is misreading (which I would agree with) it should at least be acknowledged that it could be plain mis-reading that is the problem.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
we can't pretend it's just people misreading it. It's there in the plain reading.
The problem in your argument there is that "plain reading" is as much a form of reading the text as allegorising or reading it as poetry. If the problem is misreading (which I would agree with) it should at least be acknowledged that it could be plain mis-reading that is the problem.

I find it hard to fault people for going with the plain reading first. It's how we read most stuff. Yes, there is stuff such as fiction and poetry, but the problem is that a lot of the troublesome material appears in bits that don't claim to be fiction or poetry.

What's the non-plain reading approach to, for example, 2 Samuel 21? Or Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have to disagree with you there Cat Who Is Alive and Dead. The problem is with the text. The text contains the smiting, the genocide and the in places batshit insane legal code. Not merely in how people use it. It's just there. That doesn't mean we should just chuck it out, for all sorts of reasons, but we can't pretend it's just people misreading it. It's there in the plain reading.
But the problem is that this is treated as How God Actually Is, and How We Should Be, rather than, as I tend to see it, part of the exploration of a people into who God was. Some of this is places where they got it wrong.

Some of the legal codes are interesting - my question is not "This is stupid, we should lose it", but "Why is this here, for these people, at this time, and what relevance (if any) does it have for me today?"

Believe me I've tried. Some of it, like Deuteronomy 21:18-21, I just cannot think of a single redeeming feature of, relevance, or why it should ever have been anywhere for any people any time.

quote:
I think the problem is that "it is there in the plain reading", but that takes it out of the context. It assumes that everything is right and appropriate, that the plain reading is the only valid one and definitive for us.

But I'm not talking about mistakes made by humans in the Bible. I'm talking about places where the Bible says quite unambiguously that God did, or ordered other people to do, something quite monstrous.

quote:
The danger of WBC is a very easy one to make. They read the bible through their core principle that "God hates everyone, especially gays", and everything they read there is coloured by their core belief. So for them, the entire bible reads like a condemnation of Others.

The problem is, we all do the same. One way of countering this is by taking the difficult passages, and struggling with them to see how they apply, what the right context is to read them in. One crucial part of this context is the rest of the bible - in that context, we can see how some aspects of God seem to be aberrant, and we can come to understand that, however deeply embedded these ideas are, they are not normative.

They're still there. They're still a problem. Perhaps I'm too stupid to do all this, and if only I was cleverer and more nuanced and whatnot I'd have less problem. But I'm not. What use are these passages to me, who cannot see past their obvious objectionableness, despite trying for decades?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I was talking to a good friend yesterday about something very close to this topic. My problem is not so much with the content of scripture (it is what it is) but the way in which people are encouraged to read it.

There is a strange kind of "two truths" at work. At theologicial colleges more or less across the denominational divide, serious study of scripture involves some application of historical critical methodologies. Here's cliffdweller commenting on another current thread.

The real issue is how far those understandings of scholarship percolate down to the lay membership. The honest answer appears to be "not very much". And so many folks may be left with pretty simplistic understandings of scripture and how it may be applied (or lot) in our lives today. That's not wise.

I think there is a need to grow up about these "protective" attitudes. I reckon they do more harm than good.
The less the laity is exposed to the hisrorical critical method the better because, to be honest, it's mostly bollocks. If ever there was a way to read the scriptures detached from the faith it's via the historical critical method. Avoid it like the plague, I say.

My two pence worth.

How did you come to those conclusions?

Here is a summary of the various means of analysis generally seen as part of historical-critical approaches. If it's "mostly bollocks" what aspects aren't bollocks in your opinion? Airy assertive blanket dismissals don't exactly add to serious discussions.

Of course it is entirely true that historical-critical approaches may challenge tradition or received wisdom. But I'm not sure how that is different to the sorts of challenges to received wisdom produced by scientific enquiry. The findings of historical-criticism are checkable. Anyone can re-do the working if they want.

By all means submit to Tradition if you want to. But looking and asking questions is not bollocks.

[ 10. September 2015, 12:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Would it be enough to take it less seriously? I know some people read every word of novels and textbooks; some of these people do well on exams and some fail. Is it not more reasonable to skip over some of it?

We could also have a bit of pre-reading editorializing in church before some silly bits. "This reading from Paul/Leviticus/Joshua/etc contains some silly bits but we're supposed to read it so here we go."

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

I think that all the books should be kept - including the offensive passages. I just think that 'going against the text' should be explained and seen as not just acceptable but necessary.

As an aside, don't drop Leviticus a really important book - and no, I am not joking.

[ 10. September 2015, 12:58: Message edited by: Luigi ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I find it hard to fault people for going with the plain reading first. It's how we read most stuff. Yes, there is stuff such as fiction and poetry, but the problem is that a lot of the troublesome material appears in bits that don't claim to be fiction or poetry.

Plain reading is, for most of us at least, our default approach to a text where we don't already know the genre. I'll accept that. The question is, of course, what would be the approach of people reading (or, more likely hearing a reading of) a text in 1st century Judea or Greece, or an early iron age Hebrew? Would plain reading have even entered their thoughts? There's no way to know for sure, of course, but we can make some educated guesses based on the documents that have survived.

It isn't my area of expertise, of course. But, the consensus of what I've read over the years is that their approach to written and spoken narratives would be very different to ours. We're used to going into a bookshop and having clear divisions between the books - fiction and non-fiction, then different genres of fiction, and biographies, history etc under the non-fiction, and so on. Of course, it doesn't take much for us to realise how absurd such categorisation is - we know of fiction that is "based on true events", and some non-fiction works are so bonkers they make Tolkeins description of journeys across Middle Earth seem like the highest academic scholarship by comparison. We don't even need to go to the extremes. Sitting on my coffee table at the moment is a book entitled "Building the Great Stone Circles of the North", the result of years of archaeological investigations by some of the experts in neolithic Britain. And, guess what, a lot of it comes down to little more than informed speculation - even the chapter with my name attached to it.

