Cherry picking the Bible

[Elijah John]

There seems to be a lot of the confusion as to my criteria for accepting some parts of the Bible and rejecting others.

I have been asked on several threads to explain and clarify my criteria.
This post is similar to one that was previously exiled to the Random Rambling forum. But I have since revised it, and pinpointed a question for debate at the end, so hopefully it will be able to remain in the C and A forum.

I do not view the Bible as dictated literal truth from God, or as a book that dropped intact from Heaven. I take it seriously, as Spiritual inspiration, but not literally. I do accept it by and large as an ethical guidebook for how to live a God-centered life. I believe the Glory of God is somewhat reflected in the Bible, but not limited by or TO the Bible. The living God transcends the Bible, imo.

But I always try to remember that the Bible is a collection of books, ("biblio" means "library") it is not literal Truth from God. I see it as faith history of a devoted people, a primitive but inspired and spiritually evolving people. They WERE primitive, but in some very important ways the ancient Hebrews were ahead of their more savage neighbors.

Their message is conveyed in various literary forms, narrative prose, fable and allegory, and poetry as well as history (as the writers understood it,) but history based on oral tradition. And with any seemingly absurd, unclear or atrocious passage, one must remember to consider the historical context and the literary form of the passage in question. Some lend themselves to symbolic and deeper interpretations, some can be embraced as wholesome, instructive and edifying, and some just need to be ignored or rejected.

Also, any verses which claim the that a given book is not to be added to or detracted from, (such as found in Proverbs and the Book of Revelation), remember those books were written before the canon was complete, and even edited, so those verses tend to refer to that book alone, as opposed to what we now have as the Bible as a whole. So we CAN pick and choose...the compilers did, the editors did..by commitee and church council.

In effect, there WAS no Bible in the days when the books of the Bible (scrolls or codexes) were composed. The writers of a particular book may not have been aware that the other books even existed, let alone which ones would be included in the final compilation now called the"Bible".

Was the evangelist Mark aware that his Gospel would be included in the final compilation along with Matthew, Luke and John? I doubt it. The others may have been aware of Mark, but I think they each wrote independently for the most part.

Using the "Diamonds and Dung" metaphor borrowed from Thomas Jefferson to characterize the specifics, here is my approach:

-If something is atrocious or absurd, if it CONFLICTS with Reason, I tend to reject it, and put it in the "dung" category. The supposed command by God to stone Sabbath breakers to death falls into this category.

-If something is edifying and ACCORDS with Reason, I tend to accept it, as a "diamond" The "Golden Rule" would fall into this category.

-If something TRANSCENDS Reason, and is foundational and necessary to my beliefs I accept it as a beautiful "Diamond". The belief in one God falls into this category, whereas the doctrine of the "trinity" (for me) CONFLICTS with Reason so I reject it.

Now I realize that this approach is more instinctual than scholarly, and I realize that even if everyone would use this approach to the Bible, we may well come up with different conclusions, especially in any given instance.

But there would also be a lot of agreement. I believe that almost any one would accept the admonition to "treat others as you would like to be treated" the Golden Rule, as a "Diamond".

So to summarize:

-"Diamonds" The most pristine and uncontaminated Divinely inspired passages.

-"dung" May have SOME Divine inspiration at it's core, but heavily contaminated with human imperfection, bias and at worst, barbarism.


And I have been asked what parts of the bible do you specifically think are dung?

Well, I would consider the following to be "dung"

-The doctrine of Hell (not of Divine justice, but the doctrine of everlasting torture)
-The supposed command of God for the ancient Hebrews to commit genocide.
-The supposed command of God for Abraham to sin by committing Human sacrifice
-The supposed prediction of Jesus that he would have his 2nd coming in the lifetime of his apostles.
-The admonition to handle snakes and drink poison as signs that will accompany Believers.
-Jesus cursing the fig tree because it would not bear fruit "out of season" .

I could go on, but those are a few more examples in addition to the stoning sabbath breakers example I gave earlier.

Also, I should add that I believe the "Diamonds" are the passages that I believe were inspired from God in their most undiluted form, while the "dung" is either a projection of the primitive part of the writer or prophet in question.

Moses, for example, was not perfect, but I do believe he was inspired in many of his writings. I believe the more barbaric laws (stoning sabbath breakers) were written from Moses' imperfection, human bias and primitive outlook, while the command to "love the stranger in their misdt", was I believe, a Divine inspiration, a "Diamond".

