Scriptural literacy

[Ichneumonwasp]

No one in his right mind claims today that God wrote the Bible. Humans wrote it. Whether inspired by God rests on several assumptions. We prefer to avoid those very problematic assumptions and examine the texts as literature, plain and simple.

While I hate quoting myself, I think it necessary to lay out the assumptions that we wish to avoid in pursuing this analysis, because the assumption that God wrote or is responsible for the writing of the Bible is loaded with assumptions:

1. God exists
2. God is a person, or has personhood -- including desires, intelligence, etc.
3. God is capable of communicating with human beings
4. God wants to communicate with human beings
5. God has communicated with human beings
6. The Bible is an example of one of those types of communication
7. The Bible is unique among the world's religious writings in that it accurately reflects the desires and thought processes of God while the remainder of the world's religious writing is so much dreck produced by mere mortals


We can simply bypass all those assumptions and look at the works for what they are -- literary productions, whether inspired by God or not. For the purposes of the literary discussion it really doesn't matter if God inspired the gospels or did not. Only when relating the texts back to the real world does that assumption come into play.

 

[bokonon]

I meant godlessness as an assumption in reference to what was written in the Bible. One can approach the Bible with that assumption and the assumption itself serves as a powerful motivator for doubt. That's why a productive discussion between persons who assume biblical writer inspiration and those who don't is untenable. The latter will imediately suspect collusion, and deceit, while the former will perceive biblical prophetic fulfillment and honesty.

So there's really no need for you to be here. You have convinced yourself that productive discussion is "untenable." You're only posting to parrot your labels of "godlessness" as an excuse for not defending (by references to the texts you think are being misinterpreted) your viewpoint.

It's one thing to "perceive biblical prophetic fulfillment and honesty" in contradictory accounts; it's quite another to write a coherent defense explaining the contradictions. Many people have a hard time reconciling inconsistent versions with honesty and truth, so I don't blame you for concocting any lame excuse to avoid attempting it.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I meant godlessness as an assumption in reference to what was written in the Bible. One can approach the Bible with that assumption and the assumption itself serves as a powerful motivator for doubt. That's why a productive discussion between persons who assume biblical writer inspiration and those who don't is untenable. The latter will imediately suspect collusion, and deceit, while the former will perceive biblical prophetic fulfillment and honesty.

BTW
Also, perhaps I assumed godlessness because the whole gist of the statements is to cast doubt on the honesty of the writers and even on the existence and /or honesty of Jesus himself. In short, everything said denigrates via casting doubt. Would a deist do this? Perhaps since being a desist requires no particular religious affiliation. In any case, whether atheist, agnostic, or deist, the intended effect is the same.

BTW, your perception is limited to "I believe...so there!" What your missing is fascinating history being discussed.
To bad that you have limited yourself by presumption of others being godless, you miss out on good, intelligent discussions that way.
Just like this thread.

 

[Greediguts]

Forgive me if this comes across as rambling and disjointed. I'm rushing to get out the door, but wanted to quickly post a few ideas and questions.

Sorry to backtrack, but I'm still slooowly working through Ezekiel and a few things stuck out.

The zoomorphic imagery found in his visions seems to be full of Babylonian iconography. Also, some of the first lines seem very similar in how Marduk was portrayed (Or was it Ba'al? I may be mxing pantheons...).

"And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire" (Ezekiel 1:4)

I thought Marduk started out as a storm god of the north. Piggy had brought up the El myths and how they figure into Genesis and Exodus. I'm assuming that Ezekiel would have roots in other traditions/myths as well.

The description of the throne with animal/human faces which then transforms into a war chariot strikes me as Babylonian in nature. When Marduk prepared to battle Tiamat, he rode a storm chariot, created 7 windstorms and filled his body with fire.

"And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about."
(Ezekiel 1:27)
---
BTW Why is it in the OT that God regularly placed "marks" on the people/houses he didn't want killed (lamb's blood on the door), but in Revelation, it becomes opposite??

"And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side;
And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city."(Ezekiel 9:3-7)

---

There are great metaphors throughout the story (Israel is a useless vine, Jerusalem, the bride of God, becomes a harlot etc.). These next verses I am having a hard time understanding. These verses are right after the people without the mark have been killed, the chariot reappears, and coal is sprinkled over the city( a reference to Isaiah 6:6-7 perhaps?). Here are the verses:

"Moreover the spirit lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the LORD's house, which looketh eastward: and behold at the door of the gate five and twenty men; among whom I saw Jaazaniah the son of Azur, and Pelatiah the son of Benaiah, princes of the people.
Then said he unto me, Son of man, these are the men that devise mischief, and give wicked counsel in this city:
Which say, It is not near; let us build houses: this city is the caldron, and we be the flesh.
Therefore prophesy against them, prophesy, O son of man.
And the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and said unto me, Speak; Thus saith the LORD; Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them.
Ye have multiplied your slain in this city, and ye have filled the streets thereof with the slain.
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Your slain whom ye have laid in the midst of it, they are the flesh, and this city is the caldron: but I will bring you forth out of the midst of it.
Ye have feared the sword; and I will bring a sword upon you, saith the Lord GOD.
And I will bring you out of the midst thereof, and deliver you into the hands of strangers, and will execute judgments among you.
Ye shall fall by the sword; I will judge you in the border of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
This city shall not be your caldron, neither shall ye be the flesh in the midst thereof; but I will judge you in the border of Israel:
And ye shall know that I am the LORD: for ye have not walked in my statutes, neither executed my judgments, but have done after the manners of the heathen that are round about you." (Ezekiel 11:1-12)

I'm a little perplexed on the whole build houses, flesh, meat, cauldron ideas. I'd give my ideas but I'm going to be late for work. Could someone give their interpretation? Much appreciated....

