The Misunderstood and Mistranslated Bible

[albeto.]

Sure. I mean, if that's the way you want to see it, I don't know that's it's worthwhile for me to continue.

I don't think it's necessary either. Your particular understanding of the texts will be shared by some, but not by others. I don't agree with earlier assessments in this thread that the author is making fun of Christianity, rather that he's doing the same thing you are - appealing to his audience to learn more about the texts in order to understand the Real Message better. So you and he do the same thing all Christians do, and yet you all come up with different Real Messages. It's why your assurances of knowing the Right Real Message is no more persuasive than his assurances of knowing the Right Real Message. TranquilMind, Erin, DesertBlossom, Milovany and others assure us they know the Right Real Message, but they don't all agree either.

 

I think if someone wants to make the point that the Bible is full of contradictions, then the burden of proof is on that person to prove where those contradictions lie.

Here are a few places to start. The last one is interactive.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

http://bibviz.com/

 

The solution to the creation discrepancy for you is to say one is written to support the other, in more detail. Others will say it was meant to be read poetically. If we were to list all the contradictions in the bible, and all the possible solutions that are used to explain those contradictions, we would still not find the Right Real Message because everyone uses the same methodology and yet comes away with different conclusions. And yet you will all say the other is mistaken, doing the method wrong. The ironic thing is, you are all doing the exact same thing, the exact same way.

 

I'm not out to convince you that it's true, just that no one should definitively say it's full of errors based on evidence like that.

How about saying it's full of contradictions, based on contradictions found in the bible itself. There are also contradictions based on historical evidence, but if one has faith the bible is right, then historical evidence that does not contribute to the Right Real Message is systematically dismissed.

 

He can say, I choose to read these verses as contradictory instead of complementary...recognizing he has a bias against the Bible and that is coloring his lens...and I can say that I choose to read them as complementary rather than as contradictions, recognizing I am a "Bible-believer"...

I find his argumentation rather patronizing, as I said upthread, but until now I didn't see the patronizing nature of your argument. This last sentence illustrates it though. According to his argument, people who don't agree with him are just unreasonable fundamentalists hell-bent on justifying their bigotry and hate. According to your argument, people who don't agree with you don't really believe the bible to be true, they don't really have faith/trust God/love [the real] Jesus. I understand why Christians who don't maintain a conventional interpretation of the bible might consider that a slap in the face. It's every bit as patronizing and condescending as his argument. I'm sure neither of you mean to be mean, and yet you both support arguments that are elitist and arrogant by nature - those who don't agree don't "count," because they don't get it. Alrighty then. ;)

 

It may frustrate you that Bible-believing Christians have a convenient answer for every "error" :)...but we do have an answer. So....then it's up to you to take your pick. Either believe the Bible, or don't. :)

Well, I don't, and for many reasons. Ultimately, watching these discussions between Christians, the discussions about what the bible really means to say, is rather like watching people discuss astrology and homeopathy and other superstitious and pseudo-scientific arguments. There exists no evidence to support such ideas, but they're deeply held and revered as being reliable. The bible is trusted to help guide people with regard to knowledge of the natural world as well as how to interact with others, but it's no more reliable than astrology or homeopathy. That's what I find dangerous. His rationalization is no more comforting than yours. Well, a little more comforting as his rationalization incorporates more objective evidence, but ultimately you both rely on unreliable sources for information and understanding - faith. That's problematic, as we can see in history and around the world.

 

Now, in answer to your statements here...

I'll let someone else explain how your rationalization doesn't support the Right Real Message. It makes no difference to me how you rationalize the bible, it makes a difference to me whether or not you rely on it for any kind of accuracy. The author does, just as you do. Interestingly, you both come to diametrically opposing views while utilizing the exact same method. Seems to me, the method should be scrutinized a bit more. It hasn't been found to be all that reliable in all this time, and yet people keep using it.

[TranquilMind]

Eh, one man's opinion.  Not worth getting too worked up about it.  There have always been people who mock Christianity, the Bible, and Christians.  I find this no different.

 

I read in the comments that there was a verbal rebuttal and there will be a written one later this week.

Yeah, gets really yawn-worthy. 

[Momof3]

I don't think it's necessary either. Your particular understanding of the texts will be shared by some, but not by others. I don't agree with earlier assessments in this thread that the author is making fun of Christianity, rather that he's doing the same thing you are - appealing to his audience to learn more about the texts in order to understand the Real Message better. So you and he do the same thing all Christians do, and yet you all come up with different Real Messages. It's why your assurances of knowing the Right Real Message is no more persuasive than his assurances of knowing the Right Real Message. TranquilMind, Erin, DesertBlossom, Milovany and others assure us they know the Right Real Message, but they don't all agree either.

 

It's been one. Here are a few places to start. The last one is interactive.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

http://bibviz.com/

 

The solution to the creation discrepancy for you is to say one is written to support the other, in more detail. Others will say it was meant to be read poetically. If we were to list all the contradictions in the bible, and all the possible solutions that are used to explain those contradictions, we would still not find the Right Real Message because everyone uses the same methodology and yet comes away with different conclusions. And yet you will all say the other is mistaken, doing the method wrong. The ironic thing is, you are all doing the exact same thing, the exact same way.

 

How about saying it's full of contradictions, based on contradictions found in the bible itself. There are also contradictions based on historical evidence, but if one has faith the bible is right, then historical evidence that does not contribute to the Right Real Message is systematically dismissed.

 

I find his argumentation rather patronizing, as I said upthread, but until now I didn't see the patronizing nature of your argument. This last sentence illustrates it though. According to his argument, people who don't agree with him are just unreasonable fundamentalists hell-bent on justifying their bigotry and hate. According to your argument, people who don't agree with you don't really believe the bible to be true, they don't really have faith/trust God/love [the real] Jesus. I understand why Christians who don't maintain a conventional interpretation of the bible might consider that a slap in the face. It's every bit as patronizing and condescending as his argument. I'm sure neither of you mean to be mean, and yet you both support arguments that are elitist and arrogant by nature - those who don't agree don't "count," because they don't get it. Alrighty then. ;)

 

I never said that. I was just trying to point out that we're both biased - the Newsweek author is biased against the Bible (bc he doesn't believe it to be true) and I'm biased for the Bible (bc I do believe it to be true). I don't think I said anything about people who do or don't agree with me? I don't believe people who disagree with me "don't count"...

 

I do believe truth is objective...and some people are right and others are wrong...about a lot of things. That's not supposed to be an insult. I certainly don't believe that I am right about everything. :) I do believe the Bible is truth, and I try to study and learn from it as best I can.

 

Anyway. I think we agree about the biases. And we disagree about whether the Bible is true/reliable/etc. Good thing there's room for differing views on the Hive. :)

 

I'm glad the article pointed people to read the Bible for themselves, and (like I said before) I hope more do. 

Well, I don't, and for many reasons. Ultimately, watching these discussions between Christians, the discussions about what the bible really means to say, is rather like watching people discuss astrology and homeopathy and other superstitious and pseudo-scientific arguments. There exists no evidence to support such ideas, but they're deeply held and revered as being reliable. The bible is trusted to help guide people with regard to knowledge of the natural world as well as how to interact with others, but it's no more reliable than astrology or homeopathy. That's what I find dangerous. His rationalization is no more comforting than yours. Well, a little more comforting as his rationalization incorporates more objective evidence, but ultimately you both rely on unreliable sources for information and understanding - faith. That's problematic, as we can see in history and around the world.

 

I'll let someone else explain how your rationalization doesn't support the Right Real Message. It makes no difference to me how you rationalize the bible, it makes a difference to me whether or not you rely on it for any kind of accuracy. The author does, just as you do. Interestingly, you both come to diametrically opposing views while utilizing the exact same method. Seems to me, the method should be scrutinized a bit more. It hasn't been found to be all that reliable in all this time, and yet people keep using it.

 

[Robin M]

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html

 

Fascinating article.

 

Thank you for sharing this article.  It is indeed fascinating.  There are so many different viewpoints out in the world, so many different translations of the bible that it is difficult sometimes to know which is the right version of the stories told.  I had the benefit of my father who is a lifelong catholic and studied the bible extensively and liked to get into theological discussions not only with our parish priests but the family as well.  I appreciate this comment:

 

This examination is not an attack on the Bible or Christianity. Instead, Christians seeking greater understanding of their religion should view it as an attempt to save the Bible from the ignorance, hatred and bias that has been heaped upon it. If Christians truly want to treat the New Testament as the foundation of the religion, they have to know it. Too many of them seem to read John Grisham novels with greater care than they apply to the book they consider to be the most important document in the world.

 

 

Yes, there are some things he may have gotten wrong, but he also made some good points.  There are many who quote the bible out of context to make a point but are unable to back it up beyond that. 

 

I thought I had read the whole thing many years back when my sisters attempted to "save me" from "being a catholic to being a real born again christian" (their words)   This year proved me wrong as I discovered I never read the whole of the old testament, but just the new.  I did the whole one year chronological bible read and discovered so many different things I didn't know.   Plus it was interesting a few years back to read the Hebrew bible and see the differences. 

 

As the number of books in the bible differ depending on whether it is Catholic, protestant or Hebrew, there are going to be some stories that differ or contradict.  