I think it's safe to say that this desire to put books in neat categories is something that our ancestors didn't share. They would cross back and forth between genres, without even realising such a thing as "genre" exists. To call their writings "pious fiction" (as has been used on at least one thread this week) is still to maintain our error of categorisation - they would probably accept "pious", but would be confused by "fiction".

quote:

What's the non-plain reading approach to, for example, 2 Samuel 21? Or Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Of course, nothing is simple. Both do have some quite straight forward plain readings. Each of the passages could probably justify a thread in it's own right, so very briefly ...

2Sam21 describes the rather brutal realities of ancient politics - the rather gruesome demands of the Gibeonites to settle an old score involving the brutal execution of innocent descendants of Saul, something akin to vendetta. Within the passage there is also a strand of respect for the house of Saul, with Rizpah guarding the bodies, with David honouring his oath to Jonathan, with David bringing all the bodies in to bury with honour - despite all the wrongs of Sauls life (which included those that culminated in this act of "recompense").

Dt21:18-21 seems to be an application of the commandment to "honour your father and mother" within a culture where that would have been very important (even without the specific command). It's interesting to contrast it with some Gospel accounts, the Prodigal Son in particular. The younger son does everything described here, he demands his inheritance (effectively telling his father "I wish you were dead"), he spends that money on wild living - almost certainly earning the description of "a profligate and a drunkard". The reaction of the father is diametrically opposite the law given here, although it reads as though the older brother would have wanted his father to obey the law more closely.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I see those. I just don't see how they help.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I was talking to a good friend yesterday about something very close to this topic. My problem is not so much with the content of scripture (it is what it is) but the way in which people are encouraged to read it.

There is a strange kind of "two truths" at work. At theologicial colleges more or less across the denominational divide, serious study of scripture involves some application of historical critical methodologies. Here's cliffdweller commenting on another current thread.

The real issue is how far those understandings of scholarship percolate down to the lay membership. The honest answer appears to be "not very much". And so many folks may be left with pretty simplistic understandings of scripture and how it may be applied (or lot) in our lives today. That's not wise.

I think there is a need to grow up about these "protective" attitudes. I reckon they do more harm than good.
The less the laity is exposed to the hisrorical critical method the better because, to be honest, it's mostly bollocks. If ever there was a way to read the scriptures detached from the faith it's via the historical critical method. Avoid it like the plague, I say.

My two pence worth.
How did you come to those conclusions?

Here is a summary of the various means of analysis generally seen as part of historical-critical approaches. If it's "mostly bollocks" what aspects aren't bollocks in your opinion? Airy assertive blanket dismissals don't exactly add to serious discussions.

Of course it is entirely true that historical-critical approaches may challenge tradition or received wisdom. But I'm not sure how that is different to the sorts of challenges to received wisdom produced by scientific enquiry. The findings of historical-criticism are checkable. Anyone can re-do the working if they want.

By all means submit to Tradition if you want to. But looking and asking questions is not bollocks.

I'm not sure what AO was referring to, but I would suggest that analytical hermeneutics like historical-critical method need to be balanced with more contemplative ways of engaging Scripture such as lectio. Ironically, while the rap against evangelicals is usually (with some justification) about anti-intellectualism and lack of analytical precision, I find most evangelicals far more open to the historical-grammatical method than to lectio, although that is changing. Analytical approaches to the text feel "scholarly" and "deep" to evangelicals while contemplative approaches like lectio seem "too Catholic" (yes, horrible, I agree-- but there you have it) and "subjective". Recently in teaching a class on more contemplative approaches to spirituality in our evangelical church, I found some were actually afraid-- not just wary but literally scared-- of using contemplative, subjective approaches to reading Scripture in an almost superstitious sort of way. It was actually rather sad to see-- as if they were afraid of their own subjective emotions/ thoughts/ responses and couldn't imagine any way the Spirit could move in them.

Personally, I find the two almost opposite methodologies useful for different things. When you're trying to develop doctrine-- applying a text in a universal way-- it's important to use objective, analytical methods like historical-grammatical (possibly with other tools such as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral) so you're not imposing your own agenda/ spiritual journey on others. But I think there's also a role for a more subjective, devotional approach to reading the Bible either individually or in groups-- not for teaching doctrine but for "entering into" the text and allowing it to shape your heart as well as your head.

My 2 cents.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Couldn't we stick to the first five books? It would be much shorter and easier to understand. I know there are a bunch of rules in there, but not that many.

After that it goes downhill, like one of the those movie franchises that goes on way too long. Any when they get a different person playing the 'God' character two-thirds of the way through - that just nuts.

I don't see how that helps at all. Some of the most problematic bits that we've discussed here are in those first five books, and then #5 sets you up for #6 (Joshua) which contains some of the very most troubling bits (and, as in the quote I cited upthread, often jostling right up next to some of the most beautiful passages on courage and God's presence-- one's surgical knife must be very sharp if you're trying to dissect the good bits from the nasty here). And you're leaving out some far more beautiful parts-- the Psalms (although you'll need a bit of that surgical knife here), finding God in exile-- as well as some reversals of the nasty bits towards the end (e,g, Jonah).

[ 10. September 2015, 13:46: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

I think Chapelhead was being sarcastic... but what do I know, on a plain reading your interpretation of his/her words makes sense.

[ 10. September 2015, 13:55: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I think Chapelhead was being sarcastic... but what do I know, on a plain reading your interpretation of his/her words makes sense.

Well, I am an evangelical... it's what we do. [Smile]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Of course it's possible to radically change the Bible! The main evidence we have for this is that the Bible we have today is the result of a fairly massive and radical addition of a whole lot of text to an existing scriptural body. If it's not possible to radically change the Bible, then the Second Testament goes away completely.

