But reading the accounts of Jesus put those bits into better perspective.
So wait, now you're also saying that the hard-to-accept bits should be set against the broader perspective of the rest of the text. Are you sure you're not squatting on my side of the argument here?
I've said, multiple times on multiple threads that reading for context is the proper approach.
Supposedly, the devil can quote scripture, so knowing the words is secondary to understanding them.
You can't possibly understand them unless you first know them. Duh.
So adult. One need not know every single word, which is your implication.
You can't read for context unless you first read the text, and doing that properly does indeed involve knowing every single word of the text in question.
[added quote for clarity because once again I've started a new page]
I get the sense that you see a dissonance--a point in the Scriptures that you don't get, and can't figure out, and it throws you (which happens to all of us)--and you panic.
There's no need for that.
When you hit those spots, as we all do, just lay the thing aside on the edge of your plate (as you would with a bit of gristle) and wait for God / your unconscious mind / whatever to deal with it. It may take minutes, it may take years. But there's no need at all to instantly comprehend everything in the Scriptures. Use what you can use now, and leave the rest for later. Don't panic, and don't leap to conclusions.
Yeahhhh. Can one panic for years? But you're right Lamb Chopped. As my latest loop demonstrated to me.
But reading the accounts of Jesus put those bits into better perspective.
So wait, now you're also saying that the hard-to-accept bits should be set against the broader perspective of the rest of the text. Are you sure you're not squatting on my side of the argument here?
I've said, multiple times on multiple threads that reading for context is the proper approach.
Supposedly, the devil can quote scripture, so knowing the words is secondary to understanding them.
You can't possibly understand them unless you first know them. Duh.
So adult. One need not know every single word, which is your implication.
You can't read for context unless you first read the text, and doing that properly does indeed involve knowing every single word of the text in question.
[added quote for clarity because once again I've started a new page]
Not unless there are apologia bits. Let's go back to Obadiah. Why is reading that necessary to understanding the bible? Most of what it says is covered in Jeremiah and God's beef with Edom is not so different from his other beefs. What about that tiny book in the Minor Prophets section is so bloody important to an understanding of the bible and God?
The underlying assumption of the Bible is that it is all inspired by God.
F+. Must try harder.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
I was talking about your assertion - not about you.
The Bible does not assume it is inspired by God in any sense that makes it a single cohesive work.
If you believe you are able to support that assertion feel free. I've spent far too long arguing with conservative evangelicals trying to support the assertion from the Bible. They haven't succeeded.
At least for conservative evangelicals. (Passing over the implied acceptance of the conservative evangelical definition of inspired.)
You're claiming that the conservative evangelical framework is a priori correct and then claiming that reading the Bible in such a way as to support that framework is wrong. Which is it?
Swing and a miss. I am not saying the conevo framework is correct. Not by a long shot.
You're not claiming that "the underlying assumption of the Bible is that it is a inspired by God" in a sense that "that is a cohesive assumption"?
Again, if to teach by raising questions were God's intention, then he is incompetent as the answers are diverse and the effects of some of the answers found are pretty messed up.
You really don't get the point of 'teaching by raising questions' do you?
I do, actually. The problem is that in a classroom as there are few consequences. With the bible, the wrong answers lead to people burning in Hell (in some interpretations) and have lead to murder, justification for oppression and genocide and keeping half the human race in subservience.
I talk about raising questions as opposed to giving answers, and every time you respond talking about answers. "the answers are diverse"; "some of the answers found"; "the wrong answers"
Let's go back to Obadiah. Why is reading that necessary to understanding the bible? Most of what it says is covered in Jeremiah and God's beef with Edom is not so different from his other beefs. What about that tiny book in the Minor Prophets section is so bloody important to an understanding of the bible and God?
Offhand, I don't know. But if it's there and has been seen fit to be kept in over the millenia, I imagine there's a good reason for it, and that there are things to be learned from what's not covered in other books and the respects in which God's beef with Edom is different.
In any case, the book cannot be seriously dismissed on the two grounds you raise unless one has read it in the light of your assertion (plus at least the whole of Jeremiah). Assuming one knows what the actual text says because of a summary some critic wrote is exactly the same approach as most inerrantists I interact with - they don't actually study the text.
