The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

Post #1

Post by historia »

John Barton, professor at Oxford University, has this to say in his recent book, The History of the Bible (2019):
Barton wrote:
The Bible does not 'map' directly onto religious faith and practice, whether Jewish or Christian . . . The Bible is very unlike a creed or a 'Confession' . . . It is a mele of materials, few of which directly address the question of what is to be believed . . . .

There are versions of Christianity that claim to be simply 'biblical' (no versions of Judaism do so), but the reality is that the structures and content of Christian belief, even among Christians who believe their faith to be wholly grounded in the Bible, are organized and articulated differently from the contents of the Bible . . . [The Bible] is not and cannot be the whole foundation of either Judaism or Christianity . . . .

The Bible is centrally important to both Judaism and Christianity, but not as a holy text out of which entire religious systems can somehow be read. Its contents illuminate the origins of Christianity and Judaism, and provide spiritual classics on which both faiths can draw; but they do not constrain subsequent generations in the way that a written constitution would. They are simply not that kind of thing. They are a repository of writings, both shaping and shaped by the two religions at various stages in their development, to which later generations of believers are committed to responding in positive, but also critical, ways . . . .

Judaism thus has a holy book, and a set of religious beliefs and practices, but the two are known not to correlate exactly, despite being congruent; and this may be a better model for understanding Christianity too than the common Protestant perception of doctrine and practice as straightforwardly derived from the Bible.
Questions for debate:

1. Is Barton's analysis accurate?

2. If so, are Protestant views on the Bible mostly an idealized conception of the nature and authority of the text?

3. If so, are atheist criticisms of the Bible largely critiques of this idealized conception of the Bible rather than how the Bible actually functions within Christianity?

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

Post #11

Post by Tcg »

historia wrote:
Christians can interpret their scripture however they want. It's their scripture after all.
Well, the last third or so could be described as "their scripture." The first two thirds is of course Israelite scripture the Christians have claimed as their own.

What doesn't make any sense is a non-Christian imagining that his interpretation of the Bible somehow constitutes "Christianity."
Christians take Israelite scripture and imagine that it supports Christianity rather than Judaism. If you want to argue that only those who can claim ownership of scripture can interpret it properly, then Christians are out of luck with the majority of the Bible.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

Post #12

Post by Zzyzx »

.
historia wrote: Christians can interpret their scripture however they want. It's their scripture after all.
Does this apply equally to Jews and their scriptures ('Old Testament')?

Or are Non-Jews entitled to interpret Jewish scripture and say what it means?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
SallyF
Guru
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:32 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

Post #13

Post by SallyF »

historia wrote:
Difflugia wrote:
I'm not even sure it's fair to claim that the atheist attacks you're talking about are on the Bible as such, but are instead attacks on the doctrines of particular Christians.
This, I think, is exactly correct.

But, if these atheist attacks are really a critique of the doctrines of particular Christians, rather than a critique of the Bible itself, then why are so many of them framed as the latter? See, e.g., post 3.

Is it simply that these atheists have so thoroughly taken onboard the presuppositions of the particular Christians they want to critique -- maybe because they once belonged to such a group themselves -- that they cannot fully separate that group's idealized views and interpretations of scripture from a more objective appraisal of the Bible itself?


We have the word "ATTACKS" again ...


Image


On this site they are ALWAYS critiques.


This New Atheist DOES critique the doctrines of particular Christians ...

Particularly those who tell us "some people NEED to be killed".

This New Atheist ALSO critiques what has been written by humans in the various THE Bibles (I wouldn't DARE critique what "God" has written …!) …

THIS biblical writing is utter nonsense …


Image


For example.

No presuppositions there.

It's what is clearly written in the "Word of God" …

And certain folks have to make up excuses to make it go away and become "figurative".
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.

"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

Post #14

Post by Divine Insight »

historia wrote: This is obviously false. All texts require interpretation.

Claiming that you don't need to interpret a text that was written thousands of years ago in a culture and language very different from our own is merely a confession that you haven't seriously considered your own assumptions and presuppositions when reading the Bible.
This is absolutely false again.

In fact, if you continue to hold to this position all you are doing is proclaiming that there is nothing of substance to Christian theology. After all, how could there be if your claim is that everyone will interpret it differently.

So no, the Bible is not open to interpretation. It's a very specific collection of fables, albeit riddled with self-contradictions.

But no, it's useless to try to claim that it's open to individual interpretation. If you make that claim that you can't also try to claim that it holds anything meaningful form any God. You very claim demands that it can mean whatever any individual decides that they would like for it to mean.

Hardly a meaningful foundation for a theology.
historia wrote: Christians can interpret their scripture however they want. It's their scripture after all.
Again, absolute baloney. The Bible doesn't belong to anyone. Just because Christians would like to lay claim to the patent rights on ancient God myths doesn't make it so.

You and I are both human beings on planet earth. Neither one of us can lay claim to ownership or authorship of the Bible.

And as I said above, if you claim that it's open to individual interpretation, then my interpretation is equally valid to yours. But if we allow for that foolishness, then we can't claim that it has any coherent objective message. And therefore no ones interpretation could be said to be the "Word of God".