Shorter version: it's possible to radically change the Bible because the Bible has already been radically changed.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And a very brief search will kick up for you many different versions of the Bible. The Prisoners Bible, the Classic Comics edition and so on.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
the Bible says quite unambiguously that God did, or ordered other people to do, something quite monstrous

Karl - that is, part of my point. We have to understand that the Bible written by people trying to understand who God is. And they got it wrong most of the time. Occasions like Joshua are where (in my view) they got it wrong, but they wrote it us as they understood it.

Which is different from saying "The Bible is flawed". It is saying that "The people who wrote the Bible were flawed", because they were humans, trying to understand and grasp a reality way beyond our ability. As are we.

That is (for me) what context means. I can look at the more unpleasant parts of the bible and see that people misunderstood, but that God honoured their attempts to understand, their passion and desire, their honest and open seeking after Him. It means that, if I have it completely wrong about leaving church (which for me was a HUGE decision), then I am not completely lost. It means that our searching for God - and so often searching in the wrong places - is the important thing. The Journey of seeking after truth is what is crucial, not the destination or the route you take.

I would love to change the bible into a simple set of instructions to live a happy, fulfilled life and then go to heaven. Then it would be what so many people seem to think it already is. But it isn't, and life sucks.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

Earlier in this thread I suggested some additions to the canon, in a post which seems to have gone by more or less unnoticed amid a flurry of other comments about what should be removed.

Except perhaps for Revelation (which I think is too easily misunderstood and misapplied), I am willing to trust the witness of our ancestors in faith as to the selection of ancient writings that they found most inspired and inspiring.

However, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit simply fell silent with the closing of the historic scriptural canon. If it were possible to convene a new ecumenical council of the Church Universal for considering which subsequent works have been written under similar inspiration, what might be some candidates for inclusion in an expanded canon?

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I don't think the Bible should be radically altered at all actually! There should just be a compulsory foreword, stating something like:

This book shows the versatility and creative story-telling abilities of peoples, mainly from the Middle East, who lived two to four thousand years ago. The principal character, called God, (the word God is used over 3,00 times) , is fictional but is portrayed as having great power. Apparently, he requiredworship and obedience.

The King James' version of the texts is recognised as having great literary merit and many of the common phrases in our language originate in the book. The stories contain much guidance for human behaviour, but there is also much that portrays violence ordered by God.

In the 5th century, the editing of previous versions was controlled by those in power in the Christian Church and was done with the intention of maintaining their power and control over their adherents.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course it's possible to radically change the Bible! The main evidence we have for this is that the Bible we have today is the result of a fairly massive and radical addition of a whole lot of text to an existing scriptural body. If it's not possible to radically change the Bible, then the Second Testament goes away completely.

Shorter version: it's possible to radically change the Bible because the Bible has already been radically changed.

Yes, and once you've radically changed the "Bible" in a such a way, please admit that you've in fact founded another religion and leave the institutions of your old one behind.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I don't think the Bible should be radically altered at all actually! There should just be a compulsory foreword...

In the 5th century, the editing of previous versions was controlled by those in power in the Christian Church and was done with the intention of maintaining their power and control over their adherents.

I see, so there is no problem when an atheist enforces a forward in a book of a belief he/she doesn't believe in, but there is when leaders of that religion do it.

[Paranoid]

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

Imagine an experiment: (Hard to do in real life).
1) Find a person who has never read the bible, or heard of Christianity.
2) Give him the bible to read.
What are the odds that he would say that this book was clearly inspired by an omniscient omnipotent being as an efficient,clear and unproblematic guide to help us live in this world?
I find it far more likely that he would say that this is just a bunch of stories some better than others clearly written by humans.
The fact that millions of people who grew up being told about this book can't even agree on what it really means after trying very hard for centuries is a dead give-away that its not "clear and unproblematic"
And about "inspired". Why would a well intentioned omniscient being inspire such confusion?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The person likely wouldn't but that only poses a problem for fundamentalists.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

So only fundamentalists believe that the bible is inspired by God in some way as a guide for us to live?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The person likely wouldn't but that only poses a problem for fundamentalists.

Clearly this is not accurate as there are at least 3 threads currently running on SOF related to this and many of the Christian participants expressing issues are not fundamentalists.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

SusanDoris wrote:

quote:
In the 5th century, the editing of previous versions was controlled by those in power in the Christian Church and was done with the intention of maintaining their power and control over their adherents.

Could you please explain what you are referring to here, and your source of reference?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Good point re my exchanges with Ad O, cliffdweller. Completely agree with you. But I think Ad O was rubbishing the analytical approach per se, regarding it as at best valueless, at worst dangerous. That's not what I find. It's necessary, often very cleansing, but it's not the only way to go.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think Ad O was rubbishing the analytical approach per se, regarding it as at best valueless, at worst dangerous.

To put the record straight, yes, that is was I was more-or-less saying. What you end up with is something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Biblical_Commentary

Back in my early days for some inexplicable reason I even bought the damn thing. I don't know how I could have been so stupid. It's a biblical commentary that any atheist would be happy with.

[ 10. September 2015, 20:54: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:

The fact that millions of people who grew up being told about this book [the Bible] can't even agree on what it really means after trying very hard for centuries is a dead give-away that its not "clear and unproblematic"
And about "inspired". Why would a well intentioned omniscient being inspire such confusion?

This is interesting, because in literary criticism, the worth of a text is considered greater if the text is 'hard to read', multi-layered, open to diverse interpretations, etc.

If the Bible were as 'straightforward' as the telephone directory I suspect that fewer people would be interested in reading it than is the case now. Or they'd read it and forget it.

[ 10. September 2015, 21:37: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

I wonder how many people would be interested in Zen koans if they were made "clear and unproblematic."

Why would anyone with good intentions inspire such confusing questions?