 

The article was fascinating in that it leads to discussion and I think as we have all learned over the years, we all aren't going to agree on everything and there are plenty of things that we all need to learn.    Just don't lose the point which is to read the bible and educate yourself.  What one person takes away will be entirely different from the other depending on what it is God wants one to learn...if one is listening.

[albeto.]

I never said that. I was just trying to point out that we're both biased - the Newsweek author is biased against the Bible (bc he doesn't believe it to be true) and I'm biased for the Bible (bc I do believe it to be true). I don't think I said anything about people who do or don't agree with me? I don't believe people who disagree with me "don't count"...

This is precisely why your argument is condescending. I don't mean you personally, but the argument you are supporting now, one that is supported by many people. The only connection between a liberal interpretation of the bible and "doesn't believe in it" is the connection you are making. The author has said no such thing, and his arguments support no such thing. I'd argue the author is proposing the exact opposite - he does believe in the bible, and furthermore, he believes in the bible the Right Way, whereas you believe in it the Wrong way. I find your argument a patronizing one because you're dismissing his interpretation as being founded in unbelief. That's what I mean by his interpretation (and extension those who agree with him) as not counting. You didn't say the words, but your argument does make this assumption, quite boldly, even if you don't personally do so yourself. In other words, you may not see it, but I guarantee others do.

 

I do believe truth is objective...and some people are right and others are wrong...about a lot of things. That's not supposed to be an insult. I certainly don't believe that I am right about everything. :) I do believe the Bible is truth, and I try to study and learn from it as best I can.

You believe this, I understand. There is no objective reason to believe this claim, however, and so I do not agree with it.

 

Anyway. I think we agree about the biases. And we disagree about whether the Bible is true/reliable/etc. Good thing there's room for differing views on the Hive. :)

I get the impression you don't understand my point about the biases. My point is your bias is the same as his, just in different directions. He also believes the bible is true/reliable/etc, but in a different context than you do, and he takes measure to explain exactly why, and how. You seem to think his argument is biased and wrong, and yours is unbiased and objectively true.

 

I'm glad the article pointed people to read the Bible for themselves, and (like I said before) I hope more do.

Indeed.

[Χά�ων]

The further into the bible we get, the less my son believes and the more he is dismayed and horrified by it. This probably offends many but he has grown up without being told what to believe or what not to believe. I stand by my statement if that level of violence and sex people were in another book, people would be in an uproar over it.

[Momof3]

This is precisely why your argument is condescending. I don't mean you personally, but the argument you are supporting now, one that is supported by many people. The only connection between a liberal interpretation of the bible and "doesn't believe in it" is the connection you are making. The author has said no such thing, and his arguments support no such thing. I'd argue the author is proposing the exact opposite - he does believe in the bible, and furthermore, he believes in the bible the Right Way, whereas you believe in it the Wrong way. I find your argument a patronizing one because you're dismissing his interpretation as being founded in unbelief. That's what I mean by his interpretation (and extension those who agree with him) as not counting. You didn't say the words, but your argument does make this assumption, quite boldly, even if you don't personally do so yourself. In other words, you may not see it, but I guarantee others do.

 

Okay, I'll admit I do make a connection between "the Bible is full of contradictions" and "doesn't believe it to be true." But why is that inaccurate? 

 

The article said that the Bible is not inspired, is a human book, is full of contradiction/error, is historically unreliable, etc. I guess I equated that with "not believing the Bible is true." But (I am totally being genuine here, please don't read any sarcasm into my words :)) maybe I'm missing something. How can the Bible be true if it's not historically reliable, it's not divinely inspired, it's written by sinful/imperfect human beings, it's full of contradiction & error? I guess I didn't know anyone actually made that claim. Maybe I'm more sheltered than I thought. :) Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you're saying again...

 

I'm still not sure what you mean by "not counting." Not true/accurate? Or that I think I'm superior (the idea behind "condescending")? I don't believe his interpretation is accurate...I certainly don't "superior" to this author at all. I do apologize if I somehow communicated that idea. I don't equate being right or wrong to be superior or inferior. It's just right or wrong. Accurate or inaccurate. I'm sure a lot of things I think to be true are wrong. I really do learn something new every day. :) That doesn't give me an inferiority complex - anymore than believing myself to be accurately interpreting the Bible makes me feel "superior" to anyone I don't believe is interpreting accurately...

 

I'm genuinely curious what you mean by the Right Way to believe in the Bible...and how you conclude that one way to believe is Right and another way to believe is Wrong? 

 

You believe this, I understand. There is no objective reason to believe this claim, however, and so I do not agree with it.

 

I get the impression you don't understand my point about the biases. My point is your bias is the same as his, just in different directions. He also believes the bible is true/reliable/etc, but in a different context than you do, and he takes measure to explain exactly why, and how. You seem to think his argument is biased and wrong, and yours is unbiased and objectively true.

 

I think we're talking over each other here... You did say that. And I was agreeing with you. :) I don't believe my argument is unbiased. I am biased, and fully willing to admit that.

 

Can we still be friends? :)

Indeed.

 

[albeto.]

Okay, I'll admit I do make a connection between "the Bible is full of contradictions" and "doesn't believe it to be true." But why is that inaccurate? 

 

I think the question is, "Why is your connection accurate? What evidence do you have to support this opinion?"

 

The article said that the Bible is not inspired, is a human book, is full of contradiction/error, is historically unreliable, etc. I guess I equated that with "not believing the Bible is true." But (I am totally being genuine here, please don't read any sarcasm into my words :)) maybe I'm missing something. How can the Bible be true if it's not historically reliable, it's not divinely inspired, it's written by sinful/imperfect human beings, it's full of contradiction & error? I guess I didn't know anyone actually made that claim. Maybe I'm more sheltered than I thought. :) Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you're saying again...

 

"It's a human book" might mean it's a collection of texts, letters, poetry, law, etc, and these texts were written by people who did their best to preserve the faith of the community, the faith of a god whose nature is not easily identifiable, but is nevertheless a part of the collective identity of the people. Saying bats are birds and plants were made before the sun ever existed is factually wrong, but understandable for a writer who didn't have the resources or knowledge of the natural world we have today. That doesn't mean "God didn't know bats aren't birds," but rather, inaccurate information doesn't change the overall (Right) message of the bible.

 

I'm still not sure what you mean by "not counting." Not true/accurate? Or that I think I'm superior (the idea behind "condescending")? I don't believe his interpretation is accurate...I certainly don't "superior" to this author at all. I do apologize if I somehow communicated that idea. I don't equate being right or wrong to be superior or inferior. It's just right or wrong. Accurate or inaccurate. I'm sure a lot of things I think to be true are wrong. I really do learn something new every day. :) That doesn't give me an inferiority complex - anymore than believing myself to be accurately interpreting the Bible makes me feel "superior" to anyone I don't believe is interpreting accurately...

 

I don't think you are presenting yourself as a superior person, or that those who don't agree with you are inferior. Rather, I think you are supporting an argument that you've learned, and accept as accurate: a liberal interpretation of the bible starts from a foundation of unbelief, a lack of trust, and ultimately, a lack of respect for it.

 

I'm genuinely curious what you mean by the Right Way to believe in the Bible...and how you conclude that one way to believe is Right and another way to believe is Wrong?

 

You and the author have diametrically opposing conclusions about the real function of the bible. Yours is (please correct me if I'm wrong), the bible is the inerrant word of God, and functions to reveal the identity and nature of Jesus, through whom one can have eternal life if they have true faith. His is (as I understand it), the bible is a collection of works from the ancient Israelites, and while their knowledge wasn't accurate, it doesn't change the general point that there is a god who is, in essence a loving being, and can reveal moral and philosophical truth to those who know how to listen. If the first is true, then the second cannot be, and vice versa.

 

I'm not saying he is right and you are wrong, or that you are right and he is wrong, but I'm saying that you can't both be right. I'm also saying I find it interesting that the way in which you determine you are right is the exact same way he determines he is right. And yet here you are, with two directly opposite conclusions.

 

I think we're talking over each other here... You did say that. And I was agreeing with you. :) I don't believe my argument is unbiased. I am biased, and fully willing to admit that.

 

Oh, okay. My mistake. :)

 

Can we still be friends? :)

 

Let's.  ^_^

[Guest]

The further into the bible we get, the less my son believes and the more he is dismayed and horrified by it. This probably offends many but he has grown up without being told what to believe or what not to believe. I stand by my statement if that level of violence and sex people were in another book, people would be in an uproar over it.

And there we go... she wants us all to know how horrible she thinks the Bible is. Those of us who disagree are lunatics. Fanatics. Naive.

 

These conversations are so see-through and have gotten really old.

[Jasperstone]

The further into the bible we get, the less my son believes and the more he is dismayed and horrified by it. This probably offends many but he has grown up without being told what to believe or what not to believe. I stand by my statement if that level of violence and sex people were in another book, people would be in an uproar over it.

 

And, I'm sure it's been presented in it's right context too.....judging from your avatar, and signature. Sigh.....

 

 

You might want to skip *History* all together then, as a lot of it is filled with violence, and depraved behaviors etc...

 

The Bible is just telling it how it was then, and how it is now, and what it will be in the future.