That is how I "pick and choose" ...but I contend that EVERYONE picks and chooses, even Bible literalists and Fundamentalists. And I believe that since the Bible has contradictory passages, factually and theologically contradictory that we all are forced to cherry pick the passages or chapters of verses that have the most meaning to us. A

Examples? A matter of emphasis or ignoring altogether.
---
Fundamentalst selectivisim:

-Many are embarrassed by the snake handling verses in Mark 16.
-Many jump through hoops trying to explain away Jesus failure to return in the lifetime of his apostles, as predicted in Mt 16.27,28

Such verses cast doubt on the infallibility of the Bible, so Fundamentalists tend to ignore or not emphasize them.
---
Atheist selectivism, ignoring he good verses in the Bible, such as:

-Micah 6.6-8, that YHVH desires kindness, mercy and justice.
-The command to love one's neighbor as oneself.

Such passages do not fit with their attempts to completely discredit and denigrate the Bible as a portrait of a trimphalistic, genocidal "monster god", so therefore they usually ignore them.

---
When Bible passages do contradict each other, I try to side with the one which is most in accord with Reason, and with the one which has the support of the most evidence.

So all this leads to the questions for debate:

Do you agree that EVERYONE picks and choose when it comes to interpreting the Bible?

Does ANYONE and HOW CAN anyone really accept the Bible literally, and in it's entirety? If so, how does one reconcile the contradictory passages?

How does one explain away the atrocious passages if one is inclined to Fundamentalism, or conversely, how and why does one ignore the good in the Bible if one is inclined towards atheism and wants to denigrate and discredit the Good Book?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 19 by Divine Insight]


Thanks for the clarifications.

We have discussed the "all or nothing" topic several times over on previous posts. Right now I would just like to address what I see as another false dichotomy you posit. That Jesus authority derives from his Divinity, or else he has no more claim to authority than any other mortal human being.

This omits the third possibility, that of Divine INSPIRATION, channelled (to put it in somewhat shamanistic terms) knowledge to a completely human prophet. In this regard, I consider Jesus speaking with authority such as demonstrated by Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, among others, the status of PROPHET, ie mouthpiece for God. But a completely human, and this sometimes fallible spokesman for God.

I think Danmark makes a great point, in pointing out the somewhat Zen-like, counter-intuitive character of the Beattitudes. The difference being he does not accept a Divine source, I do, ultimately.

[Apollo Sunrise]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Of course we cherry-pick. The Bible, like other compendia of ancient wisdom from other ancient civilizations (Greeks, Vikings, Incas, Mayans) does offer much wisdom. But it is also riddled with hundreds of direct internal contradictions, factual errors, atrocities supposedly commanded by god and failed prophecies

We cherry-pick because we exercise common sense and human judgment in separating the vicious primitive barbarism from the insightful ancient wisdom. The Bible has plenty of both.

There is much truth, ancient wisdom and also human failing in many of the ancient writings, including the Bible. These were the best efforts of pre-scientific minds around the world to explain a perplexing universe. These were intelligent human minds, often wise, but lacking in the full range of scientific knowledge that we have today (which will probably seem primitive to our descendants 2,000 years in the future if we dont destroy ourselves before that).

Too many people are too concerned with whether or not the Bible is literally true. What does true mean? I like the way I saw the subject addressed on another site. Paraphrasing, the site asks, Is the Bible a fraud? If someone were to come forth today and claim that they had discovered a new work dating back to Bible times, we would not so much be dwelling on whether every statement in it is literally factual accurate, but whether it was of legitimate antiquity.
http://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/2 ... bleolatry/

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 22 by Apollo Sunrise]

To very loosely paraphrase cnorman, the best way to make the Bible look ridiculous is to take it literally.

[Zzyzx]

.
If one wishes to cherry pick for useful information (find diamonds in the dung according to some), why not start with works in which the diamond ratio is higher (i.e., a high quality ore)?

I do not have any particular writings or authors in mind amid the products of great minds throughout the centuries. Perhaps that would make an interesting topic for another thread.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 24 by Zzyzx]

That is an excellent question, similar to what DI often asks. But as you say, which books from which cultures?

I think maybe the Qur'an, and the works of Thomas Paine..both being more distilled than the Bible in that regard.

But I think the ratio of "diamonds to dung" in the Bible is pretty good, dispite what it's detractors claim, an I think the Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.