[ 10. September 2015, 21:47: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Imagine an experiment: (Hard to do in real life).
1) Find a person who has never read the bible, or heard of Christianity.
2) Give him the bible to read.
What are the odds that he would say that this book was clearly inspired by an omniscient omnipotent being as an efficient,clear and unproblematic guide to help us live in this world?
I find it far more likely that he would say that this is just a bunch of stories some better than others clearly written by humans.
The fact that millions of people who grew up being told about this book can't even agree on what it really means after trying very hard for centuries is a dead give-away that its not "clear and

You do realize, that this "experiment" has been conducted thousands of times, with varied results? That many times, in fact, both in ancient times as well as contemporary, in precisely that situation, the uninitiated reader DOES find something there that speaks to them as "inspired" and leads them to faith? That, in fact, that is precisely how we got the canon (particularly the NT canon) in the first place?

Of course, very often the experiment goes the other way as well, as you have predicted. But it is by no means a sure bet, as countless experiences over the centuries have proven.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Imagine an experiment: (Hard to do in real life).
1) Find a person who has never read the bible, or heard of Christianity.
2) Give him the bible to read.
What are the odds that he would say that this book was clearly inspired by an omniscient omnipotent being as an efficient,clear and unproblematic guide to help us live in this world?
I find it far more likely that he would say that this is just a bunch of stories some better than others clearly written by humans.
The fact that millions of people who grew up being told about this book can't even agree on what it really means after trying very hard for centuries is a dead give-away that its not "clear and
You do realize, that this "experiment" has been conducted thousands of times, with varied results? That many times, in fact, both in ancient times as well as contemporary, in precisely that situation, the uninitiated reader DOES find something there that speaks to them as "inspired" and leads them to faith? That, in fact, that is precisely how we got the canon (particularly the NT canon) in the first place?

Of course, very often the experiment goes the other way as well, as you have predicted. But it is by no means a sure bet, as countless experiences over the centuries have proven.

I'm one of them, as I've told the story several times already.

No, I wouldn't say it was "an efficient,clear and unproblematic guide to help us live in this world". That's not and never has been the purpose of the Bible.

I would say that God revealed himself to me through the Bible and gave me life. Life which exists here and now in the midst of a messy, screwed up world, and which will continue when he sorts everything in the end. In the meantime, I muddle through. Some divine help, yes, but very rarely of the deus ex machina type. Usually he uses other people etc.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Bibliolatry is like any other idolatry. It is not the Bible that brings us to God. It is the Holy Spirit. The book is just paper pulp with ink on it, as mortal as they come.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

And yet Jesus himself is recorded as using much of the Old Testament as an authority and as saying that his own words will never pass away. That doesn't sound to me like "as mortal as they come."

Is our constitution just paper pulp with ink on it? Is it idolizing the constitution to give it special status in the government of our country?

I can understand why you might decide not to give much credence to the Bible, but why decide that someone else is idolizing it if they believe it has special status?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
And yet Jesus himself is recorded as using much of the Old Testament as an authority and as saying that his own words will never pass away.

There was no old testament at the time. That is a later Christian invention. He is reported to have referred to parts of some writing included in it only. And it may or may not be actually factual. To promote Christianity among Romans proving ancientness was a need.

Further, Jesus was a man of him time. Not everything he did is an example nor requirement for us.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

There was scripture that was accepted as a common authority on religious matters and Jesus is recorded as using it as such, specifically referring to the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (by those names, not just a few verses from them).

I have no problem with anyone who decides that what's recorded in the New Testament might not be factual. Nor do I have any problem with anyone who decides Jesus is not their exclusive example. But I do object to someone assuming I idolize the Bible if I decide differently.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

It's interesting that almost everyone here has either proposed leaving it untouched or removing some of it. I didn't see anyone proposing adding any of the non-canonical gospels

The easiest way to do this is to do a translation. You can slide in many things and drop others without people noticing. [Smile]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Cough, cough. Not in my church. [Devil]

Too many Greek and Hebrew reading geeks around.

We do it on purpose. [Big Grin]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I don't think the Bible should be radically altered at all actually! There should just be a compulsory foreword...

In the 5th century, the editing of previous versions was controlled by those in power in the Christian Church and was done with the intention of maintaining their power and control over their adherents.

By the way, I meant to add 'with hindsight' here.

quote:
I see, so there is no problem when an atheist enforces a forward in a book of a belief he/she doesn't believe in, but there is when leaders of that religion do it.

Apart from the fact that's not what I meant, can you give an example of a religious foreword to an atheist book - whatever that is!!

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Imagine an experiment: (Hard to do in real life).
1) Find a person who has never read the bible, or heard of Christianity.
2) Give him the bible to read.
What are the odds that he would say that this book was clearly inspired by an omniscient omnipotent being as an efficient,clear and unproblematic guide to help us live in this world?
I find it far more likely that he would say that this is just a bunch of stories some better than others clearly written by humans.
The fact that millions of people who grew up being told about this book can't even agree on what it really means after trying very hard for centuries is a dead give-away that its not "clear and unproblematic"
And about "inspired". Why would a well intentioned omniscient being inspire such confusion?

Hear, hear!!

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
SusanDoris wrote:
quote:
In the 5th century, the editing of previous versions was controlled by those in power in the Christian Church and was done with the intention of maintaining their power and control over their adherents.

Could you please explain what you are referring to here, and your source of reference?

Cheking with wikipedia, I see that the first Council of Nicea dates from the early 4th century, not the 5th. As I understand it, the general format of the Bible dates from that era.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Imagine an experiment: (Hard to do in real life).
1) Find a person who has never read the bible, or heard of Christianity.
2) Give him the bible to read.
What are the odds that he would say that this book was clearly inspired by an omniscient omnipotent being as an efficient,clear and unproblematic guide to help us live in this world?
I find it far more likely that he would say that this is just a bunch of stories some better than others clearly written by humans.
The fact that millions of people who grew up being told about this book can't even agree on what it really means after trying very hard for centuries is a dead give-away that its not "clear and unproblematic"
And about "inspired". Why would a well intentioned omniscient being inspire such confusion?
Hear, hear!!