[TravelingChris]

Well I have no idea of exactly what Mom of 3 believes about the Bible but I don't recall her saying that she believes it is inerrant (or at least in the way you mean to use it).  I will say what I believe- the Bible is inerrant only when referring to matters of faith but it was not written as a science book or anatomy text or anything other that a book that God wanted to have us use to follow him and know how we should behave and what we should believe.  So I am not bothered if those verses about handling serpents aren't in the oldest versions and I am not going to waste my time over which day the dolphins were created-  I don't even believe in a 6 -24 hour day creation.  "

 

But I do agree with the majority of the posters that the article seemed mocking of Christianity and the author in my mind came across as a non believer of Christianity.

 

Oh and I do read the Bible and have read the Bible and know that there are a lot of ways to interpret the scriptures and well meaning people often come to different conclusions.  I attended a class on Peace, War and the Bible.  We could find verses that implied we should be pacifists and versus that implied we should not be pacifists when it comes to defending innocents.  But even when we talk about some wars, some see the war as justified because we are defending the innocents and others think that we have other ulterior motives so even if innocents may be defended in some circumstances, the action as a whole is unjust.  There are legitimate reasons why we have at least some of our denominational divisions.  Differing views on just war and on pacifism are just one of these distinctions.  But I still see Mennonites and Quakers as Christians and I would daresay that they probably see me as one too.

[Χά�ων]

And there we go... she wants us all to know how horrible she thinks the Bible is. Those of us who disagree are lunatics. Fanatics. Naive.

 

These conversations are so see-through and have gotten really old.

Interesting how you twisted my words there. Question, do you disagree that the bible is not a violent book? Do you disagree on the amount of sex in the bible? Are you aware of or do you ignore the many euphemisms for sex found in the bible?

[Χά�ων]

And, I'm sure it's been presented in it's right context too.....judging from your avatar, and signature. Sigh

Wow. So picking up a bible and reading it is not the correct way to read it? Like all things we read, I stop on occasions and ask him "what do you think of that?" I explain euphemisms to him. Yes, including the ones on sex. I do not hide sex and violence from him. I do not sugar coat it and I certainly do not omit or replace details to make the story G rated, as is done in Sunday schools.

 

I let him decide. He has been exposed to many faiths and their teachings. He currently identifies as Hellanistic Pagan and has for years. His choice. His mother does not believe any god is real and presents them all the say way. As cultural stories that some people believe.

[Χά�ων]

I attended a class on Peace, War and the Bible. We could find verses that implied we should be pacifists and versus that implied we should not be pacifists when it comes to defending innocents. But even when we talk about some wars, some see the war as justified because we are defending the innocents and others think that we have other ulterior motives so even if innocents may be defended in some circumstances, the action as a whole is unjust. There are legitimate reasons why we have at least some of our denominational divisions. Differing views on just war and on pacifism are just one of these distinctions. But I still see Mennonites and Quakers as Christians and I would daresay that they probably see me as one too.

Sorry to edit your post. I cannot bold on my phone.

 

I find the types of discussion on different interpretations re war an peace fun and interesting. I always like to see how people think an what they use to back their beliefs. When I was 19 I dated a guy who was Catholic and we had these discussions and attended classes like you describe. We never agreed but enjoyed discussing and debating. I do miss the discussions. We had nothing else in common and drastically opposing views on everything else so the relationship didn't last. But it was fun.

[bolt.]

Interesting how you twisted my words there. Question, do you disagree that the bible is not a violent book? Do you disagree on the amount of sex in the bible? Are you aware of or do you ignore the many euphemisms for sex found in the bible?

The Bible is a long story focused on issues of 'life' and 'death' -- as such, it is absolutely packed with stories that involve either conception and violence, or both.

 

As far as normal reading material (ie history, or epics of a variety of types) I don't find it overly violent or sex-filled. But it is definitely an odd duck if you compare it to children's literature.

 

(I believe it is important to G-rate the material, assist in interpretation, and present only the age appropreate portions to children. I think this can be done in a manner that is consistant with the whole Bible, so that the picture comes together as young Chrustians mature. I don't consider that task anywhere near as simple as 'sugar coating'.)

[Jenny in Florida]

Okay, I'll admit I do make a connection between "the Bible is full of contradictions" and "doesn't believe it to be true." But why is that inaccurate? 

 

The article said that the Bible is not inspired, is a human book, is full of contradiction/error, is historically unreliable, etc. I guess I equated that with "not believing the Bible is true." But (I am totally being genuine here, please don't read any sarcasm into my words  :)) maybe I'm missing something. How can the Bible be true if it's not historically reliable, it's not divinely inspired, it's written by sinful/imperfect human beings, it's full of contradiction & error? I guess I didn't know anyone actually made that claim. Maybe I'm more sheltered than I thought.  :) Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you're saying again...

 

I've been really struggling with whether I should even post in this thread. I read the article and didn't find anything new in it, although I did think it was a nice summary of many things I've read elsewhere in more detail.

 

But here's the thing: Over the last few years, I've been tiptoeing closer and closer to something resembling a Christian faith. (This is after a religion-free childhood and an adulthood spent in Unitarian Universalist churches.) And it is analysis of the type in this article, which gives me permission to read the bible and draw inspiration from it without the obligation to accept it as unflawed, that makes it possible for me to be making this transition.

 

What I now think is that the bible is historically unreliable and full of contradictions and written by highly imperfect, fully human people AND is still a source of inspiration. I believe it was "divinely inspired" in the sense that it represents the best attempts of those well-intentioned, fully human people to tell their stories and honor their faith. I can accept those stories as metaphors from which I can draw lessons that resonate with my own heart. And that results in a faith that is meaningful and valuable to me.

 

I'm not alone in this approach, by the way. There is a growing movement toward progressive Christianity, which seems to encompass a lot of the understanding I've been coming to as a result of my own study.

 

But the unfortunate truth is that I still do not feel comfortable identifying as a "Christian," mostly because of the hostility that I continue to see leveled toward these progressive viewpoints from those with more traditional/fundamentalist views. So, I suppose I would just ask you and others who are made uncomfortable by articles like this to see if you can find it in your hearts to make a little room for those of us whose hearts and minds are leading us down a different but parallel path.

[Χά�ων]

The Bible is a long story focused on issues of 'life' and 'death' -- as such, it is absolutely packed with stories that involve either conception and violence, or both.

 

As far as normal reading material (ie history, or epics of a variety of types) I don't find it overly violent or sex-filled. But it is definitely an odd duck if you compare it to children's literature.

 

(I believe it is important to G-rate the material, assist in interpretation, and present only the age appropreate portions to children. I think this can be done in a manner that is consistant with the whole Bible, so that the picture comes together as young Chrustians mature. I don't consider that task anywhere near as simple as 'sugar coating'.)

I would agree with the last part, except that so many adults I have encountered still hold tight to the child friendly versions, even when flawed, that they were taught in Sunday school. This is a huge pet peeve of mine. To me is says that person is unable to think for themself and would rather parrot the thoughts of others to look like a good christian rather than take the time to read the bible oneself.

 

As far as conception comment, I will have to disagree. Yes, a lot of the sex has to do with conceiving a child, mostly a male child. A lot does not.

 

I am not sure I find as much about life as it is "obey god or else" and then violent 'or else'.

[Χά�ων]

But the unfortunate truth is that I still do not feel comfortable identifying as a "Christian," mostly because of the hostility that I continue to see leveled toward these progressive viewpoints from those with more traditional/fundamentalist views. So, I suppose I would just ask you and others who are made uncomfortable by articles like this to see if you can find it in your hearts to make a little room for those of us whose hearts and minds are leading us down a different but parallel path.

This makes me sad. No one should feel this way. I hope you are able to find like mind people and are able to feel more and more comfortable expressing your faith.

[bolt.]

Yep, sticking to Sunday school stories cripples adult faith and intellect.

 

I still think most conception-events are reflecting either 'conception goes right' or 'conception goes wrong' as components of the story of life (revolving around heirs, mostly, for sure).

 

I'd say "obey God or else -- violence" is a mischaracterization of the idea that "you are in lethal danger from evil, but obedience to God helps both you and God deal with that problem". The ideas are similar in content, but different in characterization. Lots of people definitely think the message is 'obey God or else'.

[Χά�ων]

As far as normal reading material (ie history, or epics of a variety of types) I don't find it overly violent or sex-filled. But it is definitely an odd duck if you compare it to children's literature.

 

 

I wanted to address this. I compare it to children's lit, because so often I see people who read the bible with their children from birth. Not the children's bible either. I understand wanting to share ones faith with their children, but it strike me as odd that they would include reading the bible to them, given the many adult themes.

 

This is why I compare it to other children's lit. If the same amount of violence or sex was in another book, the same people would not dare to expose their children to it and those who demand it be in schools would be screaming the loudest to have it banned.

[Χά�ων]

Yep, sticking to Sunday school stories cripples adult faith and intellect.

 

 

Honest question, how do you think this should be dealt with and addressed? Is anything being done to address the issue?

[bolt.]

I wanted to address this. I compare it to children's lit, because so often I see people who read the bible with their children from birth. Not the children's bible either. I understand wanting to share ones faith with their children, but it strike me as odd that they would include reading the bible to them, given the many adult themes.

 

This is why I compare it to other children's lit. If the same amount of violence or sex was in another book, the same people would not dare to expose their children to it and those who demand it be in schools would be screaming the loudest to have it banned.

