Non-Christians Interpreting the Bible

[mwtech]

Since I started posting on here, and discussing religion in the real world, it always seems to confuse people that I can discuss the doctrine of the Bible as though it were true even though I'm an atheist. It isn't difficult for me to discuss what the authors of the Bible intended for the readers to get out of what they wrote. And I am perfectly capable of looking at the Bible as if it were 100% true and deduce what it instructs us to do in that case. I don't think it is true, and I think that makes it even easier for me to understand the intentions of the authors. If you believe the author to be God, that introduces the idea that the scriptures are mysterious and divine and written on a level more intelligent than humans can possibly hope to fully understand. Because I think it was written by humans, I can only assume they wrote it on a level of human intelligence, and it becomes no harder to interpret than any other piece of literature. It also leaves me in a position to assume there was certain motivation behind writing pieces of literature, and that also plays into the interpretations I can make. Whereas a (fundamentalist) Christian assumes the only motivation behind it is to convey a message of God.

Just because an atheist doesn't believe in the Bible, is there any reason they can't discuss what it means along with Christians. I think our position allows us to be even more objective, and therefore more scholarly than someone who is emotionally invested in what it "means" to them.

[Zzyzx]

.

Just because an atheist doesn't believe in the Bible, is there any reason they can't discuss what it means along with Christians. I think our position allows us to be even more objective, and therefore more scholarly than someone who is emotionally invested in what it "means" to them.

It may become quite apparent from debate here that many Non-Christians are far better informed about the bible than many practicing Christians. Some of the most compelling posts are by former Christians who spent decades as "true believers" before rejecting Christianity and most or all of the bible.

Their reasons for leaving the faith are varied " but might be summarized by "I can no longer believe what Christianity requires or teaches."

Christians and Christian debaters seem to like to think that they have a superior position in "interpreting" what the bible "really means"; however, that is just their personal opinion and perhaps self-aggrandizement.

As a Non-Theist, my position is "If the bible does not say what it means and mean what it says, of what use is it?" There is nothing about non-belief that prevents anyone from evaluating what the written word says. If it takes a "Christian spin" to make sense, it has failed the test of credibility because personal (or organizational) "interpretation" is imposed on the actual words.

[Divine Insight]

Just because an atheist doesn't believe in the Bible, is there any reason they can't discuss what it means along with Christians. I think our position allows us to be even more objective, and therefore more scholarly than someone who is emotionally invested in what it "means" to them.

Supposedly everyone is a "non-Christian" before they read the bible. Unless of course they had already been brainwashed as a child to believe it before they could read it and understand it fully.

I person cannot even truly become a Christian until their first read or are taught the stories of the Bible. And then they should actually decided based upon what they have read whether they think it is believable.

The vast majority of Christians are indoctrinated into Christianity as a child being simply told by their parents and other adult authority figures that the Bible is the Word of God.

I personally that no one would believe the Bible if they had never heard of it until they were old enough to read and then were just given the book to read and then asked whether they believe it or think it's just a fictional story. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people would easily pass it off as being totally fictional.

It isn't difficult for me to discuss what the authors of the Bible intended for the readers to get out of what they wrote. And I am perfectly capable of looking at the Bible as if it were 100% true and deduce what it instructs us to do in that case.

That is certainly true. It's easy for any intelligent person to see what the Bible is saying and what it is demanding people should believe. The claim that a person needs to believe it before they can understand it is a truly bad Christian propaganda tactic. That claim has absolutely no merit at all.

I don't think it is true, and I think that makes it even easier for me to understand the intentions of the authors.

I totally agree. I would even go much further than this. I was personally born and raised as a Christianity. I was told that the Bible is the word of God and that it is infallible. I believed that. I was also told that the Bible contains answers to all questions. Again I believed that.

So I actually set out to study the Bible, become a preacher, and do God's will by helping to spread his divine perfect word. However, it was when I began to study the bible in depth that I quickly discovered all of the above to be lies. The Bible is not infallible. The Bible is not intelligent. And it most certainly doesn't contain answers to anything. In fact, the real truth is that even Christian apologists use the excuse that God works in mysterious ways, and that no one can truly understand God, etc, and that we all must have "Faith" that God secretly has answers and explanations to all the absurdities in the Bible, and that he will reveal those to us in heaven after we die.

That has to be about the lamest apologetic argument ever.

If you believe the author to be God, that introduces the idea that the scriptures are mysterious and divine and written on a level more intelligent than humans can possibly hope to fully understand.

The problem with that whole idea is to ask, "Why would any God write a book to humanity that is totally out of the reach of human intellect. Again this is just an extremely lame excuse for a collection of fables that is seriously riddled with extreme contradictions and absurdities.

Why would a righteous God be playing such dirty unethical tricks on people to begin with?

Because I think it was written by humans, I can only assume they wrote it on a level of human intelligence, and it becomes no harder to interpret than any other piece of literature. It also leaves me in a position to assume there was certain motivation behind writing pieces of literature, and that also plays into the interpretations I can make. Whereas a (fundamentalist) Christian assumes the only motivation behind it is to convey a message of God.

