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.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by mwtech]

The bible is all about personal interpretation - there is no one true right and wrong IMO (though many believers would disagree).
So it stands to reason what anyone can discuss it.
What happens, though, is each person has their own bias that they attribute to their interpretation to varying degrees.
Now then, christians tend to believe that, to understand the bible, you need divine inspiration of the holy spirit, which is their was of saying 'you need the proper biasness - the one that convinces you the bible is true and accurate.'
Non-believers are said not to have this (though, many believer who think they have surely don't appear to either).
All this means is, at best, biblical interpertation is aguessing game and nothing more.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by mwtech]

So to rephrase your debate question, would it be fair for me to put it this way: "Is belief in the Bible a prerequisite to understanding it?"

I would say no, it belief is not a prerequisite for understanding.

I think you make some good points about objectivity, but I would also say that believers CAN be fairly objective and scholarly. Raymond Brown and Luke Timothy Johnson are two examples, and the late Andrew Greeley.

And I have personally been told that as a someone who supposedly was not "born again" that I "couldn't understand things of the Spirit" so this person refused to answer a question I had for them. That is Spiritual arrogance, imo, and an extremely condescending attitude. And this from a Fundamentalist to a fellow Theist! .

So it is not that we do not understand, it is just that we do not agree with, and reject the Fundamentalist position.

[ElCodeMonkey]

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.

If it were true that faith in God enabled God to help interpret and that this helping was somehow more useful than an Atheist attempting, then I think there would be a lot more congruence among the church. Each Christian tends to think that "their" way is the right way because they "truly" believe whereas everyone else must be reading into it whatever they want. Atheists are probably far more in agreement with each other as to interpretation because they recognize the Bible as a human tool rather than the Christians who believe they have the aid of God in interpreting. I hope Christians never forget that their house is divided. A LOT.

[Bede]

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.

If it were true that faith in God enabled God to help interpret and that this helping was somehow more useful than an Atheist attempting, then I think there would be a lot more congruence among the church. Each Christian tends to think that "their" way is the right way because they "truly" believe whereas everyone else must be reading into it whatever they want. Atheists are probably far more in agreement with each other as to interpretation because they recognize the Bible as a human tool rather than the Christians who believe they have the aid of God in interpreting. I hope Christians never forget that their house is divided. A LOT.

There was congruence in the Church for 1500 years until Protestantism arrived. They thought could interpret scriptures personally instead of the Church.

As OReilly said 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.

Replace atheist with Protestant in that, and there you have it " lots of different doctrines.

Protestants though have a much better at understanding scriptures than atheists because they do believe in Jesus as the Son of God and Saviour.

[ElCodeMonkey]

There was congruence in the Church for 1500 years until Protestantism arrived. They thought could interpret scriptures personally instead of the Church.

So you're fine with torture then? And genocide of Muslims? Cuz that's what your 1500 years of "congruence" wrought. They must have been filled with all kinds of Holy Spirit to get that message out of the Bible. Let's also not forget that the "church" didn't start with the Bible and even before the Bible was created there was a lack of congruence. This is why there are many scriptures NOT in the Bible. Congruence never existed even among the disciples. The Catholic church itself has not been in congruence over the years given that they announced in 1994 in the Catechism that torture and bloodshed were indeed NOT correct. So I think we should give up on this idea that the Catholic church is any different than the Protestant church.

Protestants though have a much better at understanding scriptures than atheists because they do believe in Jesus as the Son of God and Saviour.

You're going to have to back that one up somehow. I can guarantee that there are many Atheists with a far greater understanding than a great deal of Protestants. There are many protestants (and especially Catholics) that know diddly squat about "their" faith. I had a Catholic once asking ME what SHE believed cuz she didn't know. She kept saying, "Yeah, I think we believe that too". My guess is that most every person proclaiming themselves Atheist has a greater knowledge of this lady's faith than herself. Queue No True Scotsman. Thus, since some Atheists clearly have more knowledge and understanding than some Protestants and Catholics, it means absolutely nothing and is 100% unverifiable that the Christians get inside understanding as guided by God. Further, I have a hard time believing that all of Catholicism is in accord at this very instant. I'm sure there are priests with differing views of interpretation even if they refrain from teaching so.