You are absolutely right, in my opinion.

 

In addition, as a person of faith, I think that approach to child-bible interactions had strong potential to reinforce the idea that the Bible is confusing, obscure, and even though it sounds serious, the content shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

For example the story: "One day God decided to flood the earth and kill off the vast majority of living things through drowning them cruelly in a death storm. That's why we decorated your nursery with cute animals crammed into a boat. Now let's pray, and night-night darling." -- Teaches children that there isn't anything to question or worry about, even though 'real' tsunamis get a vastly different reaction. We are fully capable if teaching them to put the bible in a box that inhibits rational faith development (rather than enhancing it).

[KrissiK]

I would agree with the last part, except that so many adults I have encountered still hold tight to the child friendly versions, even when flawed, that they were taught in Sunday school. This is a huge pet peeve of mine. To me is says that person is unable to think for themself and would rather parrot the thoughts of others to look like a good christian rather than take the time to read the bible oneself.

'.

I'm staying out of this conversation because I did not read the article, but I would like to address this point.... most adults who hold to their Sunday School versions do so because they have not bothered to further their religious education and so that is all they have. And I agree with you. It is irritating. I've been around adults who are regular church attenders, but they refuse to attend Sunday School and probably daydream through the sermon and their ideas of the Bible and theology are pretty strange. Our whole family goes to Sunday School. The children have age appropriate lessons, and our adult Sunday School is expository and discussion based. We work our way through various Old and New Testament books, verse by verse and argue, discuss, etc. until we have a good grasp of the passage. It's a small class, too, unfortunately because most adults would rather sleep in or have an extra cup of coffee on a Sunday morning. And I don't think our church is unusual in that. And I don't think saying "I study the Bible for myself" really helps a lot. It's kind of like the difference between just staying home and reading a Classic and taking a class where you hear the professor explain and then have a discussion about it. Where are you going to learn more?

[*Lulu*]

I'm staying out of this conversation because I did not read the article, but I would like to address this point.... most adults who hold to their Sunday School versions do so because they have not bothered to further their religious education and so that is all they have. And I agree with you. It is irritating. I've been around adults who are regular church attenders, but they refuse to attend Sunday School and probably daydream through the sermon and their ideas of the Bible and theology are pretty strange. Our whole family goes to Sunday School. The children have age appropriate lessons, and our adult Sunday School is expository and discussion based. We work our way through various Old and New Testament books, verse by verse and argue, discuss, etc. until we have a good grasp of the passage. It's a small class, too, unfortunately because most adults would rather sleep in or have an extra cup of coffee on a Sunday morning. And I don't think our church is unusual in that. And I don't think saying "I study the Bible for myself" really helps a lot. It's kind of like the difference between just staying home and reading a Classic and taking a class where you hear the professor explain and then have a discussion about it. Where are you going to learn more?

You're kidding, right?

 

I can say with 100% certainty that the majority of Christian Sunday school classes are not populated by biblical scholars. Can good discussions be had, yes. But I am a total introvert and deplore the format of most bible study groups. I absolutely have learned far more studying on my own by reading both various translations and what bible scholars have written than I have ever learned in an adult Sunday school class.

 

It might be more accurate to make the comparison between reading a classic on your own and reading it with a book club. If your club has lots of English majors you may learn something. Otherwise, unless you are also reading synapsis by a scholar......maybe you will learn previous little.

[KrissiK]

You're kidding, right?

 

I can say with 100% certainty that the majority of Christian Sunday school classes are not populated by biblical scholars.

No, I'm not I kidding. And I don't think that one has to be a Biblical scholar to be able to contribute to a Sunday school class. Just a person with a willingness and desire to learn. And I believe that whatever a person is studying is enhanced by the opinions and input of other persons.

[scholastica]

nm

[Pawz4me]

I absolutely have learned far more studying on my own by reading both various translations and what bible scholars have written than I have ever learned in an adult Sunday school class.

 

Sadly, that's my experience also.

 

I was a regular church attendee for the first 39 years of my life (two different denominations).  Sunday School was a complete and total waste.  I'm pretty sure I learned more in one week of self-study than I learned in all those years of regular SS attendance relying on the materials provided by the church.  My opinion and experience is that churches (at least the ones I attended) don't really want their members to be educated about religious issues.  It wasn't the final straw, but realizing how many hours we'd spent in church and how little we actually knew was one reason DH and I walked away from organized religion.

 

(Note that I'm not saying my experience is universal.  But I do think it's pretty common for this area.  The level of religious ignorance among the people I know who regularly attend church is rather mind boggling.)

[*Lulu*]

No, I'm not I kidding. And I don't think that one has to be a Biblical scholar to be able to contribute to a Sunday school class. Just a person with a willingness and desire to learn.

I can agree with this.

 

And I believe that whatever a person is studying is enhanced by the opinions and input of other persons.

But that is not some exclusive claim of a Sunday school class. I have been floored many times to discover I am the only person in the room who has read the book of the Bible we are discussing. The Sunday school studies that I have learned the most in are those where we read through a study guide and discussion is guided by the questions in the guide. In other words, a scholar has written about the Bible and we are reading his/her thoughts and discussing that.

 

I find religious discussions here at the Hive to be some of the best because I have time to process what a poster is saying and think about it before responding.

 

I don't disagree with the premise that we need each other or that the interaction with the thoughts of others is not very valuable. What I take issue with is the idea that the format of most Sunday school classes is the ideal enviroment for learning for everyone.

[albeto.]

But I do agree with the majority of the posters that the article seemed mocking of Christianity and the author in my mind came across as a non believer of Christianity.

 

With regard to the author's belief - there is of course no way of knowing his belief. We can however, look at what he writes and infer some things. I make my conclusions from the last part of the article. I'll show some snippets and comment on them to explain why I think he's a Christian.

 

So why study the Bible at all? Since it’s loaded with contradictions and translation errors and wasn’t written by witnesses and includes words added by unknown scribes to inject Church orthodoxy, should it just be abandoned?

 

No. This examination is not an attack on the Bible or Christianity. Instead, Christians seeking greater understanding of their religion should view it as an attempt to save the Bible from the ignorance, hatred and bias that has been heaped upon it. If Christians truly want to treat the New Testament as the foundation of the religion, they have to know it. Too many of them seem to read John Grisham novels with greater care than they apply to the book they consider to be the most important document in the world.

 

Here I think he's using the word "they" to refer to Christians rather than "us" simply because he's writing a news journal and as such, is assumed to be unbiased. He also very clearly explains his goal is not to attack the bible or Christianity, but to help Christians understand the Christian religion better.

 

But the history, complexities and actual words of the Bible can’t be ignored just to line it up with what people want to believe, based simply on what friends and family and ministers tell them. Nowhere in the Gospels or Acts of Epistles or Apocalypses does the New Testament say it is the inerrant word of God. It couldn’t—the people who authored each section had no idea they were composing the Christian Bible, and they were long dead before what they wrote was voted by members of political and theological committees to be the New Testament.

This sounds like the summary of a person who believes the gospel accounts were written as eye witness testimony, without so much as a nod to the historical sequence of events surrounding religions and cultures in the region of this time period in history. This historical sequence of events include synchronizing local agricultural gods with Hellenistic/Roman religions, the metamorphis of the protector god of a community into a "savior" god for an individual, even the idea of being the son of a god, undergoing a passion, and obtaining victory over death (to be shared with their followers) are all trends seen in other religions at this time. The gospels follow in the trend of setting the stories of these god/men in human history on earth (as do all the gospels, the ones not included in the canon). To assume each religion that did that was simply exhibiting a popular and successful mythological and social trend, but the Jewish version was really real, and historical, is to assume the story is true.

An approach that included the history and complexity of such a time would include the fact that there does not exist any contemporary mention of Jesus outside the bible, and that the first extra-biblical mention of Jesus occurs decades later and references the community and their beliefs. There is no mention of a rabbi who is so enormously popular he comes into the major city as a king, or is so enormously unpopular three days later his own followers cry for his execution. No mention of a nation-wide census taken by the individual moving to the census taker, rather than the census taker moving to count the individual, or gigantic earthquake, mysterious darkening, or previously dead people hanging out and talking with still-living people. There's no mention of these events in any historical record, personal record, depicted in art, or found in passing. To understand the bible is to understand its place in history, not isolated from it.

 

That suggests to me the author accepts the bible as a closed source, it validates its own claims, which is something historians don't accept in general. It leads me to believe the author believes the bible to be a source of actual historical events, albeit indirectly at times, and that the god of the bible is a real entity, albeit mischaracterized.

 

The Bible is a very human book. It was written, assembled, copied and translated by people. That explains the flaws, the contradictions, and the theological disagreements in its pages. Once that is understood, it is possible to find out which parts of the Bible were not in the earliest Greek manuscripts, which are the bad translations, and what one book says in comparison to another, and then try to discern the message for yourself

To the unfaithful, the "message" of the bible is nothing more than a fascinating look at history and the influence of religion on society. There is no more Right Real Message in the bible than there is in the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, position of the stars, or tea leaves. He's appealing to people like momof3 who think a non-literal message is one founded in unbelief, he's appealing on behalf of people like Jenny in Florida and all those who feel her discomfort. He's also appealing on behalf of people who are not able, or willing to conform to traditional, biblical moral code (ie, LGBTQ).

