+
On How to Eat the Bible
[or: On How NOT to Eat the Bible]
.
/ Subject > Re: The word of God? / 19Jan2003 /
/ Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
"Prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers,
but for believers" (1Cor.14:22 / NETbible).
.
>> In soc.religion.christian.bible-study during Dec2002 one
>> Mr Edgar A Pearlstein asked a certain beginnerish-type
>> question: People often call the Bible "The word of God".
>> Do any of the books of the Bible themselves claim to be
>> the word of God?
.
> On 26Dec02 (in soc.religion.christian.bible-study) one jr
> ([email protected]) redirects with a *very* different
> question: Is the Bible "The inspired word of God"?
.
textman answers: Hi jr. This seems not a difficult question
really, since your average believer would naturally suppose
that only inspired writings could qualify for the exalted
status of being a vehicle (little 'word') for the eternal and
universal Logos of God (big 'Word'). Perhaps an even better
question at this point might be something like 'What is
inspiration?' or maybe 'What does the process of inspiration
involve?' or even 'And what do these "spiritual movements"
within the People of God imply?' ... Yes, tough questions
these; and not easily answered by simplistic (and largely
empty of content) slogans.
.
> Let us think carefully what that claim must mean.
.
I prophesize *Trouble* whenever I see promises such as this!
.
> With that claim comes the obvious conclusion that the Bible
> must be "God perfect." That is to say the Bible must be far
> more perfect than any mere human minds could possibly have
> made it.
.
wut?
.
> Any mistake in that book, any error or contradiction, in
> fact or form, would prove that book could not be "God's
> inspired word."
.
This is *not-at-all* what I'd call "thinking carefully" about
what that claim must mean. You say that it is obvious that the
Bible must be God-perfect, but I see nothing obvious about it;
unless one is willing to assume the illogical and irrational
notion that inspiration necessarily implies "complete and
absolute perfection" (which is a theological imperative with
little or no support from within the scriptures themselves).
Here already we see how extra-biblical opinions are blindly
*assumed* to be as inerrant and infallible as the scriptures
they purport to describe!
.
> Not only would the Bible be perfect in itself,
.
Perfection is an attribute of God, NOT of limited material
realities. There is a word for this business of attributing
divine qualities and attributes to finite material things.
And that word is 'idolatry'.
.
> but it would be equally plain and understandable to every
> human mind, and every person would understand it exactly
> the same.
.
Even to suppose that *anything* could be *equally* plain and
understandable to *every* human mind is a clear (and highly
unrealistic) denial of a plain 'fact of life'; namely, that we
are NOT all created equal. The only way that every mind could
understand equally is if we were *all* clones of the same VERY
ignorant individual. The plain truth is that some people are
better at understanding the scriptures than others (as the
Word proclaims), and this is owing to the happy fact that we
are all unique persons, each with his or her own strengths
*and* weaknesses. Such is life.
.
"Now you are Christ's body, and each of you is a member of
it. And God has placed in the church first apostles, second
prophets, third teachers, then miracles, gifts of healing,
helps, managements, different kinds of tongues. Not all are
apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all
are teachers, are they? Not all perform miracles, do they? Not
all have gifts of healing, do they? Not all speak in tongues,
do they? Not all interpret, do they? But you should be eager
for the greater gifts." -- 1 Corinthians 12:27-31 / NETbible
.
Here is the chief source of many of the problems facing the
Faith today: that anyone and everyone who is able to stick
their beak into the Bible fancies that he or she is more
than qualified to interpret the sacred texts 'inerrantly and
infallibly' according to self-serving pious sentiments and/or
theological imperatives. Talk about not listening to the Word!
.
> Perhaps you feel that I demand too much of a mere book.
.
Not at all . . . But perhaps you could do with much
much *MORE* respect for the sacred texts?
.
> That a God who could create the human understanding,
.
This statement is seriously wanting for intelligibility!
.
> could not be expected to produce a book
> that would agree with that creation.
.
Why should the Creator of all Creation be compelled to write
a book? The idea is so ludicrous that it cannot be approached
from ANY rational perspective. I will only point out that
biblical inspiration certainly does NOT mean that "God wrote
'a' book"! Such an idea is suitable only to children and all
those who are unfit for the "strong meat" of the scriptures.
.
> Personally, I believe it is asking too much of us to
> believe that God would write, or inspire, a book that
> mankind could not agree upon.
.
Right. God did not write "a book". God is 'the Father', not
'the Writer'. And there is no such "a book" to be found any-
where in reality. But through grace, and the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, certain men and women did set down in written
words a small part of the larger truth (that only God can
*fully* know). And over time SOME of these many and various
sacred documents were slowly and gradually collected into
groups and families, which were later further collected into
libraries of documents, and so on and so forth. Anyone who
supposes that this sort of thing (eg. grace and inspiration)
stopped happening a very long time ago must indeed be very
very ignorant of a great many things!