(I was put off reading 2 Corinthians for years, now one of my most-read books of the Bible, by somebody summarising it as "Paul boasting").
Despite the claim in 2 Timothy that all Scripture is useful, I don't know that one needs to read Obadiah to form a general opinion of the Bible. Obadiah is at the smity end of the Bible anyway.
One does however need to account for why Genesis opens with two different incompatible accounts of the creation of the world.
One should probably also at least deal with Job; Ecclesiastes; and the Song of Songs. Those really interested might compare Ezra on the subject of intermarriage with Ruth.
That's just the Old Testament. The New Testament opens with four different accounts of Jesus's life. Attempts were made in the first few centuries to replace them with a harmonised version, most notably by Marcion. They didn't take.
The New Testament opens with four different accounts of Jesus's life. Attempts were made in the first few centuries to replace them with a harmonised version, most notably by Marcion. They didn't take.
You're claiming that the conservative evangelical framework is a priori correct and then claiming that reading the Bible in such a way as to support that framework is wrong. Which is it?
Swing and a miss. I am not saying the conevo framework is correct. Not by a long shot.[/quote]
You're not claiming that "the underlying assumption of the Bible is that it is a inspired by God" in a sense that "that is a cohesive assumption"?[/quote]I think, as far as believer mindset, it is more complicated than this. For the majority of the history of Christianity, ISTM the assumption has been that it is inspired by God. And, IME, most Christians still generally do think. Sort of. As in God didn't dictate every word, but all of it is important to understand Him. And as in ruling out God ordered genocide, homophobia, etc. without ruling out the entire book it they in. Though, honestly, I don't think most Christians think very hard about the issue. Outside of a subset of people truly interested in studying the bible, yes, I think the majority think the Bible is inspired, albeit loosely and with wiggle room for many.
Again, if to teach by raising questions were God's intention, then he is incompetent as the answers are diverse and the effects of some of the answers found are pretty messed up.
You really don't get the point of 'teaching by raising questions' do you?
I do, actually. The problem is that in a classroom as there are few consequences. With the bible, the wrong answers lead to people burning in Hell (in some interpretations) and have lead to murder, justification for oppression and genocide and keeping half the human race in subservience.
I talk about raising questions as opposed to giving answers, and every time you respond talking about answers. "the answers are diverse"; "some of the answers found"; "the wrong answers"[/quote]
Because the Bible has supported very bad outcomes. Leading people to think and develop their own answers has consequences in this area.
Let's go back to Obadiah. Why is reading that necessary to understanding the bible? Most of what it says is covered in Jeremiah and God's beef with Edom is not so different from his other beefs. What about that tiny book in the Minor Prophets section is so bloody important to an understanding of the bible and God?
Offhand, I don't know. But if it's there and has been seen fit to be kept in over the millenia, I imagine there's a good reason for it, and that there are things to be learned from what's not covered in other books and the respects in which God's beef with Edom is different.
This is very much in line with the God put it there line of thought. Reading about the fights about what to include and what not to, as well as the different inclusions/exclusions in the various versions of the bible, it seems very much in doubt that every bit is important.
As well as the questions about important for who and when.
There is a difference between asserting "God put it there" and "God allowed it to be there".
As I keep saying, I'm increasingly inclined to see the rough edges and disagreements as a feature, and not a bug, because I see truth as emerging from the discussion.
And from my background, that conviction is increasingly underpinned by the fact that the Bible itself contains multiple languages and resulting translations. That builds in the notion of interpretation, and dissonance and/or disagreement about that interpretation, right from the source text (bear in mind some single books contain more than one language to start with).
There is a difference between asserting "God put it there" and "God allowed it to be there".
As I keep saying, I'm increasingly inclined to see the rough edges and disagreements as a feature, and not a bug, because I see truth as emerging from the discussion.
And from my background, that conviction is increasingly underpinned by the fact that the Bible itself contains multiple languages and resulting translations. That builds in the notion of interpretation, and dissonance and/or disagreement about that interpretation, right from the source text (bear in mind some single books contain more than one language to start with).