Not so fast. Neat and tidiness is not necessarily a sign of inspiration. Neat and tidiness is the work of human hands.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...the uninitiated reader ...

Anyone who has reached maturity, and who has not lived in a remote, isolated tribe or somethihng, will know something of beliefs, so, and if that person could read, would have many ideas and a great deal of information about his/her life, community etc. An 'uninitiated reader' would be impossible to find. Also, the giver of the book would not give it without comment!

[/QUOTE]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
OK, I know the title of this thread is rhetorical, but the problem with changing the Bible 'radically' is not that it couldn't be done by some bunch of academics somewhere (and it probably has been), but that imposing the results on all the world's ordinary Christians in their 1000s of denominations and expecting them to be acquiescent would be impossible.

In fact, I think this thread is really about control: how can we control what Christians believe, particularly at the more conservative end of things? I don't think we can. At least, not by openly trying to change the biblical canon. Some more cunning strategy would need to be employed.

Changing people's reading habits is hard anyway. My mother was once given an inclusive language Bible by the church as a gift. I don't think she ever spent much time on it. She knew which Bible she wanted to read, and it certainly wasn't that one.

My idea wouldn't be to impose a re edited bible onto people but to offer it to them as an alternative.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Cough, cough. Not in my church.

Too many Greek and Hebrew reading geeks around.

My Dad read Greek and Hebrew to a high standard. It didn't stop him putting his own slant on what he read - and it didn't stop him radically changing his mind later in life.

We can't help it. We bring ourselves to what we read.

Like Susan Doris said, an unaffected reading of the Bible would not be possible. In the days when I was looking for inspiration in there I found it all the time. Even one word would light up for me as if illuminated from outside. It was quite an experience.

Now I can read it for two minutes at a time and become bored. I think now that - in the past - my own expectations, beliefs and psychology brought me far more inspiration than the actual words ever could. It wasn't God, it was me.

I would rather like to see more recent inspirational, insightful works added to it as fausto suggested.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I am reminded of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. I think very few people are brought to faith through the bible alone. Like the Ethiopian, they may be drawn to ask questions (in this case, it was "what is the context"?), or they are drawn to a community where they meet others.

I think it is dangerous to only read the bible. I think we need other people and other writing to help understand it. It is sad that often, this external input kills any life and enthusiasm for the faith, but it shouldn't - using the bible as a central book of faith and using whatever else is around should inspire and excite us to think bigger, better, dangerously.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Possibly worth pointing out that for some "faith comes by hearing," specifically hearing the Word of God*, ie the bible.

*Although interestingly the people who say things like this seems to really believe that faith comes from hearing sermons which seems to be a bit of an oxymoron.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Boogie wrote:

Like Susan Doris said, an unaffected reading of the Bible would not be possible. In the days when I was looking for inspiration in there I found it all the time. Even one word would light up for me as if illuminated from outside. It was quite an experience.

Now I can read it for two minutes at a time and become bored. I think now that - in the past - my own expectations, beliefs and psychology brought me far more inspiration than the actual words ever could. It wasn't God, it was me.

The same thing happened to me. I am still pondering it, and to an extent, mourning it. When I was young, religious symbols would pierce me to the heart, but now they don't.

As you say, it was me, not God, although I am still wondering about the difference.

I was going to launch into a complicated Jungian analysis of it, but FFS, enough. Well, actually, life is enough.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
SusanDoris wrote:
quote:
In the 5th century, the editing of previous versions was controlled by those in power in the Christian Church and was done with the intention of maintaining their power and control over their adherents.

Could you please explain what you are referring to here, and your source of reference?
Cheking with wikipedia, I see that the first Council of Nicea dates from the early 4th century, not the 5th. As I understand it, the general format of the Bible dates from that era.

Yes, Nicea codified the canon. And some argue they did so for reasons of expediency to serve their own personal agenda. That's an argument for another thread.

But the fact remains that Nicea merely codified a consensus that had been arrived at more than a century earlier thru the precise "experiment" Ikkyu earlier advocated-- thru thousands of readers, in diverse places and cultures, reading the various accounts of Jesus' life and ministry, and coming to a fairly clear consensus early on that there was something special-- "inspired"-- about these particular books. Yes, Rev was a latecomer to the party and a bit more controversial than the rest, but even that was part of a generally accepted canon far before Nicea. A canon formed not from some hierarchical authority saying "this is it" or from engrained expectations, but rather thru exactly what was suggested-- uninitiated readers encountering the living God in the pages of these particular books.

[ 11. September 2015, 13:35: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...the uninitiated reader ...
Anyone who has reached maturity, and who has not lived in a remote, isolated tribe or somethihng, will know something of beliefs, so, and if that person could read, would have many ideas and a great deal of information about his/her life, community etc. An 'uninitiated reader' would be impossible to find. Also, the giver of the book would not give it without comment!

[/QUOTE]

I agree that in the West today it would be virtually impossible to find a true "initiated reader". But I wasn't talking about the West today. I was talking about the entire scope of global Christian history. Again, there have been thousands (if not more) of examples of people, in diverse cultures, from Augustine to Lamb Chopped and more, who read these books and found them "inspired". Going back to the early centuries of the church, when there was nothing setting these particular books apart from the other Jesus-stories & gospels floating around, and yet, again, a consensus arose fairly quickly around these particular books-- in different churches in very different cultures and places.