 

And embrace what modern Bible experts know to be the true sections of the New Testament. Jesus said, Don’t judge. He condemned those who pointed out the faults of others while ignoring their own. And he proclaimed, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.â€

First, what the heck does "the true sections of the New Testament" even mean? The True Right Real Message?

 

Second, he goes on to imply a tiny bit about what this True Right Real Message is - don't be so frustratingly judgmental. The reasons for his appeal come from the bulk of his article - those who are, are not only hypocrites that make us all look bad, but they're being mean to people who don't deserve it. I agree with the last part - people are being mean to people who don't deserve it. If momof3 is any indication, they don't even know it.

 

That’s a good place to start.

Start what journey, precisely? I think he's appealing to the assumed faith of the reader to continue reassessing the True Right Real Message and modify their belief to conform closer to his, to Jenny in Florida's.

 

Oh and I do read the Bible and have read the Bible and know that there are a lot of ways to interpret the scriptures and well meaning people often come to different conclusions.  I attended a class on Peace, War and the Bible.  We could find verses that implied we should be pacifists and versus that implied we should not be pacifists when it comes to defending innocents.  But even when we talk about some wars, some see the war as justified because we are defending the innocents and others think that we have other ulterior motives so even if innocents may be defended in some circumstances, the action as a whole is unjust.  There are legitimate reasons why we have at least some of our denominational divisions.  Differing views on just war and on pacifism are just one of these distinctions.  But I still see Mennonites and Quakers as Christians and I would daresay that they probably see me as one too.

 

There's a compelling [imo] hypothesis that suggests the reason there are so many ways to interpret the texts is because there existed many communities that shared the same general, basic faith, but the details differed from place to place. It's logical to consider some communities preserved those texts that came their way that promoted their particular detailed beliefs (regarding baptism, role of clergy, faith and/or works, etc). It's reasonable to consider these inter-related but separated communities practiced their faiths according to their local customs and beliefs, and not for four centuries did anyone attempt to compile these many fragments and propose they be united as one complete record of the community (rather than communities) of the faithful. This would explain the differences in the details of the creation story as well as the differences of the details of the resurrection story with more plausibility that the idea there exists a supernatural being who inspired people to think and act and write certain things that didn't count when written by other cultures earlier.

[Joanne]

I've been really struggling with whether I should even post in this thread. I read the article and didn't find anything new in it, although I did think it was a nice summary of many things I've read elsewhere in more detail.

 

But here's the thing: Over the last few years, I've been tiptoeing closer and closer to something resembling a Christian faith. (This is after a religion-free childhood and an adulthood spent in Unitarian Universalist churches.) And it is analysis of the type in this article, which gives me permission to read the bible and draw inspiration from it without the obligation to accept it as unflawed, that makes it possible for me to be making this transition.

 

What I now think is that the bible is historically unreliable and full of contradictions and written by highly imperfect, fully human people AND is still a source of inspiration. I believe it was "divinely inspired" in the sense that it represents the best attempts of those well-intentioned, fully human people to tell their stories and honor their faith. I can accept those stories as metaphors from which I can draw lessons that resonate with my own heart. And that results in a faith that is meaningful and valuable to me.

 

I'm not alone in this approach, by the way. There is a growing movement toward progressive Christianity, which seems to encompass a lot of the understanding I've been coming to as a result of my own study.

 

But the unfortunate truth is that I still do not feel comfortable identifying as a "Christian," mostly because of the hostility that I continue to see leveled toward these progressive viewpoints from those with more traditional/fundamentalist views. So, I suppose I would just ask you and others who are made uncomfortable by articles like this to see if you can find it in your hearts to make a little room for those of us whose hearts and minds are leading us down a different but parallel path.

 

 

I hope you find your spiritual sanctuary - literal and figurative. A similar searching lead me *away* from Christianity, in response to the progressive Christianity hostility.

 

:)

 

I'm staying out of this conversation because I did not read the article, but I would like to address this point.... most adults who hold to their Sunday School versions do so because they have not bothered to further their religious education and so that is all they have. And I agree with you. It is irritating. I've been around adults who are regular church attenders, but they refuse to attend Sunday School and probably daydream through the sermon and their ideas of the Bible and theology are pretty strange. Our whole family goes to Sunday School. The children have age appropriate lessons, and our adult Sunday School is expository and discussion based. We work our way through various Old and New Testament books, verse by verse and argue, discuss, etc. until we have a good grasp of the passage. It's a small class, too, unfortunately because most adults would rather sleep in or have an extra cup of coffee on a Sunday morning. And I don't think our church is unusual in that. And I don't think saying "I study the Bible for myself" really helps a lot. It's kind of like the difference between just staying home and reading a Classic and taking a class where you hear the professor explain and then have a discussion about it. Where are you going to learn more?

 

 

But you recognize that the confusion comes from not having read the actual text... A lot of people believe wrong things about the Bible (the wise men at the Nativity scene is one example) because they haven't actually read the Bible.

 

I remember the first time I read the book of Exodus for myself and I realized some of the details I must have gotten from watching The Ten Commandments weren't there. :) I had this idea that Moses and Ramses were rivals...and that Moses' mother sent the basket floating down the river (instead of setting it in the bulrushes).

 

But (to get back to the Nativity) that's different than saying that the stories contradict one another. When he says there's 'no manger' 'no frankincense, myrrh, and gold' etc., and those details actually are in the text... I just don't get it. (I mean, I do. Some people just are out to rip the Bible to shreds.)

 

Some of the things he says about mistranslations are true. I'm not one to say the KJV is a perfect translation.

 

Some of the things he says are just not true.

 

The Trinity, for instance, is not stated explicitly in any single verse in the Bible. But that's not some big dark secret Christians are hiding from the rest of the world. We get the doctrine of the Trinity from the entire Bible taken as a whole. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each said to have created the world. Also, they are all involved in raising Jesus from the dead.

 

And the deity of Christ likewise does not depend upon any single verse or passage. It is throughout the Bible, in both English and Greek.

 

Yes, there were scribal errors and yes there are fragmented portions of Greek manuscripts that span a large period of time...but the differences between manuscripts constitute a tiny portion the whole, and the differences are minor - mostly obvious - not major doctrinal contradictions.

 

Sorry if that was more info than you wanted.  Anyway, I hope the article makes more people curious to actually read the Bible for themselves!

 

 

These 2 quotes epitomize one of my spiritual discussion pet peeves: the assumption that people who don't agree aren't Christian enough. Enter a laundry list of "things" or "behaviors" that individuals or groups fall short of. Going to church, reading the Bible, reading the Bible the right way, going to Sunday School, not going to Sunday school, participating in a youth group, mission trips, to borrow from another spiritual tradition, I "could increase the list ad infinitum."

 

The truth is many, many people who deny the Bible or a literal interpretation of the Bible do so after *copious* amounts of effort, prayer, and study.

 

Heck, I **taught** adult Sunday School (a fact which excludes me as being Christian due to being in a denomination that allows women leaders.) I learned a great deal during those times, both in class and in preparing for class. I learned more there than I did in worship or sermons, which is probably reflective of my learning style (which also don't exist :leaving: )

 

Sure. I mean, if that's the way you want to see it, I don't know that's it's worthwhile for me to continue. I think if someone wants to make the point that the Bible is full of contradictions, then the burden of proof is on that person to prove where those contradictions lie.

 

I'm not out to convince you that it's true, just that no one should definitively say it's full of errors based on evidence like that.

 

He can say, I choose to read these verses as contradictory instead of complementary...recognizing he has a bias against the Bible and that is coloring his lens...and I can say that I choose to read them as complementary rather than as contradictions, recognizing I am a "Bible-believer"...

 

It may frustrate you that Bible-believing Christians have a convenient answer for every "error" ...but we do have an answer. So....then it's up to you to take your pick. Either believe the Bible, or don't.

 

If you have any specific questions about anything else from the article, please feel free to ask. I do love discussing the Bible...and I know I'm not the only one on the Hive.

 

I hate, despise, and resent the term "Bible Believing." It is nothing but divisive and corroding.

 

Truly. When I struggled to "believe" the Bible, I spent years believing - in the same way I believe the poetry of Kalil Gibran, Walt Whitman, principals of Buddhism, the prayer of St. Frances, the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous. I believed the essence, the important but not literal truth.

 

ETA: I did read the article, and I knew most of those details already.

 

[Momof3]

I've been really struggling with whether I should even post in this thread. I read the article and didn't find anything new in it, although I did think it was a nice summary of many things I've read elsewhere in more detail.

 

But here's the thing: Over the last few years, I've been tiptoeing closer and closer to something resembling a Christian faith. (This is after a religion-free childhood and an adulthood spent in Unitarian Universalist churches.) And it is analysis of the type in this article, which gives me permission to read the bible and draw inspiration from it without the obligation to accept it as unflawed, that makes it possible for me to be making this transition.

 

What I now think is that the bible is historically unreliable and full of contradictions and written by highly imperfect, fully human people AND is still a source of inspiration. I believe it was "divinely inspired" in the sense that it represents the best attempts of those well-intentioned, fully human people to tell their stories and honor their faith. I can accept those stories as metaphors from which I can draw lessons that resonate with my own heart. And that results in a faith that is meaningful and valuable to me.