So your apologetics for this failed theology simply don't hold water.
historia wrote: What doesn't make any sense is a non-Christian imagining that his interpretation of the Bible somehow constitutes "Christianity."
What kind of a bigoted statement is this? I'm not a "non-Christian". I'm a human being living on planet Earth just like you. Your attempt to dismiss me by branding me with an artificial label created by your theological club has no merit.

I'm not a "non-Christian". I'm a human. There are no such things as Christians or non-Christians. All that exists in that regard are people who are trying to pin labels on themselves and others in an effort to try to define other people.

It's not only an insult to my intellect, but your insulting your own intellect when you try to label other people in an effort to demerit them.

Sorry, that's nothing short of religious bigotry.

You and I are humans. Period. You don't gain anything by trying to label yourself as a "Christian" and me as a "non-Christian". Like as if that's supposed to give you some superiority over me when it comes to this failed theology.

historia wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: Staying in the early chapters of Genesis we have this God cursing an evil angel to crawl on his belly and eat dirt for the rest of his life.
There is no mention of an angel in the text. I thought you said you didn't need to "interpret" and just "take the Bible for what it says"?
That wasn't my interpretation. This is what Christian theologians have been claiming for centuries.

Besides, it doesn't need to be an angel for the point I made stand. The point is that in a monotheistic religion it cannot have been a second God.

And by the way, even though this wasn't mentioned in Genesis it is mentioned in Revelation in the New Testament.

In Revelation it says: "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

This is referring back to the serpent who deceived the whole world. The one who deceived Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Who else could it be referring to? There is no other serpent character in the Bible that it could be referring to.

And while it doesn't claim that Satan is himself an angel, it does refer to angels who were cast out with him.

And besides, what would be the difference? :-k

What's the difference whether it's an angel or a serpent? Both of these creatures would have needed to have been created by God in a monotheistic religion.

The problem is, Historia, that no matter how hard you try to squeeze subtly different "interpretations" out of these fables, it never helps anything anyway.

What's the difference whether Satan was an angel or a serpent?

It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever in the big picture. It still remains that the Biblical God cursed this creator to crawl on its belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days and that evil curse didn't even solve anything.

So it doesn't even matter how hard you try to twist interpretations around, you still end up with the same basic story.

In the end, you have no choice but to agree that this God cursed some creature to crawl on its belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days and that this didn't help the problem of sin one iota.

No matter how hard you try you can't change that.

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Your stuck with this for the rest of eternity. It's never going to miraculously change or go away.

The Biblical God cursed some creature to crawl on his belly and eat dust for the rest of his days.

No amount of re-interpretation can change this.

If you are that ashamed of what the Bible has to say, I would suggest finding a better religion to defend.

Trying to belittle others by proclaiming that they are "non-Christians" and therefore should not be permitted to point out the obvious errors and absurdities in Hebrew mythology because they supposedly don't know what they are talking about, simply isn't going to work.

You are never going to win an open debate by trying to discredit people simply because they don't claim to be "Christians".

That's ridiculous.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

Post #15

Post by Mithrae »

Tcg wrote:
historia wrote: Christians can interpret their scripture however they want. It's their scripture after all.
Well, the last third or so could be described as "their scripture." The first two thirds is of course Israelite scripture the Christians have claimed as their own.
What doesn't make any sense is a non-Christian imagining that his interpretation of the Bible somehow constitutes "Christianity."
Christians take Israelite scripture and imagine that it supports Christianity rather than Judaism. If you want to argue that only those who can claim ownership of scripture can interpret it properly, then Christians are out of luck with the majority of the Bible.
Anyone can interpret the books in their possession however they want. However some critics, including in this thread, adopt the fundamentalist position that their particular interpretation is uniquely authoritative - even to the extent of not being an interpretation at all! In their minds they are simply "letting the word of God speak for itself" (as the religious variety of fundamentalists often put it), with little or no thought given to the roles which provenance, language, culture and context might play in how the texts' meaning is perceived by the author/s, the immediate audience, and readers of subsequent generations.

If we were to imagine that a uniquely privileged interpretive position exists for the Jewish and Christian scriptures, then presumably a far better claim to that privilege would be held by Jews and Christians themselves than by anyone setting out on a crusade to 'debunk' those traditions. That's the absurdity which I think Historia may be highlighting here: Not proposing that Christians do in fact have a uniquely privileged position (which sect would that be?), but pointing out the particularly obvious problems of someone claiming such a unique privilege without even being one of the intellectual/cultural heirs to the tradition which produced them.

Obviously the fact that anyone can (and do) interpret the books in their possession doesn't imply that all interpretations have equal merit. But inasmuch as we might rank the merit of differing interpretors, I reckon that people who ignore the relevence of provenance, language, culture and context in forming their interpretation - or even deny that their view is an interpretation at all - would be a massive red flag against the reliability of their views. I mean... you, Historia and I all speak the same language in very much the same time and culture, with a vast amount of shared knowledge and similarity in worldviews and even quite a lot of direct contact/knowledge about each others' views... but look how differently you and I interpret Historia's words!

