Actually, that's not in the Bible

[asta]

The Bible may be the most revered book in America, but it’s also one of the most misquoted. Politicians, motivational speakers, coaches - all types of people - quote passages that actually have no place in the Bible, religious scholars say.

 

These phantom passages include:

 

“God helps those who help themselves.â€

 

“Spare the rod, spoil the child.â€

 

And there is this often-cited paraphrase: Satan tempted Eve to eat the forbidden apple in the Garden of Eden.

 

None of those passages appear in the Bible, and one is actually anti-biblical, scholars say.

 

But people rarely challenge them because biblical ignorance is so pervasive that it even reaches groups of people who should know better, says Steve Bouma-Prediger, a religion professor at Hope College in Holland, Michigan.

 

“In my college religion classes, I sometimes quote 2 Hesitations 4:3 (‘There are no internal combustion engines in heaven’),†Bouma-Prediger says. “I wait to see if anyone realizes that there is no such book in the Bible and therefore no such verse.

 

“Only a few catch on.â€

 

Few catch on because they don’t want to - people prefer knowing biblical passages that reinforce their pre-existing beliefs, a Bible professor says.

 

“Most people who profess a deep love of the Bible have never actually read the book,†says Rabbi Rami Shapiro, who once had to persuade a student in his Bible class at Middle Tennessee State University that the saying “this dog won’t hunt†doesn’t appear in the Book of Proverbs.

 

“They have memorized parts of texts that they can string together to prove the biblical basis for whatever it is they believe in,†he says, “but they ignore the vast majority of the text."

 

Whole article

 

I found it interesting.

 

 

a

[LidiyaDawn]

I read that yesterday and almost posted it here (I got distracted by chocolate mint squares :p ) ~ it's funny how many "sayings" are so often thought to be biblical and aren't (or are distorted) …..

[Negin]

Yes, I thought the article was very interesting and almost posted it here also.

[WishboneDawn]

Satan tempted Eve to eat the forbidden apple in the Garden of Eden.

 

There is a verse in Revelation (12:9-10) that equates the serpent, sort of, with Satan but frankly, Christian snake handlers have as much scriptural support for their view of snakes as the idea that the serpent is Satan does.

 

I was a little shocked when I first sat down and read Genesis years back and discovered there wasn't any mention of it being Satan. It doesn't even come off as evil. Mischievous yes, but not evil.

 

I like this quote,

 

Few catch on because they don’t want to - people prefer knowing biblical passages that reinforce their pre-existing beliefs, a Bible professor says

.

 

I think that true of a LOT of Christians, even most, even most of us here (me included). I think people tend to practice selection bias in anything and it's a bit of a struggle to get past it.

[angela in ohio]

I used to play this game with my Sunday School students. I would read quotes and they had to decide if they were in the Bible or not. I like to think they learned a lot. :D

[asta]

I think people tend to practice selection bias in anything and it's a bit of a struggle to get past it.

 

I think that is one of the biggest difficulties in finding a history book!

 

 

a

[LittleIzumi]

"Spare the rod, spoil the child" always makes me :cursing:!

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Whole article

 

I found it interesting.

 

 

a

 

I found the concluding thought that it was partly a result of wider access and habits of Bible reading by the lowly a bit odd. I don't see how a lay person reading the Bible would be more prone to misquotation than someone who has to rely on being told what the Bible says or to rely on their recollection of stories backed up by the artwork in their church.

[asta]

I found the concluding thought that it was partly a result of wider access and habits of Bible reading by the lowly a bit odd. I don't see how a lay person reading the Bible would be more prone to misquotation than someone who has to rely on being told what the Bible says or to rely on their recollection of stories backed up by the artwork in their church.

 

Which passage in the article are you referring to?

 

 

a

[KarenNC]

I think a distinction should be made between those that are blatantly not in the scripture, such as "moderation in all things," and those that are definitely there in almost the form quoted, like "spare the rod, spoil the child." I see a difference in attributing something written by Aristotle to the Bible and a slight paraphrase of an easily recognizable verse of scripture.

