|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Would it be possible to radically change the bible?
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"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 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.
--------------------
"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
(sorry-- that should read "in the West it would be impossible to find an UNinitiated reader". MIssed edit window.)
--------------------
"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
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
nailed it Svetlana.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
@ 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.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