So how can we possibily respond to someone who thinks they can simply and plainly discern the meaning of a composite work of bronze and iron age Hebrew henotheists, to the point that their perspective is not even an interpretation at all and anyone who disagrees is rejecting plain truths? Just nod and smile is the best response that I can think of :lol:

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

Post #16

Post by historia »

Tcg wrote:
historia wrote:
Christians can interpret their scripture however they want. It's their scripture after all.
Well, the last third or so could be described as "their scripture."
Any book included in the Christian biblical canon is part of their scripture.
Tcg wrote:
Christians take Israelite scripture and imagine that it supports Christianity rather than Judaism.
Or, rather, Christians interpret the Old Testament through the lens of Christian theology.

Jews interpret those same texts through the lens of rabbinic Jewish theology.
Tcg wrote:
If you want to argue that only those who can claim ownership of scripture can interpret it properly
That is, of course, not what I said.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

Post #17

Post by historia »

Zzyzx wrote:
historia wrote:
Christians can interpret their scripture however they want. It's their scripture after all.

What doesn't make any sense is a non-Christian imagining that his interpretation of the Bible somehow constitutes "Christianity."
Does this apply equally to Jews and their scriptures ('Old Testament')?
Let's see:
  • Jews can interpret their scripture however they want. It's their scripture after all.

    What doesn't make any sense is a non-Jew imagining that his interpretation of the Old Testament somehow constitutes "Judaism."
Yup, seems to check out.
Zzyzx wrote:
Or are Non-Jews entitled to interpret Jewish scripture and say what it means?
Anyone is free to interpret any scripture. They just can't legitimately claim that their interpretation somehow constitutes someone else's religion.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

Post #18

Post by Zzyzx »

.
[Replying to post 17 by historia]

If I attach your book to the end of my book, do I then gain the ability to say what your book means?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

Post #19

Post by historia »

Divine Insight wrote:
So no, the Bible is not open to interpretation.
You keep making this claim while repeatedly demonstrating it to be false.
Divine Insight wrote:
historia wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:
Staying in the early chapters of Genesis we have this God cursing an evil angel to crawl on his belly and eat dirt for the rest of his life.
There is no mention of an angel in the text. I thought you said you didn't need to "interpret" and just "take the Bible for what it says"?
That wasn't my interpretation. This is what Christian theologians have been claiming for centuries.
So it's not your interpretation, it's a common Christian interpretation, which you have adopted -- all the while claiming the Bible doesn't require interpretation.

To say your argument is confused would be an understatement.
Divine Insight wrote:
And by the way, even though this wasn't mentioned in Genesis it is mentioned in Revelation in the New Testament.

In Revelation it says: "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

This is referring back to the serpent who deceived the whole world. The one who deceived Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Who else could it be referring to? There is no other serpent character in the Bible that it could be referring to.
Well, no. It could be a reference to the sea serpent Leviathan, which is mentioned in Job, the Psalms, and Isaiah 27:1:
Isaiah 27:1 wrote:
On that day the Lord with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.
The fact that Revelation 12:9 also refers to the serpent as a "dragon" makes the sea serpent of Isaiah 27:1 the more likely reference than the serpent of Genesis 3. And none of these passages say that either serpent or Satan is an angel.

So, the fact that you took the serpent in Genesis 3 to be an "evil angel" shows that your claim that you don't "interpret" the text and just "take the Bible for what it says" is simply false.
Divine Insight wrote:
You very claim demands that it can mean whatever any individual decides that they would like for it to mean.

Hardly a meaningful foundation for a theology.
An individual's interpretation of the Bible is, indeed, not a meaningful foundation for a theology. That is why your claim that your individual interpretation of the Bible somehow constitutes "Christianity" is nonsensical.
Divine Insight wrote:
historia wrote:
What doesn't make any sense is a non-Christian imagining that his interpretation of the Bible somehow constitutes "Christianity."
What kind of a bigoted statement is this?
The imagined kind, as the term "non-Christian" is not pejorative.
Divine Insight wrote:
I'm not a "non-Christian".
Considering the fact that you have freely joined the 'Former Christian' group on this forum, and thus self-identify as a non-Christian every time you post, it seems odd to suddenly complain about that label now.
Divine Insight wrote:
Trying to belittle others by proclaiming that they are "non-Christians" and therefore should not be permitted to point out the obvious errors and absurdities in Hebrew mythology because they supposedly don't know what they are talking about, simply isn't going to work.
Your posts would be considerably shorter and more on-topic if you refrained from repetitiously attacking straw man arguments.

WeSee
Banned
Banned
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:31 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

Post #20

Post by WeSee »

[Replying to post 1 by historia]

The Bible is what it is. The Bible is heavily steeped in metaphor, is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. As such, there is no alternative to picking and choosing what parts to believe. Those who claim that they do not pick and choose are disingenuous at best. Those who claim that it is to be taken literally, nonetheless pick and choose which parts they do and don't take literally, pick and choose passages to ignore and/or alter, impress their own preconceived biases and beliefs onto their "literal" interpretation, etc.

There are serious issues with BOTH the Bible AND Christianity.

Post Reply