 

Whether one likes the concept of disciplining with a rod or not (and that only becomes an issue if one insists on a strictly literal interpretation and no allowance for changes in cultural practices rather than the sense of it, which is to discipline in some form), this is clearly Proverbs 13:24:

24He that spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes. (Douay-Rheims, 1899)

24He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. (King James)

24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,

but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them. (New International Version)

24Whoso is sparing his rod is hating his son, And whoso is loving him hath hastened him chastisement.(Young's Literal Translation)

24. He who holds back his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him early. (The complete Jewish Bible with Rashi commentary at Chabad.org)

[Daisy]

This is nothing new. Misquotes are a fact of life.

 

Here's a long list of them from Voltaire to Shakespeare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations

 

With so many people having a Charlton Heston Ten Commandments understanding of the Bible, I don't expect this is going to improve any time soon.

[Spy Car]

I always thought that "spare the rod, spoil the child" was an endorsement of Miquon and Miquon-like activities :D

 

Bill

[Daisy]

I always thought that "spare the rod, spoil the child" was an endorsement of Miquon and Miquon-like activities :D

 

Bill

 

:lol: Hilarious.

[mommaduck]

I always thought that "spare the rod, spoil the child" was an endorsement of Miquon and Miquon-like activities :D

 

Bill

 

:lol:

[Alice]

I always thought that "spare the rod, spoil the child" was an endorsement of Miquon and Miquon-like activities :D

 

Bill

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Ellie]

I always thought that "spare the rod, spoil the child" was an endorsement of Miquon and Miquon-like activities :D

 

Bill

:lol::lol::lol:

[MorganClassicalPrep]

What I find particularly interesting is not mis-quotes, but when sections of the Bible are taken out of context.

 

The Bible is a written work, and like any other written work, the cultural environment in which it was written, and the purpose for its writing, need to be considered for a proper translation/understanding. I think it is important to know why, for example, the Old Testament forbids some foods (health reasons- the people were getting sick!), or says that the men can't shave their faces (to distinguish them from other cultures).

Very interesting stuff.

[Princess Peach]

One of my friends posted this on facebook and this particular friend is known to have differing views from me on religion (which we usually refrain from discussing). She posted the article with the word "interesting...". I read the article twice and debated what to put as a comment, then decided I wasn't going to touch it with a ten foot pole. :001_smile:

 

I am curious, though, what the slant is of the author; what is his point exactly? Is he being sarcastic? I would tend to agree with him, but then my friend is confusing me.

[Gailmegan]

I always thought that "spare the rod, spoil the child" was an endorsement of Miquon and Miquon-like activities :D

 

Bill

 

If only more people thought of it this way. ;)

[MamaSheep]

I always thought that "spare the rod, spoil the child" was an endorsement of Miquon and Miquon-like activities :D

 

Bill

 

I like that...lol.

 

It always makes me think of "...thy rod and thy staff they comfort me," from the 23rd Psalm--if we're going to use a "rod", let's at least make sure we understand its function thoroughly.

[Gailmegan]

What I find particularly interesting is not mis-quotes, but when sections of the Bible are taken out of context.

 

The Bible is a written work, and like any other written work, the cultural environment in which it was written, and the purpose for its writing, need to be considered for a proper translation/understanding. I think it is important to know why, for example, the Old Testament forbids some foods (health reasons- the people were getting sick!), or says that the men can't shave their faces (to distinguish them from other cultures).

Very interesting stuff.

 

Right! And not just the cultural and literary context but the fact that these diverse genres create one cohesive unit that fits together. The NT helps interpret the OT and it must be viewed as a whole. I had one seminary prof who said (paraphrase) We act like the Bible is a bag of marbles and we pick passages out one at a time and try to figure them out. but really they should be seen like pearls on a necklace - you need to see the whole picture in order to understand each pearl in context.

 

And back to the original quoted article, I understand society in general not knowing Scripture (since we are in a post-Christian culture now) - although general literary education should provide for reading the Bible at least as an important work - but it truly is sad that many who claim a Christian upbringing are not educated on the Scriptures.

[MorganClassicalPrep]

Right! And not just the cultural and literary context but the fact that these diverse genres create one cohesive unit that fits together. The NT helps interpret the OT and it must be viewed as a whole. I had one seminary prof who said (paraphrase) We act like the Bible is a bag of marbles and we pick passages out one at a time and try to figure them out. but really they should be seen like pearls on a necklace - you need to see the whole picture in order to understand each pearl in context.