 

I'm not alone in this approach, by the way. There is a growing movement toward progressive Christianity, which seems to encompass a lot of the understanding I've been coming to as a result of my own study.

 

But the unfortunate truth is that I still do not feel comfortable identifying as a "Christian," mostly because of the hostility that I continue to see leveled toward these progressive viewpoints from those with more traditional/fundamentalist views. So, I suppose I would just ask you and others who are made uncomfortable by articles like this to see if you can find it in your hearts to make a little room for those of us whose hearts and minds are leading us down a different but parallel path.

 

Thanks for sharing that, Jenny! Your explanation of your journey is very helpful. I do apologize if I came across as hostile. :) I don't agree with the article - but I am glad it makes you feel more comfortable reading the Bible. I am taking to heart what you said... Thanks for the post. :)

[Momof3]

I think the question is, "Why is your connection accurate? What evidence do you have to support this opinion?"

 

 

"It's a human book" might mean it's a collection of texts, letters, poetry, law, etc, and these texts were written by people who did their best to preserve the faith of the community, the faith of a god whose nature is not easily identifiable, but is nevertheless a part of the collective identity of the people. Saying bats are birds and plants were made before the sun ever existed is factually wrong, but understandable for a writer who didn't have the resources or knowledge of the natural world we have today. That doesn't mean "God didn't know bats aren't birds," but rather, inaccurate information doesn't change the overall (Right) message of the bible.

 

 

I don't think you are presenting yourself as a superior person, or that those who don't agree with you are inferior. Rather, I think you are supporting an argument that you've learned, and accept as accurate: a liberal interpretation of the bible starts from a foundation of unbelief, a lack of trust, and ultimately, a lack of respect for it.

 

 

You and the author have diametrically opposing conclusions about the real function of the bible. Yours is (please correct me if I'm wrong), the bible is the inerrant word of God, and functions to reveal the identity and nature of Jesus, through whom one can have eternal life if they have true faith. His is (as I understand it), the bible is a collection of works from the ancient Israelites, and while their knowledge wasn't accurate, it doesn't change the general point that there is a god who is, in essence a loving being, and can reveal moral and philosophical truth to those who know how to listen. If the first is true, then the second cannot be, and vice versa.

 

I'm not saying he is right and you are wrong, or that you are right and he is wrong, but I'm saying that you can't both be right. I'm also saying I find it interesting that the way in which you determine you are right is the exact same way he determines he is right. And yet here you are, with two directly opposite conclusions.

 

 

Oh, okay. My mistake. :)

 

 

Let's.  ^_^

 

I don't think the bolded is necessarily true. I'm not sure what I think about a liberal interpretation of the Bible & how it relates to the following. I'm only speaking for the Newsweek author's approach to the Bible. He did come across as disrespectful in his tone, and seemed to have a lack of trust in the reliability of the biblical text. If I'm misreading the article, I apologize.

 

I was only trying to point out where I think he is wrong - by showing what the text actually says. (With my biases ;))

 

[FWIW, I don't think that a non-literal interpretation is founded in unbelief either. I don't think the entire Bible should be taken literally. I don't know anyone who thinks that (but I'm sure there's someone out there...). :) ]

 

When I say that I believe the Bible is true, I believe that it (the original manuscripts) is/are an accurate record of what the Holy Spirit moved those men to write.

 

I guess I've never thought of "the Bible is true" being equivalent to "the basic gist of what Jesus said is right and the idea of a loving God in heaven is right, too, but a lot of the other stuff is inaccurate/made-up/etc." I have understand "true" to mean reliable, trustworthy, accurate, etc. And when I say, "the Bible is true" I mean that not just the basic concepts, or certain passages are true, I mean the Bible as a whole (that's not the same as believing it should be taken literally).

 

By my definition, the article's author does not believe the Bible is "true." And, by my definition, I think he would agree with me. 

 

So...how should I better say it?

 

ETA that I'm not trying to elevate one view above another here...just trying to clarify the difference between them. 

[bolt.]

Honest question, how do you think this should be dealt with and addressed? Is anything being done to address the issue?

Sorry, I missed this question earlier.

 

I think that raising the level of Bible-familiarity and critical thinking skills, while continuing to assert that 'faith' itself is mostly about trust, relationship, and loyalty (not about 'mostly information') -- is a very difficult thing to do.

 

In a healthy Church context, good preaching with those twin goals at the forefront is likely to be effective among believers who attend services and are more interested in a sermon than their own distracting thoughts -- at least most weeks. Honestly 52 sermons per year for 10, 20 or 60 years is a ton of time to accomplish the goals if all parties are willing participants.

 

Preaching, modelling/storytelling, and pastoral relationships that are open to critucal questioning are all essential... Not just preaching. I think very few Christians recieve personal pastoral care in most Churches... We need lay-pastoral workers, not just paid preachers.

 

It can be somewhat rare to have healthy Churches and good preaching that is able to strike balance...

 

So maybe there is a solution somewhere in preacher training/ordination: so, I guess Christisn higher education? It should probably be cheap/free, and anyone willing and able to pursue it should view such learning as an act of service to their community.

 

Parenting is huge too, but it's so touchy and easy to become a controlling environment as very personal topics are broached in a one-best-method way.

 

Sunday school content too could use a re-vamp to ensure that what is drawn out as 'conclusion' from a G-rated version Bible passage is consistant with the 'real messages' of the uncensored version -- so that a person can easily absorb the omitted info at an age appropreate time, without having to drastically alter their conclusions/meaning about that particular passage.

 

(Example: Rahab the 'innkeeper' can be interpreted to children as heroic for hiding spies as an act of faith and a change of loyalty in spite of being an enemy resident of an enemy city. Later, Rahab the *prostitute* is still heroic for the same faith/loyalty reason, but now in spite of *both* being an enemy *and* being someone who blatantly did not adhere to Judeo-Christian sexual ethics. The final detail led to 'the same conclusion, but more-so' -- not 'a totally different conclusion, why did they hide that?')

 

Which means that we need, again, better trained Bible scholars working in children's publishing.

 

But, then, I have a calling that involves Christian higher education, so it is natural for my 'godly tunnel vision' to lead me towards solutions that are within my wheelhouse. A person with a different gifting/calling would probably give perfectly good but completely different answers.

[Heidi]

 This is the first part of his article - exposing the problem of accepting the bible as an accurate account of the historical record. It fails any credibility test without ever having to go elsewhere for outside information.

 

people who hold traditional stories and beliefs accepted as true by virtue of faith will start to demand some support, some evidence, if they are to continue believing them. 

 

What kind of evidence would you need?  What outside information is the Bible lacking, in your opinion?  Just curious. 

[Rosie_0801]

What kind of evidence would you need?  What outside information is the Bible lacking, in your opinion?  Just curious. 

 

I don't even have a reason to think it matters.

[Jasperstone]

Sadly, that's my experience also.

 

I was a regular church attendee for the first 39 years of my life (two different denominations). Sunday School was a complete and total waste. I'm pretty sure I learned more in one week of self-study than I learned in all those years of regular SS attendance relying on the materials provided by the church. My opinion and experience is that churches (at least the ones I attended) don't really want their members to be educated about religious issues. It wasn't the final straw, but realizing how many hours we'd spent in church and how little we actually knew was one reason DH and I walked away from organized religion.

 

(Note that I'm not saying my experience is universal. But I do think it's pretty common for this area. The level of religious ignorance among the people I know who regularly attend church is rather mind boggling.)

I hear you. ...it was only after leaving organized religion, and having time to actually read and study the Bible myself, that I grew in my faith. ...

 

Now I have a home Church group that I attend regularly. All good things seem to start with *home*. ;-)

[Aelwydd]

And there we go... she wants us all to know how horrible she thinks the Bible is. Those of us who disagree are lunatics. Fanatics. Naive.

 

These conversations are so see-through and have gotten really old.

Insults are also rather tiresome.

[6packofun]

Interesting how you twisted my words there. Question, do you disagree that the bible is not a violent book? Do you disagree on the amount of sex in the bible? Are you aware of or do you ignore the many euphemisms for sex found in the bible?

 

It absolutely *contains* violence and sex.  It's a book about the nature of God and the nature of man...mankind tending towards selfishness, power-struggles, etc.  Why would that be shocking?  Do you believe the few instances where God exacts justice against those who have murdered and tortured and stolen from His people should be interpreted as a general condoning of violence? 

 

I'd love to hear all the euphemisms for sex.  LOL  And since we live in such a sex-crazed culture, I don't find it all that surprising that God would fully understand how much sexuality and lust are a part of the human experience.  Again, why so horrified?

 

As far as reading it to children, just saying that we read the Bible to/with our children doesn't mean we have to go over certain portions in detail or at all.  It's a collection of 66 books.  My kids get the overall themes about God and His relationship to man and what our response to Him should be without reading Song of Solomon.  LOL

[albeto.]

I don't think the bolded is necessarily true. I'm not sure what I think about a liberal interpretation of the Bible & how it relates to the following. I'm only speaking for the Newsweek author's approach to the Bible. He did come across as disrespectful in his tone, and seemed to have a lack of trust in the reliability of the biblical text. If I'm misreading the article, I apologize.