It is home for us Monotheists, Jews, Christians and even Muslims alike...the works of say a Buddha, or a Lao Tsu are just too dissimilar to the Bible to be appealing alternatives for the likes of us (Monotheists)

[Apollo Sunrise]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

One does not pick cherries from a diamond mine.

The information one seeks from the ancient writings of primitive, pre-scientific tribal societies " whether that of the Hebrews, Greeks, Vikings, Incas or Mayans " is not the diamonds of understanding science, reason or the nature of the universe.

The information or value we derive from the wisdom of the ancients is more about the cherries of how our own civilizations evolved. It is learning about how primitive people lived and felt, and how their lives and cultures evolved into our own. It is more about understanding ourselves and our origins than about the nature of reality or the universe.

[ten10ths]

...
Nothing to say about the definition of anthology I see yeah?
Odd how we pick-n-choose our 'disagreements' yeah? lol
Oh and I will be a lot more direct in the future as it appears. lol

Moderator Comment
Oft repeated use of 'LOL' and 'yeah?' can project a tone of incivility.
There's no hard and fast rule on this, but consideration should be given to the tone of a post.
A test for this is a question a writer might ask himself before hitting 'submit:'
Does this phrase or word add anything to my argument?
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Where I've from "yeah" and "lol" are commonly phrased. I will continue to use them in this forum as it's who I am. I will NOT change the way I talk so as to not offend the offended.

[ten10ths]

If someone believes in the bible and doesn't follow it strictly to the letter, then they're cherry picking.
I would estimate everyone that puts any worth into the bible cherry picks it. How could you not? lol It's a weird book with mystical instances and some very weird and violent stories
But what's worse, cherry picking or adding another book or story to it for your belief need?
Or is that ok?

wow, now that's a loaded, and an interesting, question. As Elijah John just wrote, the bible is not 'a book,' but an anthology. To ask whether it is 'worse' to '[add] another book or story to it for your belief need' is to buy into the fundamentalist, literalist, 'bible only' viewpoint.

...and considering that you believe that all 'God stuff' is 'superstition,' I find that to be a rather interesting approach.

An anthology is a literay work, as is a book. So the bible is a book that's also, if you want, an anthology. It's a book of books.
That doesn't mean it's not still a book of stories as shown here
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthology: a book or other collection of selected writings by various authors,
Not all 'God stuff' is superstition. I have my own God. You have yours. And never the two shall meet guaranteed lol

That's not what you wrote here: When you stated that "All God-like stuff is superstitious to me..."

Perhaps your beliefs and mine do not intersect anywhere. However, I am a little concerned that your beliefs and your beliefs don't intersect anywhere, either.

I mean, really....when someone puts up, in the form of an argument and in an attempt to disagree with me, a definition and statement that says the same thing I just did, I have to wonder what the point is.

Nothing to say about the definition of anthology I see yeah?

You mean, that an anthology is a collection of stories, or books, into one volume?

So we agree on that. What's the point you are attempting to make?

Odd how we pick-n-choose our 'disagreements' yeah? lol

What disagreement? We agree on the definition of 'anthology.' So? I don't get it. I didn't get it when you posted the definition, which agreed with my point, in a rather weird, and obvious, attempt to disagree with me. What was it you think I was actually writing?

Oh and I will be a lot more direct in the future as it appears. lol

Well...I, for one, would appreciate that, yes. Because this exchange isn't making any sense to me at all.

I'm glad you understand youre lost here. Let me help you:
You said "the bible is not 'a book,' but an anthology." I and was able to show you that an anthology is a book so the bible IS a book - not a good one but it is a book.
Trying to make it more than it is is rather silly really. A book is a book. If you want to call a book a do-dod that's fine - it's still a book.
I hope that clears up your confusion lol

[Zzyzx]

.

Where I've from "yeah" and "lol" are commonly phrased. I will continue to use them in this forum as it's who I am. I will NOT change the way I talk so as to not offend the offended.

Moderator Final Warning

Correction: You will NOT continue to disregard Forum Rules and WILL learn to speak civilly or you will no longer be posting here. Suit yourself.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Overcomer]

This is precisely why I continue to encourage people to study hermeneutics and read books on how to interpret the Bible rightly. Learning the rules regarding proper exegesis of Scripture should at least cut down on cherry-picking even if it doesn't eliminate it.