I totally agree with you. Once I realized that the Bible cannot be the infallible word of any God and woke-up to the fact that it's nothing more than a man-made religion made up by male-chauvinistic who were trying to control the masses it suddenly made PERFECT SENSE!

So if men wrote it, it makes perfect sense.

If a God wrote it, it's complete nonsense.

So for me it's a no-brainier who wrote the Bible. It most certainly wasn't written by any all-righteous, all-wise, perfect, infallible God. That's not even remotely an option.

It was definitely write by unscrupulous male-chauvinistic men for the purpose of creating religious bigotries for political agendas.

I am absolutely certain of this now. There is no question about this at all in my mind. The bible is simply far too stupid to have been the inspired word of some supposedly all-wise and righteous supreme deity. That's just not even remotely reasonable.

[McCulloch]

There are some Christians who claim that the Bible cannot be properly understood without the supernatural aid of the Holy Spirit of God. So unless you are a Christian or on the path towards becoming one, your understanding of scripture is necessarily faulty. You cannot reasonably debate the meaning of the Bible with such believers since the understanding they have is from a direct revelation of God. They are therefore beyond and impervious to human reasoning.

[mwtech]

Delusion of Grandeur-A delusion of grandeur is the fixed, false belief that one possesses superior qualities. People with grandiose delusions often have the conviction of having some great but unrecognized talent or insight. They may also believe they have made some important discovery that others dont understand or appreciate.

If you have this kind of mindset about anything other than religion, you are sent to a mental facility. But to insinuate that a Christian who met this criteria had these delusions would most definitely result in a moderator strike against you. I think that is sort of unfair and not very objective at all.

[OReilly]

Since I started posting on here, and discussing religion in the real world, it always seems to confuse people that I can discuss the doctrine of the Bible as though it were true even though I'm an atheist. It isn't difficult for me to discuss what the authors of the Bible intended for the readers to get out of what they wrote. And I am perfectly capable of looking at the Bible as if it were 100% true and deduce what it instructs us to do in that case. I don't think it is true, and I think that makes it even easier for me to understand the intentions of the authors. If you believe the author to be God, that introduces the idea that the scriptures are mysterious and divine and written on a level more intelligent than humans can possibly hope to fully understand. Because I think it was written by humans, I can only assume they wrote it on a level of human intelligence, and it becomes no harder to interpret than any other piece of literature. It also leaves me in a position to assume there was certain motivation behind writing pieces of literature, and that also plays into the interpretations I can make. Whereas a (fundamentalist) Christian assumes the only motivation behind it is to convey a message of God.

Just because an atheist doesn't believe in the Bible, is there any reason they can't discuss what it means along with Christians. I think our position allows us to be even more objective, and therefore more scholarly than someone who is emotionally invested in what it "means" to them.

Two thoughts. On the one hand, the scriptures are testimony from God, and about God. So, any might profit from reading them if they do so with a truly open mind and heart.

On the other hand, I would disagree that the atheist is more "objective" regarding the scriptures. For the Christian, the Lord promised the Spirit of Truth to the Church, not to the atheist, to lead the Church unto all truth - in this case, the truth being the proper interpretation of the scripture. So for an atheist to argue against the Church's interpretation of scripture, is in effect and reality, to argue a straw man.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to McCulloch]

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of.

If you need God to understand the Bible, you don't need the Bible.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 7 by FarWanderer]

If you need God to understand the Bible, you don't need the Bible.

That is a very circular reasoning, is it not? Although, I'm sure some christian somewhere will have created a justification for it.
To me, this shows a flaw in the religion in general - which is to say peple creating something that's said to be perfect and inspired by perfection.
I don't know about you, but I don't know any perfect people - much less anything perfect created by them.

[Bede]

Two thoughts. On the one hand, the scriptures are testimony from God, and about God. So, any might profit from reading them if they do so with a truly open mind and heart.

On the other hand, I would disagree that the atheist is more "objective" regarding the scriptures. For the Christian, the Lord promised the Spirit of Truth to the Church, not to the atheist, to lead the Church unto all truth - in this case, the truth being the proper interpretation of the scripture. So for an atheist to argue against the Church's interpretation of scripture, is in effect and reality, to argue a straw man.

Excellent points.

The Bible was not written for non-believers. The Bible was written for the faith family of whom it is about. It has value to everyone because Gods family is open to everyone to join. However the key to the Bible is Jesus Christ and if you dont believe in Jesus as the Son of God and Saviour then the Bible has limited value.

That is why the gospel needs to be proclaimed to non believers first.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to McCulloch]

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of.

If you need God to understand the Bible, you don't need the Bible.

In my view, in order to be a Christian, one must accept circular reasoning, absurdity and attribute significantly more certainty to particular truth claims than is warranted by the available evidence. Once you have done that with regard to the existence of God, substitutionary atonement, Trinity, the resurrection and bodily ascension, virgin birth, a world-wide flood and a universe that is less than ten thousand years old, this teaching is a walk in the park.