This sounds nice. But I cannot get past that you think genocide is anything but a people's justification of their own bad behaviour.
There is a difference between asserting "God put it there" and "God allowed it to be there".
As I keep saying, I'm increasingly inclined to see the rough edges and disagreements as a feature, and not a bug, because I see truth as emerging from the discussion.
And from my background, that conviction is increasingly underpinned by the fact that the Bible itself contains multiple languages and resulting translations. That builds in the notion of interpretation, and dissonance and/or disagreement about that interpretation, right from the source text (bear in mind some single books contain more than one language to start with).
I appreciate that I rarely get things right here, but is there a parallel between "truth emerging from discussion" and the technique of stacking used in image enhancement? There was a nice news story yesterday on the stacking technique used to enhance footage of the Apollo 13 astronauts. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52264743
To quote from the article: Two concepts are important for understanding the technique used to process the images: signal - the parts of the image that are desirable to keep - and noise - the unwanted parts of the image. Mr Saunders started by stacking different frames of the same scene on top of one another.
"It all hinges on the principle that stacking images improves the signal-to-noise ratio," Mr Saunders explained.
He added: "As the noise in each frame is truly random, then stacking multiple frames of the same scene on top of each other and averaging out the levels of each aligned pixel has the effect of identifying and reducing noise whilst maintaining signal (the signal will be present on all frames).
@Colin Smith this seems like the right point in the discussion to post the perennial What is random? video, plus the one linked to in the description of that video, What is NOT random? I'm sure there's some significance in there somewhere.
Ducking in after an absence, skimmed the thread as best I could-- please forgive me if this has been said already. I think inaugurated eschatology helps us tremendously here. I would agree with the OP that healing is God's plan and desire in all things, and is a sign of the coming (emphasis on *coming*) Kingdom. It's why John's gospel continually calls Jesus' miracles "signs"-- they are pointing us to something.
But... if the Kingdom is both "now" and "not yet", then that means both Kingdoms-- the Kingdom of "this age" and the age to come-- are present. So we see signs of both Kingdoms-- we see signs of "this age"-- both human-caused sin (injustice, oppression, violence, war), but we also see "natural" evil-- like pandemics (exasperated by human-caused sin like greed and narcissism). I believe natural evil has it's origin in Satanic corruption of God's good creation.
And we see signs of the coming Kingdom-- things like healing, reconciliation, restoration. In a time when the Kingdom is "now and not yet" we should expect to see both. And I think that aligns very well with what we're see in our world-- even if, right now, the coming Kingdom might seem all-too-far off.
@Colin Smith this seems like the right point in the discussion to post the perennial What is random? video, plus the one linked to in the description of that video, What is NOT random? I'm sure there's some significance in there somewhere.
Interesting videos. Not entirely sure how it applies here, but I did get a nice advert from Neil Gaiman and I realised that whenever I sit down and write I am adding to the sum total of information in the universe, which is kind of Cosmically Wow!
Because the Bible has supported very bad outcomes. Leading people to think and develop their own answers has consequences in this area.
We were talking about how the Bible should be read - about what counts as a misreading.
If you want to talk about how it has been read that is another matter. But if you know of anything that hasn't been misread you're welcome to offer it up.
And I appreciate that leading people to think has its dangers, but still I am in favour of it.
Because the Bible has supported very bad outcomes. Leading people to think and develop their own answers has consequences in this area.
We were talking about how the Bible should be read - about what counts as a misreading.
If you want to talk about how it has been read that is another matter. But if you know of anything that hasn't been misread you're welcome to offer it up.
And I appreciate that leading people to think has its dangers, but still I am in favour of it.
I'm not. Not in a book that has justified millions of deaths. And that the bible is not alone in being misread is not justification for that reason.
As far as how the bible should be read, given that it has many authors over a millennia of time, how could it have a single way to read it?
And I appreciate that leading people to think has its dangers, but still I am in favour of it.
I'm not. Not in a book that has justified millions of deaths. And that the bible is not alone in being misread is not justification for that reason.
A book can't justify deaths until it is either read to give answers or misread.