 

And back to the original quoted article, I understand society in general not knowing Scripture (since we are in a post-Christian culture now) - although general literary education should provide for reading the Bible at least as an important work - but it truly is sad that many who claim a Christian upbringing are not educated on the Scriptures.

 

Oh, I like that comparison! (Pearls on a necklace) I've never heard it phrased like that.

 

I agree that all who are claiming to be Christians (especially those who are very "out" with it) should be educated on the Scriptures. I would never try to back up an argument with a source unless I had read the complete source and understood it. In the same vein, I would never try to justify the way I live my life with Biblical passages unless I completely understood the meaning of the passage.

 

As a teen/young adult, I regularly came across Christians who had less understanding of the Bible (and had certainly read less of it) than I. And I was raised in a non-religious home, and wasn't baptized until I was 22.

[usetoschool]

Well, there is this in Revelation - 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.

 

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

 

and this in Corinthians - But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

 

 

And, I read a few of his other articles, mostly about religion but also about politics and race. It is a little hard to put a finger on his perspective although googling his name brought up some strong feelings about him. Seems like a harmless enough (if not entirely accurate) informational piece written from a bible as literature perspective. It is the 400th anniversary of the King James version so I imagine there will be many articles like this over the year.

Edited June 7, 2011 by jcooperetc

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Which passage in the article are you referring to?

 

 

a

 

Last couple of paragraphs of the article:

 

Others blame the spread of phantom biblical verses on Martin Luther, the German monk who ignited the Protestant Reformation, the massive “protest†against the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church that led to the formation of Protestant church denominations.

 

“It is a great Protestant tradition for anyone - milkmaid, cobbler, or innkeeper - to be able to pick up the Bible and read for herself. No need for a highly trained scholar or cleric to walk a lay person through the text,†says Craig Hazen, director of the Christian Apologetics program at Biola University in Southern California.

 

But often the milkmaid, the cobbler - and the NFL coach - start creating biblical passages without the guidance of biblical experts, he says.

 

“You can see this manifest today in living room Bible studies across North America where lovely Christian people, with no training whatsoever, drink decaf, eat brownies and ask each other, ‘What does this text mean to you?’’’ Hazen says.

 

“Not only do they get the interpretation wrong, but very often end up quoting verses that really aren’t there.â€

 

 

My problem with the above is that while you may be better equipped to read original languages, follow allusions to other Biblical passages or to understand the historical context with some theological study, I don't think that you have to have a special qualification to quote what is actually in the Bible. I sense a bit of the professional academic's contempt for the amateur.

 

I'm not defending people who misquote the Bible. Or who think they are quoting the Bible, when they are quoting a pithy saying or folk proverb. But I am defending the non-credentialed lover of the Bible who is quite able to sit down and tell you what it does and does not say. Who has often read it several times, in several translations. (Though I will confess a distrust of Bible studies that serve decaf. Never understood the point, really.)

[fairfarmhand]

What I find particularly interesting is not mis-quotes, but when sections of the Bible are taken out of context.

 

The Bible is a written work, and like any other written work, the cultural environment in which it was written, and the purpose for its writing, need to be considered for a proper translation/understanding. I think it is important to know why, for example, the Old Testament forbids some foods (health reasons- the people were getting sick!), or says that the men can't shave their faces (to distinguish them from other cultures).

Very interesting stuff.

 

:iagree:

Right! And not just the cultural and literary context but the fact that these diverse genres create one cohesive unit that fits together. The NT helps interpret the OT and it must be viewed as a whole. I had one seminary prof who said (paraphrase) We act like the Bible is a bag of marbles and we pick passages out one at a time and try to figure them out. but really they should be seen like pearls on a necklace - you need to see the whole picture in order to understand each pearl in context.

 

And back to the original quoted article, I understand society in general not knowing Scripture (since we are in a post-Christian culture now) - although general literary education should provide for reading the Bible at least as an important work - but it truly is sad that many who claim a Christian upbringing are not educated on the Scriptures.