.
> A book that has caused endless wars, persecutions,
> torture, bigotry and hatred.
.
The scriptures have not "caused" any of these things you
mention. True believers understand very well that all forms
of evil find their sources and powers from within the depths
of the human heart. Check it out.
.
> A book that is so unintelligible
.
It is only unintelligible if we actively and deliberately
*and* maliciously make it so!
.
> that not only do "non-believers" reject it,
.
Some (perhaps many) unbelievers reject the bible because they
don't understand it, or can't make sense of it, but I suspect
that most non-believers simply haven't bothered to really try
to understand the scriptures in the first place. Even many
believers have trouble making sense of so many different and
difficult ancient-documents. But the fault does not lie with
the texts; it lies in the general inability (or incapacity,
or unwillingness) to read the texts with a humble heart and a
receptive spirit. Believers who love to "lord it over the Word"
*ALWAYS* find in the abundant scriptures whatever it is they
wish to place there! :(
.
> but those who believe it to be the true word of God cannot
> agree upon its interpretation. There are hundreds of
> different Christian sects in the United States alone, and
> that does not include the countless thousands of private
> individuals who have their own, personal, interpretations
> of the Bible.
.
This is true. However, not all interpretations are created
equal. And not all are equally valid. Some are worthy, and
worth studying; but most are not. Most believers are hard-
wired into the attitude that their own personal views and
opinions and beliefs and "readings" are necessarily attuned
directly to the Mind of God (and so inerrant and infallible).
It's sad, to be sure, but blaming the scriptures for the
faults and inadequacies of its readers is hardly justified.
.
There are MANY ways of reading and understanding and
interpreting and translating the scriptures. Everything
depends on how the reader approaches the texts. If a believer
picks up a copy of the KJV in the supreme assurance that his
mind will now be in complete and absolute harmony with the
Mind of God, every word that falls under his eyes must be
made to bear this largely unconscious burden that the reader
projects into the texts. There is no real love or respect for
the scriptures here, because here the Word takes a back-seat
to the Reader, because the Reader is in complete and absolute
control over the Word.
.
Yet true love and respect for the scriptures means that the
reader is aware of the fluid nature of the texts, is aware of
his own interpretive "projections", is aware that subjective
attitudes and emotional dispositions can just as easily distort
the Word as reveal it. True love and respect for the Word
therefore involves discarding (as much as possible) this
aggressive 'I know it all' attitude on the part of the reader.
.
One cannot "hear" the Word, much less listen to it, if the
Reader is constantly yammering on and on about how wondrously
the Mind of God is fully revealed unto our ever-so-enlightened
minds. Thus there is no room for the truth of things to have
any say within the confines of a soul as one-dimensional
as this. Any interpretations, commentaries, and exegesis
proceeding from sources such as this are basically worthless
to believers and bible-students alike.
.
Accordingly, valid interpretations can proceed ONLY from an
attitude that is as quiet and as humble and as receptive and
as prayerful as possible. To see the meaning of the words on
the page means that in order to really hear the Word we must
first set aside our everyday grasping, assertive, and craving
self that makes up 99% of the "personality" that the world
around us sees. Total and absolute negation of our Self would
be ideal for setting the reader in a right relationship with
the sacred texts. But since that is far beyond the abilities
of most bible-readers (and believers), we must settle for
second-best by actively promoting a positive attitude of, not
forgetfulness, but of mindfulness.
.
For example, if a certain reader is an ardent and devoted
trinitarian, then it would be well for that reader to be
much more aware of how his reading of the Gospel of John
is distorted, firstly, by a translation that has already
*"inclined"* the Greek text in a trinitarian direction [eg.
Jn1;1, where the (slightly damaged) Greek text is almost
everywhere (RSV, etc) rendered as "and the Word was God"
instead of the far more authentic (and sensible) "and divine
was the Word", or even the only-very-slightly-less authentic
"and the Word was divine" (as with the Chicago Bible)], and,
secondly, is then further distorted by "understandings" that
see traces of the Trinity everywhere in John's Gospel.
.
Now this is (perhaps) an extreme example, but it is good
for believers to bear it in mind as a warning. For if any
reader comes away from the Gospel of John without a VERY
firm grasp upon his uncompromising monotheism (ie. John's
God is "THE God", as in 'the one true God' (eg. Jn.17:3))
*then* that "Great & All-Knowing Reader" is quite
obviously doing something very VERY wrong! :D
.
> It is often claimed by theologians that the original
> scriptures were perfect,
.
Those theologians who make such claims may (or may not) be
good theologians, but they are very much lacking in the most
basic competency in the matter of understanding the scriptures
historically and/or realistically. In other words, there is no
evidence to support this "original perfection" fantasy; but
there is plenty of evidence (or *some* at least; eg. see P52)
to suggest that "perfection" is *not-at-all* a helpful or
useful or positive concept to use in relation to the long and
complex (and highly confused!) history of textual transmission.
