|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Would it be possible to radically change the bible?
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
I should add count me in on the side of not changing anything. The word judges me - I don't judge the word.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I see those. I just don't see how they help.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The person likely wouldn't but that only poses a problem for fundamentalists.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
So only fundamentalists believe that the bible is inspired by God in some way as a guide for us to live?
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Cough, cough. Not in my church. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Too many Greek and Hebrew reading geeks around.
We do it on purpose. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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!!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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!!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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 know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
