The Bible Right Or Wrong!

[Tangnefedd]

Some people will accept any cruelty or intolerance, just because they think they can find a verse in the Bible that will support their argument. Quite apart from the fact that the Bible was written centuries ago when life was very different to what it is today, if a thing is wrong in the eyes of most reasonable people, then it is wrong, whether it is in the Bible or not!

Slavery was partly condoned because St Paul urged slaves to honour their masters! Well no right-minded person would want to bring slavery back, would they? Similarly intolerance towards gays is wrong, and just because the book of Leviticus and St Paul were homophobic, does not make it right! It suits some fundies to have their wives in submission to them, that is not right either. Using the Bible as a rule book for the way we should live in the 21st Century is fraught with problems, because how can stuff written so long ago have much bearing on how we live today? Of course we mustn't chuck the baby out with the bathwater, there are some good things in the Bible, but imo we should choosey about what we take on board, bearing in mind the times in which it was written!

 

[FreezBee]

Using the Bible as a rule book for the way we should live in the 21st Century is fraught with problems, because how can stuff written so long ago have much bearing on how we live today? Of course we mustn't chuck the baby out with the bathwater, there are some good things in the Bible, but imo we should choosey about what we take on board, bearing in mind the times in which it was written!

You're quite right; when reading the Bible, we should remember the texts were directed not specifically to us today, but to a specific audience contemporary with the author. It's just that some people think that author to be God, and since God is eternal, he is contemporary with all of us all of the time.


- FreezBee

 

[Athene]

Doesn't it actually say somewhere in the bible to judge everything and keep only what is good.

 

[madbear]

Of course we mustn't chuck the baby out with the bathwater, there are some good things in the Bible, but imo we should choosey about what we take on board, bearing in mind the times in which it was written

Oooh.... flamebait! You're right, of course; but you should still put your fireproof suit on

...if a thing is wrong in the eyes of most reasonable people, then it is wrong, whether it is in the Bible or not!

Well, other definitions of `wrong' are conceivable. For the conservative Christian, `wrong' is essentially defined by the Bible. If it's forbidden in the Bible, it's wrong, and that's that. The problem is that interpretation of the relevant bits of scripture can be so difficult, and so context-dependent, that it is sometimes more difficult to get a straight answer from scripture than it is from our humanistic notions of right and wrong.

I think a lot of even very liberal Christians would be a bit uncomfortable about interpreting the morality of the Bible, even the OT, against a background of popular morality. Perhaps a more traditional liberal (if there is such a thing) reading would be that one should extrapolate the morality of the bible into a modern setting. Stll, both your interpretation and mine are a million miles away from that of the evangelicals that are going to turn their flamethrowers on later

Slavery was partly condoned because St Paul urged slaves to honour their masters!

I believe that the usual conservative response to that one is to argue that `slavery' was not the same institution in 1st-century Palestine as it was in, say, 18th century America. To be honest, I don't think that St Paul really turned his attention much to the rights and wrongs of slavery (bonded servitude might be a better term). It was just too much a feature of his society. I would like to think that, had slavery been the abomination it became, St Paul would have condemned it.

Similarly intolerance towards gays is wrong...

Well, to be fair, neither Leviticus nor St. Paul urge us to mistreat homosexuals, as such. It's men touching each others' willies that gets the attention That these passages have become such a totemic issue for the right-wingers doesn't mean that the rest of us have to read them the same way.

As an aside, I am surprised by the amoung of time that gets spent on the issue of homosexuality on this forum. Most British Christians seem to have very little interest in this subject.

...because how can stuff written so long ago have much bearing on how we live today?

The problem with not throwing out the baby with the bathwater is that one person's baby is another person's bathwater. In this, at least, the fundies have an easier job -- they don't have to separate the baby from the bathwater because the baby fills the whole tub.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Yeah, truth is eternal and omni-applicable because truth is fluid is relational.

Aspects of the Bible hold such truths. Some is opinion, some conjecture and some imagery.

Why is it that some people interpret this stance as advocating the rejection of *Biblical* truth? Go figure.

 

[TScott]

I think there is more. Scripture, especially Jewish scripture was written in layers. The first most basic layer would be the literal layer, usually an allegory whose purpose was to give the novice a feel for the relationship between man and the deity. The deeper layers would hold deeper meanings for the more serious adherents, these would be discussed and argued over constantly by the elders.

It is kind of humorous nowadays how fundies will claim to be deeply religious without breaking the surface of what these scriptures really mean, but this really started with the earliest gentile Christians and has through the ages had some very unpleasant side effects. The parables of Jesus are a great example, the parables themselves are really quite ingenious in that they can hold a deep meaning for just about anyone, but unfortunately the writers of the gospels felt compelled to include their narrow interpretations instead of leaving them as they were passed down.