.
> but that the Bible has lost is perfection through copy
> errors and by being translated through several languages.
> Impossible! There could not be an imperfect copy or
> translation of a perfect book that was perfectly under-
> stood by the translator. God would not permit it!
.
God's "permission" has nothing to do with the *real* and
*actual* history of the sacred texts because "perfection"
has nothing to do with it either. Biblical inerrancy and
infallibility are NOT qualities or characteristics that
objectively exist "within" the sacred texts; rather, they
exist *solely* and *entirely* within the very confused minds
of those sad souls enslaved to the iniquity of bibliolatry!
.
> As I read the Bible, it does appear that God's word cannot
> be relied upon as in this, apparent, contradiction:
> Exodus 33: verse 20, God is said to have said: "Thou canst
> not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live."
> Exodus 33: verse 22 reads: "And the Lord spoke unto Moses
> face to face, as a man speakest unto his friend." -- Peace.
.
Well now this is a very interesting textual datum, jr, but
it hardly ranks as a major faith-shaking contradiction. God
is not to be found among the trifling details; for the truth
of things can no more be contained by any one book than the
Word of God can be captured, tamed, and domesticated by the
feeble efforts of all the world's many *many* scribes and
pharisees! Relying on God's Word (both cosmic and scriptural)
means NOT being side-tracked by small-mindedness ...
.
- the almost semi-mindful one - textman ;>
.
P.S. "For in this way you can all preach one after another,
as you are inspired to, so that everyone may be instructed
and stimulated; for the spirits of prophets will give way
to prophets, for God is not a God of disorder but of peace."
-- First Corinthians 14:31-33 / Chicago; Edgar J. Goodspeed
x
+
/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT / 24Jan2003 /
/ Newsgroups > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
> On 24Jan "Edgar A Pearlstein" <[email protected]>
> wrote: In the Old Testament there are many instances of God
> talking directly to a person. What such instances are there
> in the New Testament?
.
textman answers: Hi, Edgar. Interesting question you have
there, bud. There are various ways one can go about answering
this question. One way is to point out that God doesn't
generally talk *directly* in the NT because the age of the
classic prophets is over (John the Baptist is the last of
the Old World prophets).
.
However, with the Incarnation of the Logos of God in Jesus
of Nazareth, God can be said to be talking indirectly (or
even more or less directly) through the Son of God. 'He who
has seen me has seen the Father', as John's Gospel puts it.
That's pretty darn direct, I think.
.
But since you may disagree with this somewhat, there *are*
some few isolated instances where God does speak directly.
One impressive (although not exactly historical) case is
found in the Gospel of Mark where God directly addresses
Peter, James, and John, saying: "This is my Son, whom I
love. Listen to him!" (Mark 9:7).
.
Is this the sort of thing you were looking for?
.
- the semi-direct one - textman ;>
.
P.S. Now in those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee
and was baptized by John in the Jordan River. And just as he
was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens splitting
apart and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a
voice came from heaven: “You are my son, the beloved one,
in you I take great delight.” -- Mark 1:9-11
x
+
/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT / 26Jan03 /
/ Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
> On Jan26 Matthew Johnson ([email protected])
> wrote: <snip> More important, you seem to have entirely missed
> the significance of this whole passage (Mt 17:1-13).
.
textman answers: He's not the only one!
.
> For the Transfiguration reveals Jesus Christ as _equal_
> to the Father
.
How do you figure that? The only way to derive such a
conclusion from this passage is by deliberately forcing it
into the texts! A very NOT valid interpretation here.
.
> and the wonder of the vision is to give those disciples the
> strength to see Him crucified, understanding that being
> Almighty, He suffered VOLUNTARILY. <snip>
.
Ha! Nice try there, Matthew. Actually the transfiguration
episode is about religious *authority*; hence the presence
of Moses and Elijah. But your view explains nothing at all!
.
So you fancy that Jesus is equal to God, do you? That Jesus
IS God? Well, silly believers think that the NT teaches this,
but this is not so. Only thoughtless and careless and grossly
uncritical readings lead to that conclusion. What? You don't
believe me? What a shocker. But hey, check this out:
.
Apostles' Creed (2C)
.
I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven
and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord.
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the
Virgin Mary.
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and
buried. He descended into hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of
God the Father Almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost.
I believe in the holy catholic church.
The communion of saints. The forgiveness of sins.
The resurrection of the body. And the life everlasting.
Amen.
.
Please notice that the creed does NOT say that Jesus
is equal to God. Nor does it say that Jesus IS God.
How do you explain this gross oversight, Matthew?
.
- the untransfigured one - textman ;>
x
textman
*