 

 

this is a great analogy,

 

No I don't think that one has to be an educated scholar to understand the Bible, but I do think that one must read it and read all of it to understand some parts of it.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

One of the reasons I was intitally drawn to Classical Homeschooling is because classical education was introduced to me by Douglas Wilson, whom I'd first encountered in the context of advocating the idea that Christians most certainly should be reading their Bibles, diligently and frequently.

I know that Wilson isn't everyone's cuppa. But I really liked his perspective on Bible literacy for Christians. (Of course I need to put it into a lot more practice.)

[Spy Car]

Am I alone in wishing (in the context of a thread that touches on biblically sanctioned child beating) that we could change "Pearls on a Neckless" to "Beads on a Neckless?"

 

Every time I see "Pearls" my eyes start to twitch ;)

 

Bill

Edited June 6, 2011 by Spy Car

[Gailmegan]

Am I alone in wishing (in the context of a thread that touches on biblically sanctioned child beating) that we could change "Pearls on a Neckless" to "Beads on a Neckless?"

 

Every time I see "Pearls" my eyes start to twitch ;)

 

Bill

 

Never even occurred to me. I have to clarify that, thankfully, when i was in seminary and heard my professor's analogy, I had no idea that Michael and Debi even existed let alone espoused such anti-biblical garbage or had a following. :tongue_smilie:

 

"Beads" loses some of the elegance and sense of value. How about "gems"?

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Am I alone in wishing (in the context of a thread that touches on biblically sanctioned child beating) that we could change "Pearls on a Neckless" to "Beads on a Neckless?"

 

Every time I see "Pearls" my eyes start to twitch ;)

 

Bill

 

I refuse to lose the ability to reference an entire class of jewelry because of the writings of one family.

[Spy Car]

Never even occurred to me. I have to clarify that, thankfully, when i was in seminary and heard my professor's analogy, I had no idea that Michael and Debi even existed let alone espoused such anti-biblical garbage or had a following. :tongue_smilie:

 

"Beads" loses some of the elegance and sense of value. How about "gems"?

 

Or "Jewels." Anything but uh...:D

 

Although I would be will to cast Pearls before swine :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

[LauraGB]

My favorite part was the pictures of the church signs on the right side of article. :D

 

"Do Not Give Up, Moses Was Once a Basket Case"

"Come Hear Our Pastor, He's Not Very Good, But He's Short"

"Prayer Drop Box, Guaranteed Results"

"No, It Is Not Hotter than Hell"

 

:smilielol5: That's great stuff!

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Nor will I change the parable "The Pearl of Great Price" to "The Oyster Produced Nacre Encrusted Sand Grain of Great Price".

[Spy Car]

I refuse to lose the ability to reference an entire class of jewelry because of the writings of one family.

 

My wife (who knows nothing about these people) does find it "curious" that I began referring to her neckless as a "string of calcareous concretions" :D

 

Bill

[Joanne]

I think a distinction should be made between those that are blatantly not in the scripture, such as "moderation in all things," and those that are definitely there in almost the form quoted, like "spare the rod, spoil the child." I see a difference in attributing something written by Aristotle to the Bible and a slight paraphrase of an easily recognizable verse of scripture.

 

Whether one likes the concept of disciplining with a rod or not (and that only becomes an issue if one insists on a strictly literal interpretation and no allowance for changes in cultural practices rather than the sense of it, which is to discipline in some form), this is clearly Proverbs 13:24:

24He that spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes. (Douay-Rheims, 1899)

24He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. (King James)

24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,

but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them. (New International Version)

24Whoso is sparing his rod is hating his son, And whoso is loving him hath hastened him chastisement.(Young's Literal Translation)

24. He who holds back his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him early. (The complete Jewish Bible with Rashi commentary at Chabad.org)

 

*shrug*

 

Spare the rod, spoil the child is not in the above. The irony is that the phrase is from a poet (Samuel Butler) who wrote scathing poems that mocked the Puritans, including their parenting.

[asta]

Am I alone in wishing (in the context of a thread that touches on biblically sanctioned child beating) that we could change "Pearls on a Neckless" to "Beads on a Neckless?"

 

Every time I see "Pearls" my eyes start to twitch ;)

 

Bill

 

She wore a pearl necklace...

 

(oh, oops, wrong audience)

 

 

a

[WishboneDawn]

Or "Jewels." Anything but uh...:D

 

Although I would be will to cast Pearls before swine :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

You're on a roll in this thread!