 

[FreezBee]

I think there is more. Scripture, especially Jewish scripture was written in layers. The first most basic layer would be the literal layer, usually an allegory whose purpose was to give the novice a feel for the relationship between man and the deity. The deeper layers would hold deeper meanings for the more serious adherents, these would be discussed and argued over constantly by the elders.

It is kind of humorous nowadays how fundies will claim to be deeply religious without breaking the surface of what these scriptures really mean, but this really started with the earliest gentile Christians and has through the ages had some very unpleasant side effects. The parables of Jesus are a great example, the parables themselves are really quite ingenious in that they can hold a deep meaning for just about anyone, but unfortunately the writers of the gospels felt compelled to include their narrow interpretations instead of leaving them as they were passed down.

Very good points

While many Christian can read the parables of Jesus as parables, they can not see that maybe the gospels are parables around parables.

An example: Jesus turning water into wine. In e.g. the Qumran community the commoners were only allowed to drink water, whereas the "elect" were allowed to drink wine. Turning water into wine then meaning that all belong to the "elect".


- FreezBee

 

[madbear]

...but unfortunately the writers of the gospels felt compelled to include their narrow interpretations instead of leaving them as they were passed down

There's an interesting parallel, or rather a non-parallel, in Zen literature. Look, for example, at Mumon's interpretations of Joshu's koans. They are even more twisty than the originals. Then look at how these koans are interpreted by western writers: all the original subtlety disappears.

 

[LiberatedChick]

Doesn't it actually say somewhere in the bible to judge everything and keep only what is good.

Yes...I have that verse in my siggy

I completely agree with the OP. I don't think the bible should be used as a big rule book either.

 

[BillR]

The bible is right like always, it applies to us now and forever!!

 

[Tangnefedd]

The bible is right like always, it applies to us now and forever!!


I just don't know how you can say that, although of course I defend your right to say it, when the Bible is so obviously wrong in many respects!

 

[artybloke]

I have to confess to finding reading the Bible almost impossible anymore, and I very rarely do it. It's incredibly difficult to reach back to the plain simple text, the initial story, without having to wade through 2000 years of accumulated theology and Biblical interpretation. It's like the Bible has been buried under a pile of bat guano which is all the various interpretations of all the churches and saints and theologians good an bad piled on top of what might have been really quite a simple text originally.

How does one wade through the accumalted dross to get to the real jewels? Everyone claims to be more biblical than everyone else. I blame the idea that the Bible is somehow "infallible" or "inerrant", a claim no writer in the Bible ever claims: even Paul (or whoever it was) merely calls the Bible "profitable" or "useful." No argument there, at least in theory, though in practice, wading your way through the guano and having to breathe the atmosphere of all those "true for all time" interpretations, many of which are now long-forgotten, makes it almost impossible to read.

 

[madbear]

It's incredibly difficult to reach back to the plain simple text, the initial story, without having to wade through 2000 years of accumulated theology and Biblical interpretation

I don't fully understand. My understanding is that the Greek texts of the New Testament we currently have are pretty close to the original writings. There are some fairly good translations based more-or-less entirely on the best of the Greek sources we have. All (!) you've got to do is put all the crap out of your mind and start reading, isn't it?

Or are you saying you want to get back even before St Paul and the gospels? That's not so straightforward, of course. There are people trying to do this -- the Q project, and so on. Your mileage may vary

I blame the idea that the Bible is somehow "infallible" or "inerrant", a claim no writer in the Bible ever claims

I'm not sure I'd necessarily go along with that -- the NT writers do occassionally allude to the perfection of the Hebrew Bible. Not that this changes anything, of course; I might refer to myself as infallible, but it doesn't mean I am.

Everyone claims to be more biblical than everyone else.

I don't, if that's any consolation

​

 

[TScott]

The bible is right like always, it applies to us now and forever!!

God gave man the ability to reason and it is sometimes incredible that people refuse to do so. The Bible was written for people who lived nearly 3,000 years ago. These were people who, because of the advancement of their knowledge in science could only understand the most rudimentary explanation of the creation. People who because of their ancient culture, and because of the Sumerian and Babylonian influence on their culture were given laws that we could never tolerate today, nor should we, we know instinctively that they are wrong for us. We do not kill people because of their religion, their sexual orientation.

We do not kill our children because they may become "stubborn or rebellious" as we are instructed to in the Bible.

 

[TScott]

I blame the idea that the Bible is somehow "infallible" or "inerrant", a claim no writer in the Bible ever claims.

It is hard for them to sell the infallibility claim when there is evidence that portions of the bible are just redactions of earlier Sumerian or Babylonian texts. It becomes fairly obvious that the writers of the Bible were, at least in those instances, trying to use familiar local mythology.

 

[BillR]

The bible is right like always, it applies to us now and forever!!


I just don't know how you can say that, although of course I defend your right to say it, when the Bible is so obviously wrong in many respects!

Sorry thats the way i feel and like you said we should have the right to give our two cents!!

