God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them...

[Namaste Jesus]

I'm thinking this topic is in need of an example of a passage that could be interpreted in more then one way, and where knowledge of other texts, the language and culture of the writer point to some truth.

That's a very good suggestion. It occurs to me though, we already have a thread that illustrates this quite well. It's the one I created regarding the 2nd Commandment as found in the King James version of the OT.

That thread clearly demonstrates how people can read the exact same Biblical passage yet draw different conclusions from it. It's important to point out however, that each individual has valid reasons for believing as they do and this merely shows that there is a difference of opinion, not that anyone is right or wrong.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Thank you, Tad.

Perhaps the first thing you might learn is that, as a Jew, I find the term 'Old Testament' demeaning and repugnant. The more appropriate term is Tanakh.

Thanks.

I'm Christian, but I'm with you on that. The term "Old Testament" doesn't really bother me as such, but it is rather like renaming someone else's work and calling it your own.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Hi NJ,

I think I may be finally beginning to see why we have such different opinions on Biblical scholars and theologians... To me, the Bible doesn't really fall outside the realm of traditional literature since my view is that it's wholly human-written just like any other ancient literature, The Iliad or The Gallic Wars... God is not the author of the Bible, God didn't have anything to do with the writing of it. It is my view and could be a heretic one since many Christians still believe that God instructed humans to write it. I don't believe that at all. Well, let me rephrase it more carefully (or else God's wrath will be upon me through Thomas )...

I believe there have been people who were very in tune with the Holy Spirit and heard God's messages and received visions and their experiences are recorded in the Bible... In this sense, it is God-inspired, it is holy, but God had no direct hand in the writing itself. So, the method we should use to analyze is, to me, no different from the aforementioned literature. Just like the opinions of the experts' who studied and understand the cultural background of the ancient time where Homer and Hirtius lived become much more valuable compared to the people who only read it without that knowledge, Biblical scholars and theologians' opinions are very important to me. I try to watch as many debates by them as I can, so I felt, your very low opinion of them sort of indirectly reduced my effort to something insignificant.

Of course no theologians' word should be considered the final. I don't think any right-minded theologian would ever declare such a thing.

Tad

You know, you and I are not that far off in our beliefs. I think the disparity comes from the fact that we tend to approach certain topics from completely different perspectives.

I began reading the Bible from a very early age while you are relatively new to Christianity. As such, I think you rely more on the scripture itself and the opinions of those who have studied it in depth than do I.

For someone in your position though, I think that's probably the best course of action. I wouldn't discourage it one little bit. In time however, you'll no doubt form opinions as I have; some that agree with the scholars and some that do not.

As they say here: "It's all good!"

 

[Thomas]

It's important to point out however, that each individual has valid reasons for believing as they do and this merely shows that there is a difference of opinion, not that anyone is right or wrong.

Logically, this is nonsense.

 

[Tadashi]

Thank you, Tad.

Perhaps the first thing you might learn is that, as a Jew, I find the term 'Old Testament' demeaning and repugnant. The more appropriate term is Tanakh.

Thanks.

You're right. I never thought of that. I'll make sure to call it Tanakh especially when a Jewish person is present. Thank you very much for your honesty!

GK, I think the term is offensive to the people of Jewish faith, because to them, there's no Old or New. They don't recognize the NT to be a part of Scripture. There's only Tanakh. Of course Christians' renaming it as the OT doesn't sit well with them, naturally. (Jay, please correct me if I got you wrong...)

Tad

 

[Tadashi]

I think the disparity comes from the fact that we tend to approach certain topics from completely different perspectives.

I agree. And I also perfectly understand that if there are 100 Christians, there will be 100 different approaches.

I think you rely more on the scripture itself and the opinions of those who have studied it in depth than do I.

What else do you rely on? I mean, in terms of Christianity, in terms of trying to figure out "What would Jesus do"?

In time however, you'll no doubt form opinions as I have; some that agree with the scholars and some that do not.

I think I've already formed my opinions more or less (though they may very well still change later).

What do you mean when you say "agree with the scholars"? Because they don't have a consensus. For example, the views of Gary Habermas and Marcus Borg would be vastly different. Habermas believes in the bodily resurrection and Borg doesn't. And Bart Ehrman is a Biblical scholar too and he doesn't even believe the Christian God exists!

So, when you say the scholars, who do you have in mind?

Tad

 

[Namaste Jesus]

What else do you rely on? I mean, in terms of Christianity, in terms of trying to figure out "What would Jesus do"?

What do you mean when you say "agree with the scholars"? Because they don't have a consensus. For example, the views of Gary Habermas and Marcus Borg would be vastly different. Habermas believes in the bodily resurrection and Borg doesn't. And Bart Ehrman is a Biblical scholar too and he doesn't even believe the Christian God exists!