I realize that proves nothing-- other people have read the Bible and walked away bored, as noted above. And some have read other books and found them "inspired". My point was simply that the chortling over this so-called "experiment" as if it was some brilliant new idea that proved something was misplaced, given the vast number of times it has been conducted over two millenia and it's varied history of results.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

(sorry-- that should read "in the West it would be impossible to find an UNinitiated reader". MIssed edit window.)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Spiritual experiences-- both those that lead to belief and those that lead to unbelief-- are powerful. So it is tempting for all of us to think that if only everyone else would experience what I experience, they'd have the same outcome. But the facts demonstrate the foolishness of this hubris.

It's true for reading Scripture-- where the experiences of Ikku and Susan Doris are balanced by those of Augustine and Lamb Chopped. And it's true of a variety of other experiences of all faiths. The Bible left my own daughter cold, the Book of Mormon, to my surprise and dismay, did not. Protestants, especially those of Calvinist leanings, find opulent high church cathedrals cold and ostentatious, yet I've known more than one skeptical tourist who entered seeking to admire human artistry and left a believer. It's easy to mock the emotional excesses of exuberant American Pentecostalism, yet my local Pentecostal mega-church (described by one mystery worshipper as "the happy-clappiest of all the happy-clappy churches") literally has skeptics driven to their knees each week, in tears, with their transformed hearts.

Human spirituality is a strange and wondrous thing. We would all-- believer and nonbeliever alike-- be foolish indeed to suggest we could predict the outcome of the sort of faith experiments Ikku is suggesting.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Perhaps the Bible will someday be lengthened rather than shortened. After all, is there any reason to think God has stopped inspiring human writers? The world keeps changing and there are more situations to handle and thus more need for guidance.

Can you think of anything written recently to add to the Bible?

(I am not necessarily advocating that the Bible should be longer, as that might make it an even more daunting document.)

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

I'd be up for some Adrian Plass being added.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I wonder how many people would be interested in Zen koans if they were made "clear and unproblematic."

Why would anyone with good intentions inspire such confusing questions?

I see your point, although the context of Koan practice is very different. The answer to a Koan is not an explanation. There is no "right answer" to a Koan.
But the questions have a goal, for the student to enter what could be described as a "non dualist" frame of mind.
It seems to me that the point of the Bible as claimed by most traditional points of view is very different. There are supposed to be "real answers" in there. Not just questions. The genocide was not put in there as a puzzle to test our ethics. One problem is how to make sense of what the "genocidal god" in some parts has to do with the god of the sermon of the mount. That puzzle is not there by "design". Those books were written at widely different times for what seems to be very different reasons.
Revelations is supposed to predict real events not to be a record of an acid trip. What is to be learned by spending a lot of time trying to understand something like revelations?

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:

The fact that millions of people who grew up being told about this book [the Bible] can't even agree on what it really means after trying very hard for centuries is a dead give-away that its not "clear and unproblematic"
And about "inspired". Why would a well intentioned omniscient being inspire such confusion?
This is interesting, because in literary criticism, the worth of a text is considered greater if the text is 'hard to read', multi-layered, open to diverse interpretations, etc.

If the Bible were as 'straightforward' as the telephone directory I suspect that fewer people would be interested in reading it than is the case now. Or they'd read it and forget it.

In literature or art complexity and multiple layers of meaning are indeed praised.
But the problems that have been pointed out in the thread are not of that kind.
The problem is not that the ethics outlined is simplistic. Its that it is at least on first reading contradictory if you compare some parts with others. Or abhorrent like approving of genocide and slavery. And that people have not made up their mind on how to reconcile those issues.
What I would expect of an "inspired" book is not lack of complexity I would hope for a lack of contradictions, and obvious counterfactuals coupled with a coherent ethics superior to what wise humans could have come up with.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:

It seems to me that the point of the Bible as claimed by most traditional points of view is very different. There are supposed to be "real answers" in there. Not just questions...

Revelations is supposed to predict real events not to be a record of an acid trip. What is to be learned by spending a lot of time trying to understand something like revelations?

Really? How do you know this to be the case?

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:

What I would expect of an "inspired" book is not lack of complexity I would hope for a lack of contradictions, and obvious counterfactuals coupled with a coherent ethics superior to what wise humans could have come up with.

The reflects the most conservative understanding of "inspiration" (verbal plenary). But many of us hold other understandings of inspiration which are not as incompatible with paradox, contradictions, etc., as would be the case in verbal plenary.

We see this a lot from those outside the faith: that they view the Bible in exactly the same ways that the most conservative fundamentalists do-- only, because of the problems inherent to a wooden, literalistic, verbal plenary interpretation, they reject it. But it's based on a falsely binary view of Scripture-- there are other ways to view inspiration.

[ 11. September 2015, 20:55: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
My idea wouldn't be to impose a re edited bible onto people but to offer it to them as an alternative.

Firstly, I think we're past the point where the people in the pews wait for theologians and clergymen to give them choices as to what or what not to believe. This doesn't appear to be quite how institutional religion works these days. If individual Christians want to ignore certain parts of the Bible and adhere only to others they don't need the go-ahead from their pastors. However, if they attend a strict churches then being given such a choice would make no sense anyway.

Secondly, let's say that such a choice were made available, by some denominational leader(s) who had anywhere near enough authority to make such a choice even vaguely conceivable (the Pope?? The ruling body of some small sect?). What sort of theological support and counselling would then be given to the laity and even the clergy at the grass roots to help them deal with the spiritual and psychological ramifications of ripping apart the text that they've always believed was sacred in some way?

I suggest that few churches would have the resources or the skills to deal constructively with the consequences of even offering such a choice. Many Christians would simply read such a development as a sign that the whole religion were incoherent and untenable, and would drop out entirely. Others would surmise that the tide of liberalism in their denomination had reached such a point that they would either switch to one which still respected the biblical canon, or else would join up with others and set up their own church. And even among those Christians who thought the process a good idea, how would they even agree as to which passages or books to omit from their Bible?