[Ellesmere]

[

[LittleIzumi]

I like that...lol.

 

It always makes me think of "...thy rod and thy staff they comfort me," from the 23rd Psalm--if we're going to use a "rod", let's at least make sure we understand its function thoroughly.

 

:iagree: Like a shepherd's staff to guide, not a giant stick to beat people.

 

Or a C-rod, apparently :p

[JVA]

Thank you for posting this article...I hadn't seen it before. It is very timely as I'm preparing to teach a class for our Womens Ministry at church on 'How To Study The Bible'.

 

Classical education has reinforced and drilled home to me over the years to necessity of the methodical and careful handling of God's Word. This is why I'm a big proponent of the Inductive Method which is reading the actual text to:

1) see what it says- Observation

2) understand what it means - Interpretation

3) ascertain how do I live it out? -Application

 

This is a methodical manner in which to do it, without bias or prejudice and helps us to get to the meaning of the authors' intent. Precept Ministries teaches how to study the Bible on your own and search for the meaning. I highly recommend them.

[*********]

Last couple of paragraphs of the article:

 

“You can see this manifest today in living room Bible studies across North America where lovely Christian people, with no training whatsoever, drink decaf, eat brownies and ask each other, ‘What does this text mean to you?’’’ Hazen says.

 

“Not only do they get the interpretation wrong, but very often end up quoting verses that really aren’t there.â€

 

 

My problem with the above is that while you may be better equipped to read original languages, follow allusions to other Biblical passages or to understand the historical context with some theological study, I don't think that you have to have a special qualification to quote what is actually in the Bible. I sense a bit of the professional academic's contempt for the amateur.

 

I'm not defending people who misquote the Bible. Or who think they are quoting the Bible, when they are quoting a pithy saying or folk proverb. But I am defending the non-credentialed lover of the Bible who is quite able to sit down and tell you what it does and does not say. Who has often read it several times, in several translations. (Though I will confess a distrust of Bible studies that serve decaf. Never understood the point, really.)

 

:iagree:

 

And may I just add, what the author wrote in the first quoted paragraph is pretty much what most housechurch meetings I've been to look like. And I've learned more about the Lord from the past five years of housechurch meetings I've attended than from the previous 28 years of institutional American Christian traditional church attendence I had.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

:lol:

 

 

 

I don't totally disagree. I never heard of Craig Hazen until I read the article, so I can't begin to guess if he has contempt for the amateur.

 

But I've had a different experience and it by no means is representative of all non-denominational ones. I'm no expert but after years at particular churches where these living room studies are supposedly a great way to study Scripture, I'm wary of people using the Bible to prove anything they want. I've had lovely Christian people use the Bible both in their living room and from the pulpit to vehemently prove why liquor's place is in he**, Harry Potter is evil, kids don't belong in worship services, Catholics are unsaved, the Mormons are in a cult, and don't get me started on the people-named-after-strings-of-calcareous-concretions, Bill! :D

 

We've heard it from people with doctorate degrees and no training whatsoever aside from reading a few translations regularly. Anyway, I did use Hazen's quote as a launching pad to discuss with my friend why we were not going to be back to that circle of churches. We have seen what the quote described and we are not intellectual snobs. Sure, I can accurately quote Scripture. And the people I referenced would never misquote the Scripture as the article mentions. But they most certainly do accurately quote out of context.

 

I think that it is human nature to use whatever system of authority you revere to justify what you want to do. It is probably possible to find, for example, Constitutional justifications for quite a number of opposing viewpoints.

 

One of my favorite moments at a Christian family conference was hearing a speaker who talked about how proud he was when he asked his kids what the Bible said about something and they told him that, "It wasn't in the text." Meaning that it was a question that could be specifically answered with a Bible verse. Not to say that you can't apply biblical principles to situations that didn't exist in Bible times. But that if it doesn't say how many magi there are, it doesn't say. Or that you just aren't going to know what the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was. (I think that it's a failing with at least modern westerners to be very uncomfortable with having to say that something is unanswerable or a mystery lost to the ages. I think we need to get over our desire to know things in detailed certainty.)