 

I interpret your saying Christians who hold a liberal interpretation of the bible to not believe it to be true to imply they start from a foundation of unbelief, a lack of trust, and ultimately, a lack of respect for it (for if they respected it, they would trust it to be true, right?). I interpret that from your distinction between being a "bible-believing" Christian (one who shares your beliefs), and one who presumably doesn't believe the bible.

 

I agree with you that he came across as disrespectful in his tone. I think this might be why people assumed he was mocking Christianity, and by extension, Christians. I think instead he was mocking fundamentalist interpretation, and fundamentalists in general. It's undoubtedly disrespectful to suggest Christians who read with a fundamentalist interpretation do so because they are "God’s frauds" who pay less attention to their own religious sources than they pay attention to a side dish, or that they intend to be biased and hypocritical and so to this end they "twist phrases and modify translations to prove they are honoring the Bible’s words." It was, I think, as erroneous and disrespectful as suggesting the opposite, that Christians "either believe the Bible, or don't." While you didn't go on to make disrespectful little analogies, I guarantee liberally believing Christians have heard them via the extension of this argument, and have been accused of similarly disrespectful intentions and ignorance. 

 

I was only trying to point out where I think he is wrong - by showing what the text actually says. (With my biases ;))

 

Did he misquote the bible? Did he change what the text actually says?

 

I guess I've never thought of "the Bible is true" being equivalent to "the basic gist of what Jesus said is right and the idea of a loving God in heaven is right, too, but a lot of the other stuff is inaccurate/made-up/etc." I have understand "true" to mean reliable, trustworthy, accurate, etc. And when I say, "the Bible is true" I mean that not just the basic concepts, or certain passages are true, I mean the Bible as a whole (that's not the same as believing it should be taken literally).

 

By my definition, the article's author does not believe the Bible is "true." And, by my definition, I think he would agree with me.

 

I'll let others explain how they understand the concept of biblical truth without having to rely on factual accuracy, but I'll just suggest that one might read "truth" as the greater concept, the greater message. It's like suggesting Aesop's Fables don't contain truth because ants and grasshoppers don't really discuss with each other the merits of hard work. The "truth" of the story is in its illustrating the virtues of hard work and the perils of improvidence.

 

So...how should I better say it?

 

I guess it depends on what you want to say. ;)

 

ETA that I'm not trying to elevate one view above another here...just trying to clarify the difference between them.

 

I get that.

 

:)

[albeto.]

What kind of evidence would you need?  What outside information is the Bible lacking, in your opinion?  Just curious. 

 

Any evidence of any of the extra-ordinary claims made in the bible would be helpful. That a rabbi existed is not an extraordinary claim. That one raised the dead is.

[albeto.]

I don't even have a reason to think it matters.

 

I think it matters when public policy and private behavior is predicated on the assumption that such a person existed, exists now, and is offended by things like homosexual behavior.

[Rosie_0801]

I think it matters when public policy and private behavior is predicated on the assumption that such a person existed, exists now, and is offended by things like homosexual behavior.

 

Yes, of course. I was thinking about the private domain, though I didn't say so.

 

 

 

[albeto.]

Yes, of course. I was thinking about the private domain, though I didn't say so.

 

Gotcha.

[Momof3]

Sorry, I missed this question earlier.

 

I think that raising the level of Bible-familiarity and critical thinking skills, while continuing to assert that 'faith' itself is mostly about trust, relationship, and loyalty (not about 'mostly information') -- is a very difficult thing to do.

 

In a healthy Church context, good preaching with those twin goals at the forefront is likely to be effective among believers who attend services and are more interested in a sermon than their own distracting thoughts -- at least most weeks. Honestly 52 sermons per year for 10, 20 or 60 years is a ton of time to accomplish the goals if all parties are willing participants.

 

Preaching, modelling/storytelling, and pastoral relationships that are open to critucal questioning are all essential... Not just preaching. I think very few Christians recieve personal pastoral care in most Churches... We need lay-pastoral workers, not just paid preachers.

 

It can be somewhat rare to have healthy Churches and good preaching that is able to strike balance...

 

So maybe there is a solution somewhere in preacher training/ordination: so, I guess Christisn higher education? It should probably be cheap/free, and anyone willing and able to pursue it should view such learning as an act of service to their community.

 

Parenting is huge too, but it's so touchy and easy to become a controlling environment as very personal topics are broached in a one-best-method way.

 

Sunday school content too could use a re-vamp to ensure that what is drawn out as 'conclusion' from a G-rated version Bible passage is consistant with the 'real messages' of the uncensored version -- so that a person can easily absorb the omitted info at an age appropreate time, without having to drastically alter their conclusions/meaning about that particular passage.

 

(Example: Rahab the 'innkeeper' can be interpreted to children as heroic for hiding spies as an act of faith and a change of loyalty in spite of being an enemy resident of an enemy city. Later, Rahab the *prostitute* is still heroic for the same faith/loyalty reason, but now in spite of *both* being an enemy *and* being someone who blatantly did not adhere to Judeo-Christian sexual ethics. The final detail led to 'the same conclusion, but more-so' -- not 'a totally different conclusion, why did they hide that?')

 

Which means that we need, again, better trained Bible scholars working in children's publishing.

 

But, then, I have a calling that involves Christian higher education, so it is natural for my 'godly tunnel vision' to lead me towards solutions that are within my wheelhouse. A person with a different gifting/calling would probably give perfectly good but completely different answers.

 

We have weekly "Bible institute" classes (usually 2-3 classes a semester) that meet in the evening. They provide more focused training on a variety of topics including book studies, Koine Greek, sign language, Eschatology, prayer, etc. The classes are well attended, and have been extremely helpful. Some are more informational (sign language) and others focus more on helping us to have a better relationship with God. We often have members of neighboring churches take the BI classes as well. This has been a great alternative to those without the time or means to take actual college classes...

 

Also, I think a preacher who uses expositional teaching (teaching that actually explains the Bible as he preaches) is key...and a culture of being approachable...so people feel like they can voice their questions without being shot down. 

 

My pastor used to use the second Sunday service as a more informal "teaching" service. He would walk us through a passage or a topic week by week, and allow for questions/comments as we went along. It was very helpful, and I enjoyed learning from the discussions. 

[Joanne]

Our Sunday morning family readaloud right now is David and Saul. Lots of betrayal, murderous intent, poor decisions. My kids, who are so sensitive they can't watch Bob The Builder (Spud freaks them out and they says he's too naughty) have been going through it wonderfully well. And given that we are doing it survey style, they've passed plenty of heavy content already with no issues (we started in Genesis three years ago).

 

 

 

 

You probably have this covered, but when  I was homeschooling and a Christian, I used this:

 

http://www.biblestudyguide.com/(a much older version).

 

I liked it for my closely spaced, young crew.

[Momof3]

I interpret your saying Christians who hold a liberal interpretation of the bible to not believe it to be true to imply they start from a foundation of unbelief, a lack of trust, and ultimately, a lack of respect for it (for if they respected it, they would trust it to be true, right?). I interpret that from your distinction between being a "bible-believing" Christian (one who shares your beliefs), and one who presumably doesn't believe the bible.

 

I agree with you that he came across as disrespectful in his tone. I think this might be why people assumed he was mocking Christianity, and by extension, Christians. I think instead he was mocking fundamentalist interpretation, and fundamentalists in general. It's undoubtedly disrespectful to suggest Christians who read with a fundamentalist interpretation do so because they are "God’s frauds" who pay less attention to their own religious sources than they pay attention to a side dish, or that they intend to be biased and hypocritical and so to this end they "twist phrases and modify translations to prove they are honoring the Bible’s words." It was, I think, as erroneous and disrespectful as suggesting the opposite, that Christians "either believe the Bible, or don't." While you didn't go on to make disrespectful little analogies, I guarantee liberally believing Christians have heard them via the extension of this argument, and have been accused of similarly disrespectful intentions and ignorance. 

 

Did he misquote the bible? Did he change what the text actually says?

 

I'll let others explain how they understand the concept of biblical truth without having to rely on factual accuracy, but I'll just suggest that one might read "truth" as the greater concept, the greater message. It's like suggesting Aesop's Fables don't contain truth because ants and grasshoppers don't really discuss with each other the merits of hard work. The "truth" of the story is in its illustrating the virtues of hard work and the perils of improvidence.

 

I guess it depends on what you want to say. ;)

 

I get that.

 

:)

 

Is it fair to say that there's a difference between believing the Bible to be true and believing the Bible to contain truth? I see a significant difference between them.

 

If believing the Bible contains truth but is not necessarily entirely true is a liberal interpretation, then, no, I don't think that has to be from a foundation of unbelief, distrust or disrespect. But unbelief is relative and pretty broad. :) I'm an 'unbeliever' if that means I don't believe the KJV to be the inspired Word of God. Does that make sense?

 

I see now... It's this quote:

 

He can say, I choose to read these verses as contradictory instead of complementary...recognizing he has a bias against the Bible and that is coloring his lens...and I can say that I choose to read them as complementary rather than as contradictions, recognizing I am a "Bible-believer"...