[Bede]

There was congruence in the Church for 1500 years until Protestantism arrived. They thought could interpret scriptures personally instead of the Church.

So you're fine with torture then? And genocide of Muslims? Cuz that's what your 1500 years of "congruence" wrought. They must have been filled with all kinds of Holy Spirit to get that message out of the Bible. Let's also not forget that the "church" didn't start with the Bible and even before the Bible was created there was a lack of congruence. This is why there are many scriptures NOT in the Bible. Congruence never existed even among the disciples. The Catholic church itself has not been in congruence over the years given that they announced in 1994 in the Catechism that torture and bloodshed were indeed NOT correct. So I think we should give up on this idea that the Catholic church is any different than the Protestant church.

Crusades etc. are nothing to do with the topic. Just a diversion.

Protestants though have a much better at understanding scriptures than atheists because they do believe in Jesus as the Son of God and Saviour.

You're going to have to back that one up somehow. I can guarantee that there are many Atheists with a far greater understanding than a great deal of Protestants. There are many protestants (and especially Catholics) that know diddly squat about "their" faith. I had a Catholic once asking ME what SHE believed cuz she didn't know. She kept saying, "Yeah, I think we believe that too". My guess is that most every person proclaiming themselves Atheist has a greater knowledge of this lady's faith than herself. Queue No True Scotsman. Thus, since some Atheists clearly have more knowledge and understanding than some Protestants and Catholics, it means absolutely nothing and is 100% unverifiable that the Christians get inside understanding as guided by God. Further, I have a hard time believing that all of Catholicism is in accord at this very instant. I'm sure there are priests with differing views of interpretation even if they refrain from teaching so.

I was commenting in general terms. Of course there are some atheists who know more than some ignorant Protestants or Catholics, and some Protestants who know more about Catholic teaching than some than some ignorant Catholics, and some Catholics who know more about Protestantism than some ignorant Protestants

Your point is not relevant.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Crusades etc. are nothing to do with the topic. Just a diversion.

It's extremely relevant since you're saying that the church was unified and directed by God for 1500 years. Clearly you must either agree with their "interpretations" of what God wanted or not. It's not a diversion. The church was not unified and has not been consistent over time. Clearly God is not directing anyone.

I was commenting in general terms. Of course there are some atheists who know more than some ignorant Protestants or Catholics, and some Protestants who know more about Catholic teaching than some than some ignorant Catholics, and some Catholics who know more about Protestantism than some ignorant Protestants

Your point is not relevant.

You proclaimed that Protestants have a one-up on interpretation over Atheists. I'm saying there's no way to judge that and there are at least examples of that not being true. Again, I find my point quite relevant to the conversation at hand. Given the lack of unity, what makes you think any Christian has any better shot at interpretation? It's a commonly expressed sentiment that is entirely inaccurate and is absolutely not provable by any means.

[mwtech]

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.

"The Church" has many interpretations of the scripture. Does this mean you think that only people who believe what you believe have the spirit of truth. I'm sure that's what every single church out there believes, and thinks you are in error when disagreeing with them. This seems a very arrogant approach to take concerning the Bible. "I know that I have the spirit of truth and you don't because you disagree with me" What makes you so sure that you're right and they're wrong? They have exactly the same amount as evidence as you do. Even if you think the Bible is infallible, surely you don't think that your understanding of it is.

[Clownboat]

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.

No reason IMO why an atheist, agnostic or what have you cannot comment on being a Christian.

It is not logical that a god would create a book with a message for everyone, but then require theologians to interpret said book.

[mwtech]

There was congruence in the Church for 1500 years until Protestantism arrived. They thought could interpret scriptures personally instead of the Church.

I would say this is not at all true. The Catholic church practices many things that are not in the Bible. The congruence in the church ended when the catholic church began. The only time there has been congruence in the church, in my opinion, is when the apostles were the ones at the head of it.