 

[Im_A]

Some people will accept any cruelty or intolerance, just because they think they can find a verse in the Bible that will support their argument. Quite apart from the fact that the Bible was written centuries ago when life was very different to what it is today, if a thing is wrong in the eyes of most reasonable people, then it is wrong, whether it is in the Bible or not!

Slavery was partly condoned because St Paul urged slaves to honour their masters! Well no right-minded person would want to bring slavery back, would they? Similarly intolerance towards gays is wrong, and just because the book of Leviticus and St Paul were homophobic, does not make it right! It suits some fundies to have their wives in submission to them, that is not right either. Using the Bible as a rule book for the way we should live in the 21st Century is fraught with problems, because how can stuff written so long ago have much bearing on how we live today? Of course we mustn't chuck the baby out with the bathwater, there are some good things in the Bible, but imo we should choosey about what we take on board, bearing in mind the times in which it was written!

i think culture has much play in with the Bible. it would have to. men wrote the Bible in their time, with their perception of reality. i wonder if things would be written the same if the canon was written in these modern times.

i pass no judgement on those of the ancient times. i cannot say that i agree that it was ok for the Israelites in war, to kill women and children and men but keep the virgins. i can't even feel safe in my faith to say that God told them to do so. but i can accept a history of the Jew in the Old Testament. i can accept that at one time, a people thought it was ok to do things i would never condone now, because those people are dead and gone, and our culture, our modern views of equal rights, our modern view of life in general stops me, and makes me incapable of understanding things that conflict with our train of thought.

i still believe the Bible is the most useful tool for our lives. even though i don't agree with actions done in the Old Testament, i still believe the Old Testament is filled with wisdom and truth. even tho Paul is controversial, he has a lot of good things to say (imagine good things coming from a controversial person, us liberals are controversial.) just because we can't understan every dot of the Bible that doesn't mean it isn't useful.

but i personally see there will always be a confliction with this. it all depends on the way you interpretate the scriptures.

even people who don't have any use for the scriptures, have a dogmatic disbelief. i'm finding it humerous over time now, because their complaints are based on only one way of interpretating the scriptures.

a metaphorical interpretation of the scriptures, and the fact that the culture played so much part in things written in the scriptures, diffutes any argument for literal interpretation and diffutes any disbelief in the Bible because of literal interpretation.

and what i find even more odd is how people with a disbelief in an ancient book written in a different time and culture, will stand on quotes and writings of philosophers that wrote literature in a different time, and culture (even if it was only 50-100 years ago.)

so i guess i just see it's up to the reader to choose how to interpretate the scriptures that they feel they want/have to live their lives according to. i'm done caring about who's right or wrong. all i care is that people that don't carry out evil in their "inspiration".

 

[mark53]

I don't fully understand. My understanding is that the Greek texts of the New Testament we currently have are pretty close to the original writings. There are some fairly good translations based more-or-less entirely on the best of the Greek sources we have. All (!) you've got to do is put all the crap out of your mind and start reading, isn't it?

Or are you saying you want to get back even before St Paul and the gospels? That's not so straightforward, of course. There are people trying to do this -- the Q project, and so on. Your mileage may vary [/size][/font]



I'm not sure I'd necessarily go along with that -- the NT writers do occassionally allude to the perfection of the Hebrew Bible. Not that this changes anything, of course; I might refer to myself as infallible, but it doesn't mean I am.



I don't, if that's any consolation

Who has the original writings so that we can compare those that we have now? Then there are all the thousands of variations in manuscripts that there are. I know that with the O.T. the oldest full version that we have is called the Leningrad Codex and it is about 1000 AD.
The NT writers say that parts of what we now call the OT are Scripture but not to what they themselves wrote.

​

 

[mark53]

The bible is right like always, it applies to us now and forever!!

???
What about the earth being flat, epilisy is demon possesion, mold being and evil force (Leviticus) and many others!

 

[artybloke]

I don't fully understand. My understanding is that the Greek texts of the New Testament we currently have are pretty close to the original writings.

That's not really what I mean. It's not the accuracy or otherwise of the various translations; it's the way that the text of the Bible has been interpreted and re-interpreted so many times that it's become almost impossible to get to the original meaning of the texts. For instance, people are always saying that the OT predicts Jesus; but it doesn't really, because those verses interpreted as prophesising Jesus would have had a perfectly good meaning for the context in which they were first written. The fact that the NT is part of that process of constant reinterpretation is part of the problem; but the main problem is that every little denomination and every major denomination all claim to have the one and only true interpretation, and everyone else is wrong.

With, say, the text of Shakespeare's plays, nobody would claim that their version of King Lear is definitive; but you only have to spend five minutes on the General Theology board here to see two immovable and eternally true biblical interpretations shouting across a great chasm of misunderstanding. Both think they own the right to tell everybody what the Bible really means, preferably at a loud volume and as unlovingly as possible (never trust anyone who says, "I'm telling you this in love").

That's why I find it difficult to read the Bible.