 

It may frustrate you that Bible-believing Christians have a convenient answer for every "error"  :)...but we do have an answer. So....then it's up to you to take your pick. Either believe the Bible, or don't.  :)

 

I need to clarify. I wrote the above assuming that he was not a Christian. That's probably my fault for not reading more closely... His tone caused me to make the assumption. That's why I distinguished the Bible-believer vs. (presumably) non-believer.

 

And I'm not trying to say that Christians either believe the Bible or don't. I just didn't effectively communicate what was going on in my brain. :/ I was trying to say that in all fairness a person has to weigh both sides of the argument.

 

Yes, Noah stayed in the ark for a year when the rain only lasted 40 days. Contradiction? Maybe...but at least consider that the rest of the text tells us...that he waited for the waters to abate before leaving the ark...there were 150 days that "the water prevailed on the earth"...then 2 months later the mountains are visible...etc. 

 

When you consider both sides of the argument (and there are at least two sides to any of the contradictions, etc he presents) you are then able to choose to believe the biblical text as true/accurate, or to believe them to be contradictory/inaccurate.

 

So...now I understand he is Christian, I wouldn't differentiate between him & me, referring to myself as a "Bible-believer." Does that make sense? I would probably have said something like "I believe the Bible to be without error"...

 

Well...he seldom quotes directly from the Bible. But he misreferences it. He claims the Bible has vegetation created after sun/moon/stars in Genesis chapter 2, which would contradict Genesis 1 which says God created sun/moon/stars before plants. But that's not what Genesis 2 says. It says God "planted a garden eastward in Eden." He's making a logical assumption - and he's not acknowledging his assumption. He does this repeatedly throughout the article. I'm not making any assumption here. I'm only quoting the text. Does that make sense?

 

Thanks for taking the time to dialogue. :)

[Momof3]

Sorry, don't know why the font size went wacky in the pp.

[Jasperstone]

It absolutely *contains* violence and sex.  It's a book about the nature of God and the nature of man...mankind tending towards selfishness, power-struggles, etc.  Why would that be shocking?  Do you believe the few instances where God exacts justice against those who have murdered and tortured and stolen from His people should be interpreted as a general condoning of violence? 

 

I'd love to hear all the euphemisms for sex.  LOL  And since we live in such a sex-crazed culture, I don't find it all that surprising that God would fully understand how much sexuality and lust are a part of the human experience.  Again, why so horrified?

 

As far as reading it to children, just saying that we read the Bible to/with our children doesn't mean we have to go over certain portions in detail or at all.  It's a collection of 66 books.  My kids get the overall themes about God and His relationship to man and what our response to Him should be without reading Song of Solomon.  LOL

 

I cringe when watching an age appropriate tv show, and they advertise some raunchy, adult themed show that's on later..... :sneaky2:

 

They miss a lot through read-out louds, but *visuals* are planted into their minds straight away.

 

[albeto.]

Is it fair to say that there's a difference between believing the Bible to be true and believing the Bible to contain truth? I see a significant difference between them.

 

Do you mean "fact" when you say "true"? That's how I'm reading you, but I don't know if that's what you're saying. If that's the case, I would agree with you in that there's a difference, significant even.

 

If believing the Bible contains truth but is not necessarily entirely true is a liberal interpretation, then, no, I don't think that has to be from a foundation of unbelief, distrust or disrespect. But unbelief is relative and pretty broad. :) I'm an 'unbeliever' if that means I don't believe the KJV to be the inspired Word of God. Does that make sense?

 

I'm not sure I'm following you, but I don't think that's a good summary of liberal interpretation. It's not about reading the whole bible as a set of facts. Like you say, there's poetry, analogy, things that are clearly not meant to be factual.

 

I see now... It's this quote:

 

He can say, I choose to read these verses as contradictory instead of complementary...recognizing he has a bias against the Bible and that is coloring his lens...and I can say that I choose to read them as complementary rather than as contradictions, recognizing I am a "Bible-believer"...

 

It may frustrate you that Bible-believing Christians have a convenient answer for every "error"  :)...but we do have an answer. So....then it's up to you to take your pick. Either believe the Bible, or don't.  :)

 

I need to clarify. I wrote the above assuming that he was not a Christian. That's probably my fault for not reading more closely... His tone caused me to make the assumption. That's why I distinguished the Bible-believer vs. (presumably) non-believer.

 

Gotcha. His tone threw a lot of people off, I think.

 

And I'm not trying to say that Christians either believe the Bible or don't. I just didn't effectively communicate what was going on in my brain. :/ I was trying to say that in all fairness a person has to weigh both sides of the argument.

 

I think what's implied here is that people who don't come away with the same general beliefs as you haven't sufficiently weighed both sides of the argument. It's the same thing the author is saying. If that's the case, I don't agree with either of you.

 

;)

 

Yes, Noah stayed in the ark for a year when the rain only lasted 40 days. Contradiction? Maybe...but at least consider that the rest of the text tells us...that he waited for the waters to abate before leaving the ark...there were 150 days that "the water prevailed on the earth"...then 2 months later the mountains are visible...etc. 

 

When you consider both sides of the argument (and there are at least two sides to any of the contradictions, etc he presents) you are then able to choose to believe the biblical text as true/accurate, or to believe them to be contradictory/inaccurate.

 

This is an illustration of the above.

 

So...now I understand he is Christian, I wouldn't differentiate between him & me, referring to myself as a "Bible-believer." Does that make sense? I would probably have said something like "I believe the Bible to be without error"...

 

To be fair, I don't know if he's a Christian, but it is the impression I walk away with after reading the article.

 

Well...he seldom quotes directly from the Bible. But he misreferences it. He claims the Bible has vegetation created after sun/moon/stars in Genesis chapter 2, which would contradict Genesis 1 which says God created sun/moon/stars before plants. But that's not what Genesis 2 says. It says God "planted a garden eastward in Eden." He's making a logical assumption - and he's not acknowledging his assumption. He does this repeatedly throughout the article. I'm not making any assumption here. I'm only quoting the text. Does that make sense?

 

Thanks for taking the time to dialogue. :)

 

Here's what the author says:

 

Careful readers have long known that the two stories contradict each other. Genesis 1 begins with expanses of water that God separates, creating the earth between them. Genesis 2 describes a world without enough water, which is then introduced. Vegetation exists before the sun and the stars in Genesis 1; it’s the other way around in Genesis 2. In Genesis 1, man is created after plants and animals; in Genesis 2, plants and animals come after man. In Genesis 1, Adam and Eve are created together; in Genesis 2, Eve is created out of Adam’s rib.

First off, "Careful readers" is obnoxious. Clearly a great many intelligent, educated Christians have read the creation stories carefully. They, like you, simply do not agree with his interpretations, and therefore his conclusions. Just felt like I wanted to get that out of the way. Don't know why. Maybe because it's sloppy and deceitful in my opinion to present opinions as careful journalism. I have a problem with Newsweek in general for this very reason. But okay, moving on...

 

Skeptics Annotated Bible has done the work for me:

 

In the first creation story, humans are created after the other animals.

 

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:25-27

 

In the second story, humans were created before the other animals.

 

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 2:18-19

You say,

 

He claims the Bible has vegetation created after sun/moon/stars in Genesis chapter 2

 

I think the problem here isn't about the articulation (or lack thereof) regarding plants, but the order in which these things are offered to have literally happened, plants included. Either animals were created and then man was created (Gen 1), or man was created and then animals were created (Gen 2). Plants are part of the whole shebang, but the two accounts give opposite time lines, and the author proposes that's a problem for the fundamentalist position.

 

This isn't the only contradiction. Noah's ark is another supposedly historical fact for which the bible isn't reliable for information. The KJV bible (favorite with fundamentalists) says, "Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days" Genesis 7:17, but also "And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days" Genesis 7:24. You may say that means the rains came for 40 days but the floods kept rising, but the bible doesn't say that. His point is, if you're going to say that God created the earth in 6 days because the bible says so, then you have to accept that the floods came upon the earth for 40 days and also that the floods prevailed for 150 days because the bible says so.

 

It's another reason I think his argument is sloppy - he's assuming fundamentalists see this discrepancy and opt to ignore it (to support their bigotry, dontchyaknow). I don't think that's an accurate depiction of a fundamentalist explanation. Nevertheless, there exists a glaring contradiction there. Contradictions are repeated throughout the bible, and that's a problem when the claim is made that the bible is factually accurate. There comes a point when a Christian has to wonder if all these explanations sound an awful lot like excuses and poorly constructed rationalizations, and he's banking on his audience being ready to wonder that with him.

[albeto.]

Insults are also rather tiresome.

 

I don't know. I see them as a kind of extinction burst in response to a behavior no longer rewarded. I think some people are just so accustomed to seeing their religion shown only in positive light, that when it's shown in an unflattering way, the response is one of frustration or intolerance. It used to be that people didn't talk about the Christian faith unless it was in positive light. We as a society are no longer providing an environment in which that privilege is protected. The insults in this thread, the demands of the OP to justify her reasons for posting this thread, the dismissal of the information in the article because the author wasn't sufficiently respectful, and the low star rating of this thread are all examples of the kind of behavior that is showing the frustration of a loss of previous privilege. I see that privilege as unjustified and ultimately detrimental to society, and so I think it's a good thing that it's loosing ground. The insults reinforce this, in my opinion. I don't find it tiresome, but hopeful.