I think the whole thing would create more chaos among Christians than anything else. And it wouldn't assist evangelism; indeed, I can see many of the world's atheists and Muslims rubbing their hands with glee at the confusion unleashed within the Church! Either that, or the process would be limited to some marginal (or increasingly marginalised) but well-meaning sects or denominations, and no one else would pay much attention.

However, I suppose it would create some clear blue water between the 'de-canonising' institutions and the others, which some people might find helpful. It's already been said that it might be a step towards the break up of Christianity, which, again, might be a good or bad thing depending on your point of view.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

nailed it Svetlana.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:

It seems to me that the point of the Bible as claimed by most traditional points of view is very different. There are supposed to be "real answers" in there. Not just questions...

Revelations is supposed to predict real events not to be a record of an acid trip. What is to be learned by spending a lot of time trying to understand something like revelations?
Really? How do you know this to be the case?

By being raised Catholic and actually having Faith until High school perhaps?
So there is supposed to be no answers in there just questions?
And revelations is not about any future events?
What is it about then? What use is it?

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:

What I would expect of an "inspired" book is not lack of complexity I would hope for a lack of contradictions, and obvious counterfactuals coupled with a coherent ethics superior to what wise humans could have come up with.
We see this a lot from those outside the faith: that they view the Bible in exactly the same ways that the most conservative fundamentalists do-- only, because of the problems inherent to a wooden, literalistic, verbal plenary interpretation, they reject it. But it's based on a falsely binary view of Scripture-- there are other ways to view inspiration.

I don't view the bible in "exactly the same way conservatives do".
When I say I had faith I mean it. When I was loosing it around my High School years one of the things I did was to read the bible for inspiration and to try to hold on to the faith I had. That was a very painful experience because instead of helping bolster my faith it did the exact opposite.
I always held a "non literal" approach to the bible. I knew there were metaphors in there. I never took the 6 days account of creation literally.

But what wholesome lesson can you get from revelations? What inspiration can you get from psalms that pray for a chance to smash babies against rocks? Or a god that hardens the heart of Pharaoh before killing every newborn? Or orders genocide?
I'm not saying there isn’t anything good in the bible. I believe there is. But you don't have to be a wooden literalist to find problems whith it.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:

We see this a lot from those outside the faith: that they view the Bible in exactly the same ways that the most conservative fundamentalists do-- only, because of the problems inherent to a wooden, literalistic, verbal plenary interpretation, they reject it. But it's based on a falsely binary view of Scripture-- there are other ways to view inspiration. [/qb][/QUOTE]I don't view the bible in "exactly the same way conservatives do".
When I say I had faith I mean it. When I was loosing it around my High School years one of the things I did was to read the bible for inspiration and to try to hold on to the faith I had. That was a very painful experience because instead of helping bolster my faith it did the exact opposite.
I always held a "non literal" approach to the bible. I knew there were metaphors in there. I never took the 6 days account of creation literally.

But what wholesome lesson can you get from revelations? What inspiration can you get from psalms that pray for a chance to smash babies against rocks? Or a god that hardens the heart of Pharaoh before killing every newborn? Or orders genocide?
I'm not saying there isn’t anything good in the bible. I believe there is. But you don't have to be a wooden literalist to find problems whith it. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Of course. If you've followed my contributions on this thread you know that I have significant problems with those things as well.

My comparison re how you read the text wasn't so much to do with the literal vs. nonliteral approach but rather your view of inspiration. Conservative fundamentalists hold a particular view of inspiration-- verbal plenary-- i.e. literal dictation. That seems to be the view of inspiration you are working from as well-- and rightly rejecting Scripture as "inspired" (as in "literally dictated") because of the things you've found in the text. This is not an uncommon experience.

My point is that there are at several other views of inspiration held by orthodox Christians-- even evangelicals in some cases. Views that still hold that Scripture is "inspired" but not that it is literally dictated word-for-word. While that doesn't solve the theodicy problems related to the problematic texts we've been discussing here, it does help somewhat with the inspiration part.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
It seems to me that the point of the Bible as claimed by most traditional points of view is very different. There are supposed to be "real answers" in there. Not just questions.

I think you may need to replace "most traditional points of view" with "some traditional points of view". But, be that as it may it is a very common view that the Bible contains answers. I think there is some truth in that, but that isn't the whole story.

First, I don't think there are easy answers in the Bible. The answers we get come through hard work of thinking about, discussing, meditating on, living together with the Biblical texts. The very nature of the ministry of Jesus shouts out to us that God doesn't just give us answers to our questions. Someone comes to Jesus and asks a simple question, "who is my neighbour?" and Jesus doesn't give him an answer like "everyone", He tells a story "A man was on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho and he was attacked by thieves ..."

Second, I don't think the Bible answers, even in an oblique way that requires hard work, many of the questions we ask of it. We have this tendency in the modern western world to ask "big questions", we want to see the finished product, we want a map with our route clearly laid out (or a sat nav that will tell us "in two weeks time apply for the job at head office, then after three weeks start an online study course in Greek"). That's not how the Bible works.

And, I think that quite often when we approach the Bible with a question what we get back is to see the questions we should be asking.

The most common way the Bible uses to speak to us is to tell us stories of other people seeking to figure out what to do. Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't often provide an immediate commentary on whether what they figured out was correct or not, usually the commentary comes much later in the Bible - if at all, sometimes the commentary comes from after the canon was closed. Which is why we need a body of additional teaching to try to help us through, though as an Evangelical I would be very hesitant about giving that additional teaching an equal status to the canon we have, although recognise that other parts of the Church would be less hesitant. In part because ultimately all we'll get is more stories of how people tried to figure things out, with out the immediate commentary on whether they got things right, more of the same may not be that helpful.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

My point is that there are at several other views of inspiration held by orthodox Christians-- even evangelicals in some cases. Views that still hold that Scripture is "inspired" but not that it is literally dictated word-for-word. While that doesn't solve the theodicy problems related to the problematic texts we've been discussing here, it does help somewhat with the inspiration part. [/QB]

Well, I would of course have bigger issues if I expected the bible to be like what I take to be the party line about the Koran or the book of mormon. But my main problem is with the content, not just the alleged source.
But at the same time I distctincly remember hearing "Palabra de Dios" Or "This is the word of God" being used after Bible readings during mass, for example. And this understending of what the Bible is is not just the Catholic understanding.
What other kinds of inspiration are you reffering to? And what makes the bible distict in those alternate kinds of inspitration from ,say, the speeches of Martin Luther King or other possible additions to "The Cannon" I have heard here.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I distctincly remember hearing "Palabra de Dios" Or "This is the word of God" being used after Bible readings during mass, for example. And this understending of what the Bible is is not just the Catholic understanding.