So, when you say the scholars, who do you have in mind?

Tad

Of course you have to follow the scripture. I just don't put too much value on it beyond the basic story. I think man has had too much input where the details are concerned. For me, I prefer the Hindu scripture for the rest. Same basic lessons, but I like the way it's presented better. That and I tend to follow my heart a lot where matters of faith are concerned.

Yeah I know the scholars don't agree. That's one of the many problems I have with them and why I came to the conclusion that one opinion is as good as the next. I was talking in big broad general terms though. It's up to you to decide which one suits you best.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Logically, this is nonsense.

As you choose to see it I suppose.......

 

[Tadashi]

Of course you have to follow the scripture. I just don't put too much value on it beyond the basic story. I think man has had too much input where the details are concerned. For me, I prefer the Hindu scripture for the rest. Same basic lessons, but I like the way it's presented better. That and I tend to follow my heart a lot where matters of faith are concerned.

Well, what I asked was,

What else do you rely on, in terms of Christianity, in terms of trying to figure out "What would Jesus do"?

I'm talking strictly about Christianity here, since the discussion started as "how we read/interpret the Bible." I read the Bible to try to understand what Jesus really meant, what he really wanted to teach us, so, Hindu scripture is irrelevant to my question.

Yeah I know the scholars don't agree. That's one of the many problems I have with them and why I came to the conclusion that one opinion is as good as the next. I was talking in big broad general terms though. It's up to you to decide which one suits you best.

Sorry to be picky, but also here, you're not answering my questions.

What I asked was,

What do you mean when you say "agree with the scholars"?
When you say the scholars, who do you have in mind?

I'm asking these questions because of your earlier comment below...

In my experience, the problem with those who have studied the Bible intently is that in most cases it was done from a very narrow perspective resulting in interpretations that tend to be rather one sided.

Here, you make, what it seems to me, an accusation.

"it was done from a very narrow perspective resulting in interpretations that tend to be rather one sided."

I don't mind anyone criticizing anyone's view (that's what a debate is about), but the criticism has to be based on a careful observation or be backed by a logical rationale, otherwise it's slander. And Jesus taught against slander.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. (Matthew 15:19)

So, I'm asking you to explain how you formed your above opinion. For you to say that, you must've had some scholars or theologians that made you think this way. So, I'm asking, "who are they"?

Tad

 

[Thomas]

Yeah I know the scholars don't agree. That's one of the many problems I have with them and why I came to the conclusion that one opinion is as good as the next. I was talking in big broad general terms though. It's up to you to decide which one suits you best.

Ah, I read your 'one opinion is as good as another' as being a generalisation, that the opinion of the man who knows nothing about a subject is equal to the opinion of the man who has spent his whole life researching it.

I didn't realise you meant difference of opinion between scholars, so I must apologise for my terse response.

The 'peer review' process is generally accepted as the best methodology among scholars. Without peer review, nonsense and deceptions would soon reign.

The trouble is, many know that publishing a 'popular' book (not following the peer-review trail) that challenges orthodoxy immediately guarantees sales and an element of notoriety, especially when they can claim some order of scholarship — the Jesus Seminar is a classic example of that.

So, sadly, no, I don't even think all scholarly opinions are equal. I have learned to ask myself 'what's the agenda here?'

 

[Quirkybird]

As there is no evidence to support any of the Biblical tall stories, especially the OT nonsense, basically you can believe what you like and be as right or wrong as the next person, imo.

 

[Thomas]

As there is no evidence to support any of the Biblical tall stories, especially the OT nonsense, basically you can believe what you like and be as right or wrong as the next person, imo.

Oh, you've wandered into the illogical again!

 

[Quirkybird]

Oh, you've wandered into the illogical again!

What is illogical about saying there is no evidence to support the Bible stories? There is no evidence so that is a logical statement.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What is illogical about saying there is no evidence to support the Bible stories? There is no evidence so that is a logical statement.

True. Adolescent comments are not illogical, simply adolescent.

 

[Quirkybird]

True. Adolescent comments are not illogical, simply adolescent.

And by that you mean?

 

[Thomas]

What is illogical about saying there is no evidence to support the Bible stories?

Because there is evidence?

 

[Quirkybird]

Because there is evidence?

What evidence?

 

[Thomas]

I'm not going down your rabbit hole.

Basically what you're saying is that no-one knows better than you.

 

[Quirkybird]

I'm not going down your rabbit hole.

Basically what you're saying is that no-one knows better than you.

I am saying that there is no evidence to support the less than credible stories in the Bible. For those who say there is, they have to put up or shut up!

 

[Thomas]

I am saying that there is no evidence to support the less than credible stories in the Bible. For those who say there is, they have to put up or shut up!

No they don't. Actually it's up to you to make your point logically and rationally. Simply saying 'I don't believe it, therefore it's not true' is neither.