The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

[historia]

John Barton, professor at Oxford University, has this to say in his recent book, The History of the Bible (2019):

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?

[historia]

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

You have the ability to say whatever you like about my book, whether you attach it your own book or not.

[historia]

We have the word "ATTACKS" again ...

VICTIM CARD

The phrase "atheist attacks" was introduced by an atheist in this thread. Are you saying he is playing the victim card?

THIS biblical writing is utter nonsense …

For example.

No presuppositions there.

You are presupposing that that Hebrew myth should be understood as an historical account.

[historia]

There are serious issues with BOTH the Bible AND Christianity.

Why?

[SallyF]

We have the word "ATTACKS" again ...

VICTIM CARD

The phrase "atheist attacks" was introduced by an atheist in this thread. Are you saying he is playing the victim card?

THIS biblical writing is utter nonsense …

For example.

No presuppositions there.

You are presupposing that that Hebrew myth should be understood as an historical account.

We have …

In that light, 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. I mean, if a Christian claims that the Bible contains no contradictory claims and an atheist points out verses that are apparently contradictory, is that an attack on the Bible or is it an attack on the Christian claim about it?

The Atheist understood YOU were talking about attacks.

The victim card is regularly overplayed by Christians - in my experience.


Myth we certainly have.

I would be the last sinner on God's good earth to presuppose it as "an historical account" …



No matter HOW many fig leaves one tries to cover it with ...

The content of this stuff is still nonsense.

Even if one DOES think that everyone else is doing their Bible wrong ...

And one has the CORRECT understanding of one's Bible oneself ....

[Mithrae]

We have the word "ATTACKS" again ...

VICTIM CARD

The phrase "atheist attacks" was introduced by an atheist in this thread. Are you saying he is playing the victim card?

We have …

In that light, 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. I mean, if a Christian claims that the Bible contains no contradictory claims and an atheist points out verses that are apparently contradictory, is that an attack on the Bible or is it an attack on the Christian claim about it?

The Atheist understood YOU were talking about attacks.

The victim card is regularly overplayed by Christians - in my experience.

As far as I can tell, the only person playing a victim card here is you. I don't see anything to suggest that either Historia or Difflugia or anyone else has any problem with "attacks on the doctrines of particular Christians" in the context of a debate forum.

It would take a very... special level of sensitivity to make multiple posts commenting on a supposed problem with the imagined way in which a different poster supposedly understood a certain word which the original poster didn't even use! It's not often I've seen anyone going to such lengths to take offense

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 25 by Mithrae]

Yep …

You seem to be correct in that neither party has a problem with "attack".

An action I an very much in favour of myself.

Even to the point of enthusiastically jumping to conclusions …!

[WeSee]

[Replying to historia]

Why?

"Why" was covered in the post to which you responded. The text that you quoted was but a portion of what I wrote.

[SallyF]

You are presupposing that that Hebrew myth should be understood as an historical account.

Quite agree we have Hebrew myth in the supposed "Word of God".

Myths are people makin' stuff up about stuff.

And one of the things - I suggest - people are makin' up in the Hebrew myths is that they are makin' up their notions of "God".

If we acknowledge that we are dealing with human-written myth that people have just made up …

We are obliged to acknowledge the very strong possibility that they have just made up their notions about gods.

It escapes me that one can consider myth characters like Adam and Eve as make-believe in Genesis …

And then insist that the Elohim and Jehovah characters in the human-written myths are NOT make-believe.

In another thread we have determined that not a single biblical STORY can be demonstrated as anything other than people just makin stuff up.

And not a single character in the entire booklet of Genesis can be demonstrated as ever having existed outside the imaginations of humans.

Not a one ….

[historia]

There are serious issues with BOTH the Bible AND Christianity.

Why?

"Why" was covered in the post to which you responded.

No, you gave a description, but offered no explanation.

Why does the fact that the Bible is "heavily steeped in metaphor, is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions" -- thus requiring "picking and choosing" -- constitute a "serious issues with BOTH the Bible AND Christianity"?

[historia]

Myths are people makin' stuff up about stuff.

This is naive. Here is a fuller definition of "myth" from Mary Magoulick at Georgia College:

The term myth has come to refer to a certain genre (or category) of stories . . . Myths are symbolic tales of the distant past (often primordial times) that concern cosmogony and cosmology (the origin and nature of the universe), may be connected to belief systems or rituals, and may serve to direct social action and values . . . These narratives are believed to be true from within the associated faith system (though sometimes that truth is understood to be metaphorical rather than literal).