I understand that some Christians aren't keen on 'This is the word of the Lord' as used after Bible readings, since it could perhaps give the incorrect impression that the text is some sort of divine dictation, or that it stands alone without reference to the rest of Scripture.

Nevertheless, 'the Word of the Lord' is obviously a symbolic phrase, since the Bible is hardly one single word - it's a whole bunch of words, in which many different people, some named and some not, are supposedly 'speaking' to the reader.

The question then is in what sense the Bible or any particular part of it is 'the Word of the Lord'. This is what the individual, in community with other believers and in private reflection and prayer, etc., has to explore.

Maybe it's a question of looking for a 'pearl of great price'. The struggle to engage and to understand is part of the Christian journey. But there's no 'journey' if all you have to do is read a handful of bullet points and you're sorted.

Regarding one or two of your earlier comments, when I read the Bible (and I should read it more often, and much more systematically) I'm looking for nourishment rather than answers. A good diet requires variety, and some of the best elements will be less palatable than others. The issue is whether the Bible feeds you as an individual. If not, then I suppose you need another book.

ISTM that to some extent the biblical text revels in its opaqueness, in the impossibility of really knowing. Maybe this is why I like Ecclesiastes so much. And St Paul himself said that we see through a glass darkly - when you'd think it would be his job to stamp out all error! Isn't he known, after all, for laying down the law and cramping everyone's style?? If even he didn't have the dazzling light of righteous certainty guiding him on, what chance do the rest of us have?

Islam seems to offer more clarity (although I haven't studied it). It may become the more dominant religion for this reason. Christianity both gains and loses by its potential for ever greater complexity and diversity.

[ 12. September 2015, 02:01: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

A middle ground between Svetlana's position and the fundamentalist verbal plenary inspiration would be views that see inspiration in a more holistic sense. God is revealing himself on many levels-- in the events being portrayed, in the life of the people of God, in the life of the author, and in the life of the reader. Rather than seeing it as divine dictation, it is seen more as the Spirit moving in a unique and distinctive but also more holistic and generalized way.

And there are at least a couple dozen other positions along the spectrum from verbal plenary to "merely human"-- neo-orthodox, functional illumination, etc.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I wonder how many people would be interested in Zen koans if they were made "clear and unproblematic."

Why would anyone with good intentions inspire such confusing questions?
I see your point, although the context of Koan practice is very different. The answer to a Koan is not an explanation. There is no "right answer" to a Koan.
But the questions have a goal, for the student to enter what could be described as a "non dualist" frame of mind.
It seems to me that the point of the Bible as claimed by most traditional points of view is very different. There are supposed to be "real answers" in there. Not just questions. The genocide was not put in there as a puzzle to test our ethics. One problem is how to make sense of what the "genocidal god" in some parts has to do with the god of the sermon of the mount. That puzzle is not there by "design". Those books were written at widely different times for what seems to be very different reasons.
Revelations is supposed to predict real events not to be a record of an acid trip. What is to be learned by spending a lot of time trying to understand something like revelations?

Yes, koans are very different because they are for a different purpose - purpose is key.

I sympathize with your assessment of the traditional approach to the Bible, so it seems to me that either (a) the Bible is not special and divinely inspired as so many people believe or (b) it is divinely inspired but for not for the purpose that has traditionally been assumed. I happen to go for (b) because I like Swedenborg's non-traditional view of how the Bible can contain the Word of God and still be about a God of pure love (even with the book of Revelation!), but otherwise I'm sure I'd inevitably go for (a).

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

The question then is in what sense the Bible or any particular part of it is 'the Word of the Lord'. This is what the individual, in community with other believers and in private reflection and prayer, etc., has to explore.

Communities that encourage such exploration sound atractive but I did not encounter one when I was strugling with the text.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Regarding one or two of your earlier comments, when I read the Bible (and I should read it more often, and much more systematically) I'm looking for nourishment rather than answers. A good diet requires variety, and some of the best elements will be less palatable than others. The issue is whether the Bible feeds you as an individual. If not, then I suppose you need another book.

I sort of found my "book" in buddhism, but thoughtful answers like the ones in this thread help me understand better those who like this book
that is why I keep coming back here I guess.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
A middle ground between Svetlana's position and the fundamentalist verbal plenary inspiration would be views that see inspiration in a more holistic sense. God is revealing himself on many levels-- in the events being portrayed, in the life of the people of God, in the life of the author, and in the life of the reader. Rather than seeing it as divine dictation, it is seen more as the Spirit moving in a unique and distinctive but also more holistic and generalized way.

And there are at least a couple dozen other positions along the spectrum from verbal plenary to "merely human"-- neo-orthodox, functional illumination, etc.

This was helpfull thanks.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

@ W Hyatt:
That was interesting. I seems I need to learn more about Swedenborg.

What I am getting from this thread is that people of good will find a way of using something like the bible for feeding those positive inclinations.
A book with such a long history and possesing such diversity is more flexible for this purpose than those composed in a more coherent fashion. The downside of this is that people with less good will can find justifications for their actions in there too.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

I agree -well said.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0