You've already said you don't think there's a problem with the book read in a 'Jewish frame'. Perhaps you could explain the difference.
As far as how the bible should be read, given that it has many authors over a millennia of time, how could it have a single way to read it?
The same applies to the OT and you were busy justifying the existence of a single way to read that.
A set of documents assembled together is not the same as those documents taken individually. You should look up Bakhtin's poetics.
And I appreciate that leading people to think has its dangers, but still I am in favour of it.
I'm not. Not in a book that has justified millions of deaths. And that the bible is not alone in being misread is not justification for that reason.
A book can't justify deaths until it is either read to give answers or misread.
Semantics or strange pedantry. People have used the bible to justify horrible things.
And omniscient god would know this and and omnipotent one could do better inspiration.
You've already said you don't think there's a problem with the book read in a 'Jewish frame'.
Did I? Because I don't know enough about Judaism to say that. I do know that, like any other religion that has been around a minute, there is variation in the way Jewish people read the Tanakh (Mikra) and I would think also in the way they view God.
I'm not sure the relevance. We are talking about the Christian view of God. There have been, ans presumably still are, religions where the adherents viewed their god(s) as bastards. Norse and Greek come to mind. But they did not pretend otherwise. Christianity* says "Yeah, God did that crazy shite, but he's still loving because: reasons."
As far as how the bible should be read, given that it has many authors over a millennia of time, how could it have a single way to read it?
The same applies to the OT and you were busy justifying the existence of a single way to read that.
Not what I am doing. Unless you are talking about my saying that the filter to use is Jesus. For a religion to have coherence, there needs to be a framework in which to view it. Not quite the same thing as a single way. And if Christians don't think Jesus is the frame, they need a serious re-branding.
A set of documents assembled together is not the same as those documents taken individually.
Of course not. But if a group of books is presented as the type of guide the bible is, there should be some coherence. Or, at the very least, better guidance to navigate through the muck.
Comments
[added quote for clarity because once again I've started a new page]
Yeahhhh. Can one panic for years? But you're right Lamb Chopped. As my latest loop demonstrated to me.
Thank you.
So much for the temperature eh?! : )
The Bible does not assume it is inspired by God in any sense that makes it a single cohesive work.
If you believe you are able to support that assertion feel free. I've spent far too long arguing with conservative evangelicals trying to support the assertion from the Bible. They haven't succeeded.
You're not claiming that "the underlying assumption of the Bible is that it is a inspired by God" in a sense that "that is a cohesive assumption"?
I talk about raising questions as opposed to giving answers, and every time you respond talking about answers. "the answers are diverse"; "some of the answers found"; "the wrong answers"
In any case, the book cannot be seriously dismissed on the two grounds you raise unless one has read it in the light of your assertion (plus at least the whole of Jeremiah). Assuming one knows what the actual text says because of a summary some critic wrote is exactly the same approach as most inerrantists I interact with - they don't actually study the text.
(I was put off reading 2 Corinthians for years, now one of my most-read books of the Bible, by somebody summarising it as "Paul boasting").
Fackin' (ontically) briw'll-yunt! Is He off it?
One does however need to account for why Genesis opens with two different incompatible accounts of the creation of the world.
One should probably also at least deal with Job; Ecclesiastes; and the Song of Songs. Those really interested might compare Ezra on the subject of intermarriage with Ruth.
That's just the Old Testament. The New Testament opens with four different accounts of Jesus's life. Attempts were made in the first few centuries to replace them with a harmonised version, most notably by Marcion. They didn't take.
You're not claiming that "the underlying assumption of the Bible is that it is a inspired by God" in a sense that "that is a cohesive assumption"?[/quote]I think, as far as believer mindset, it is more complicated than this. For the majority of the history of Christianity, ISTM the assumption has been that it is inspired by God. And, IME, most Christians still generally do think. Sort of. As in God didn't dictate every word, but all of it is important to understand Him. And as in ruling out God ordered genocide, homophobia, etc. without ruling out the entire book it they in. Though, honestly, I don't think most Christians think very hard about the issue. Outside of a subset of people truly interested in studying the bible, yes, I think the majority think the Bible is inspired, albeit loosely and with wiggle room for many.