 

Of course, that is a ways away from my original dissatisfaction with the article, which suggested that a wider access to the Bible resulted in an inacurate familiarity with its contents. That just seems silly to me.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Sebastian (a lady)

[FO4UR]

I've known pastors who make an art out of taking verses out of context, rearranging them to fit their own message, and charismatically leading groups of people astray. It is more common than not. It is hard work (and takes an education) to AVOID doing this.

 

I could make it look like the Bible says anything I want it to say, but it doesn't mean that's what the Bible really says.

 

 

 

 

I always thought that "spare the rod, spoil the child" was an endorsement of Miquon and Miquon-like activities :D

 

Bill

 

:iagree: Sounds like justification for another math purchase to me.:D

 

 

Am I alone in wishing (in the context of a thread that touches on biblically sanctioned child beating) that we could change "Pearls on a Neckless" to "Beads on a Neckless?"

 

Every time I see "Pearls" my eyes start to twitch ;)

 

Bill

 

I think the word "pearl" should be redeemed.;)

[AmericanMom]

... "Pearls on a Neckless" to "Beads on a Neckless?"

 

Every time I see "Pearls" my eyes start to twitch ;)

 

Bill

 

I think the word "pearl" should be redeemed.;)

 

I think the word neckLACE should be redeemed. :D

If you were neckLESS, how could you wear a neckLACE?

Sorry, my teacher eyes are twitching...:lol:

[Punks in Ontario]

This is part of why I keep telling my guys that they need to know their Bible extremely well so that they will be able to spot error quickly. It is useful for catching out of context verses, twistings of Biblical truth, and of course outright lies. With multiple versions used, it's helpful to know the original languages, but alas, they're just not interested.

[herbalgirl]

I always thought that "spare the rod, spoil the child" was an endorsement of Miquon and Miquon-like activities :D

 

Bill

 

:smilielol5: I am going to tell my step MIL this when she says (over again) that the Bible states we MUST use an implement on our child.

[Spy Car]

I think the word neckLACE should be redeemed. :D

If you were neckLESS, how could you wear a neckLACE?

Sorry, my teacher eyes are twitching...:lol:

 

Oh dear, I've confused neck-less Pearls with Pearl necklaces. Mea Culpa :D

 

Bill

[KarenNC]

There is the argument that Christianity basically always takes the Old Testament (to use the term used by Christians) out of context in reference to itself as they don't include the Oral Torah, which Jews consider equal to the Written Torah in importance. One without the other is incomplete, so either cannot be fully understood on their own. Also, from what I understand of the Jewish perspective, any interpretation that is based on the premise that the Old Testament can only be read in the context of the New Testament is inherently flawed.

 

There is also the issue of the books of the Apocrypha, which for Catholics--Orthodox as well?--are no different than any other part of the Old Testament.

 

Contextual issues go beyond just what is written in the person's preferred translation of whatever scripture.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Interestingly, the verse "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it" is not in the Septuagint, the "Bible" of Jesus time, and the version the apostles cited in their writings.

 

Really? Were only some Proverbs included in the Septuagint?

 

Hmm, I see that it seems to go from v 5 to v 7. Can anyone comment on this?

Edited June 6, 2011 by Sebastian (a lady)

[WishboneDawn]

What I find particularly interesting is not mis-quotes, but when sections of the Bible are taken out of context.

 

The Bible is a written work, and like any other written work, the cultural environment in which it was written, and the purpose for its writing, need to be considered for a proper translation/understanding. I think it is important to know why, for example, the Old Testament forbids some foods (health reasons- the people were getting sick!), or says that the men can't shave their faces (to distinguish them from other cultures).

Very interesting stuff.

 

Have to say, I'm with Eliana on this. Those aren't the reasons why, they're modern theories and ideas about why and they aren't the only ones. I tend to think there's some truth to them but I also think the culture of the Ancient Hebrews was more complicated and many of the things mandated/forbidden in the Hebrew Scriptures likely had more then just one reason behind them.

[Mosaicmind]

I think we need to be careful stating that being a part of a church is wrong or leading someone astray. There are many very good churches that preach the Bible as it is written. Man is fallible and a pastor's interpretation of the Bible is possibly flawed at times. We cannot say that housechurches are the best and institutionalized churches in America should all be banned.