I talk about raising questions as opposed to giving answers, and every time you respond talking about answers. "the answers are diverse"; "some of the answers found"; "the wrong answers"[/quote]
Because the Bible has supported very bad outcomes. Leading people to think and develop their own answers has consequences in this area.
As well as the questions about important for who and when.
As I keep saying, I'm increasingly inclined to see the rough edges and disagreements as a feature, and not a bug, because I see truth as emerging from the discussion.
And from my background, that conviction is increasingly underpinned by the fact that the Bible itself contains multiple languages and resulting translations. That builds in the notion of interpretation, and dissonance and/or disagreement about that interpretation, right from the source text (bear in mind some single books contain more than one language to start with).
I appreciate that I rarely get things right here, but is there a parallel between "truth emerging from discussion" and the technique of stacking used in image enhancement? There was a nice news story yesterday on the stacking technique used to enhance footage of the Apollo 13 astronauts. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52264743
To quote from the article: Two concepts are important for understanding the technique used to process the images: signal - the parts of the image that are desirable to keep - and noise - the unwanted parts of the image. Mr Saunders started by stacking different frames of the same scene on top of one another.
"It all hinges on the principle that stacking images improves the signal-to-noise ratio," Mr Saunders explained.
He added: "As the noise in each frame is truly random, then stacking multiple frames of the same scene on top of each other and averaging out the levels of each aligned pixel has the effect of identifying and reducing noise whilst maintaining signal (the signal will be present on all frames).
But... if the Kingdom is both "now" and "not yet", then that means both Kingdoms-- the Kingdom of "this age" and the age to come-- are present. So we see signs of both Kingdoms-- we see signs of "this age"-- both human-caused sin (injustice, oppression, violence, war), but we also see "natural" evil-- like pandemics (exasperated by human-caused sin like greed and narcissism). I believe natural evil has it's origin in Satanic corruption of God's good creation.
And we see signs of the coming Kingdom-- things like healing, reconciliation, restoration. In a time when the Kingdom is "now and not yet" we should expect to see both. And I think that aligns very well with what we're see in our world-- even if, right now, the coming Kingdom might seem all-too-far off.
Come, Lord Jesus, come.
Interesting videos. Not entirely sure how it applies here, but I did get a nice advert from Neil Gaiman and I realised that whenever I sit down and write I am adding to the sum total of information in the universe, which is kind of Cosmically Wow!
If you want to talk about how it has been read that is another matter. But if you know of anything that hasn't been misread you're welcome to offer it up.
And I appreciate that leading people to think has its dangers, but still I am in favour of it.
As far as how the bible should be read, given that it has many authors over a millennia of time, how could it have a single way to read it?
A book can't justify deaths until it is either read to give answers or misread.
You've already said you don't think there's a problem with the book read in a 'Jewish frame'. Perhaps you could explain the difference.
The same applies to the OT and you were busy justifying the existence of a single way to read that.
A set of documents assembled together is not the same as those documents taken individually. You should look up Bakhtin's poetics.
And omniscient god would know this and and omnipotent one could do better inspiration.
Did I? Because I don't know enough about Judaism to say that. I do know that, like any other religion that has been around a minute, there is variation in the way Jewish people read the Tanakh (Mikra) and I would think also in the way they view God.
I'm not sure the relevance. We are talking about the Christian view of God. There have been, ans presumably still are, religions where the adherents viewed their god(s) as bastards. Norse and Greek come to mind. But they did not pretend otherwise. Christianity* says "Yeah, God did that crazy shite, but he's still loving because: reasons."
*In general and with sectual variation. Not what I am doing. Unless you are talking about my saying that the filter to use is Jesus. For a religion to have coherence, there needs to be a framework in which to view it. Not quite the same thing as a single way. And if Christians don't think Jesus is the frame, they need a serious re-branding.
Of course not. But if a group of books is presented as the type of guide the bible is, there should be some coherence. Or, at the very least, better guidance to navigate through the muck.
Did a search, seems an interesting cat, perhaps I'll give him a look.