 

[Piggy]

The zoomorphic imagery found in his visions seems to be full of Babylonian iconography. Also, some of the first lines seem very similar in how Marduk was portrayed (Or was it Ba'al? I may be mxing pantheons...).

Oh, yeah, it's heavily influenced by Babylonian iconography. That's one of the ways we can date it.

I'm out the door, too.

Sorry to be absentee for the last couple of weeks, but my life's been too busy to read.

Tomorrow I'm out of town. Maybe I'll get back to some of this before too terribly long.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I meant godlessness as an assumption in reference to what was written in the Bible. One can approach the Bible with that assumption and the assumption itself serves as a powerful motivator for doubt. That's why a productive discussion between persons who assume biblical writer inspiration and those who don't is untenable. The latter will imediately suspect collusion, and deceit, while the former will perceive biblical prophetic fulfillment and honesty.

As I and others have repeatedly pointed out, one can approach the bible like any other work of literature, analyzing its content and appreciating it from a literary perspective, without it being necessary to make any assumptions about the existence of the characters. Whether or not God is real is actually irrelevant, and despite your projections, there are atheists and believers alike who are quite capable of discussing it like any other story or collections of stories. Yahweh is a character in a book and is being treated as such. One can read, interpret, and discuss the Homeric epics, for example, without assuming that the Greek gods exist or don't exist.

Your accusations are moronic, your complaints about untenable discussions are hypocritical, and the examples you dredge up to support your claims are lies. Mashing your own credibility into a thin paste in order to spread it out does not really help broaden its scope.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

My only comment is **** real life, Piggy and Greediguts. Personally, I want more commentary in this thread. But I really need to go back and read Ezekiel.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I don't have the historical archives to go by, but this study on Ezekiel by Dr Peter Pett BA BD (Hons-London) DD explains the images using just the bible itself as interpretation.

I found this to be interesting, but it would be more interesting to read other archives from this period.
The article of Dr Pett is here:
http://uk.geocities.com/jonpartin/ezekiela.html

 

[Piggy]

My only comment is **** real life, Piggy and Greediguts. Personally, I want more commentary in this thread. But I really need to go back and read Ezekiel.

Sorry, Ichy, but real life is overtaking me in a serious way.

It looks like I'm going into one of my extended periods of absence.

I'm very sorry to have to do this right now, because -- well, I'm sure you all know -- the mere existence of this thread was a real joy to me.

I'll see you when I see you.

-Piggy

 

[Greediguts]

Sorry, Ichy, but real life is overtaking me in a serious way.

It looks like I'm going into one of my extended periods of absence.

I'm very sorry to have to do this right now, because -- well, I'm sure you all know -- the mere existence of this thread was a real joy to me.

I'll see you when I see you.

-Piggy

Hurry back. Your participation has been invaluable. Thank you! Hopefully the rest of us can keep the thread alive during your absence.


"'We musn't let anything happen to Piggy, must we?'"
- William Golding, Lord of the Flies, Ch. 7

 

[Greediguts]

Just to add a bit to the verse I quoted from Ezekiel before.....

I forgot about this verse that appears later on. The parable would seem to be an extension of the cauldron/flesh metaphor.

"And utter a parable unto the rebellious house, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Set on a pot, set it on, and also pour water into it:
Gather the pieces thereof into it, even every good piece, the thigh, and the shoulder; fill it with the choice bones.
Take the choice of the flock, and burn also the bones under it, and make it boil well, and let them seethe the bones of it therein.
Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the bloody city, to the pot whose scum is therein, and whose scum is not gone out of it! bring it out piece by piece; let no lot fall upon it.
For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;
That it might cause fury to come up to take vengeance; I have set her blood upon the top of a rock, that it should not be covered.
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the bloody city! I will even make the pile for fire great.
Heap on wood, kindle the fire, consume the flesh, and spice it well, and let the bones be burned.
Then set it empty upon the coals thereof, that the brass of it may be hot, and may burn, and that the filthiness of it may be molten in it, that the scum of it may be consumed.
She hath wearied herself with lies, and her great scum went not forth out of her: her scum shall be in the fire.
In thy filthiness is lewdness: because I have purged thee, and thou wast not purged, thou shalt not be purged from thy filthiness any more, till I have caused my fury to rest upon thee. I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the Lord GOD."(Ezekiel 24:3-14)

I thought I had a fairly clear idea of how to interpret those verses of chapt.11, but chapt. 24 is making me rethink it.

Off to read the link provided by MIKILLINI...then I have to catch-up on my sleep.......

 

[Radrook]

BTW, your perception is limited to "I believe...so there!"

That's your twisted perception of what I said.

What your missing is fascinating history being discussed.

Fascination is a subjective. Neither does fascination prove anything at all except that the perceiver feels fascinated,. Jugglers fascinate the audience. Even comedians do.

To bad that you have limited yourself by presumption of others being godless, you miss out on good, intelligent discussions that way. Just like this thread.

Again, "goodness" is subjective. Hitler was considered good by some. Acid rock, drugs, child molestation is considered good by others. As to godlessness, I explained what I meant and what I meant isn't what you are claim I am saying.

BTW

The premise for the discussion rules out my participation which would require a tiresome neverending debate which I would find boring, annoying and of no particular practical value.

 

[Radrook]

...., because the assumption that God wrote or is responsible for the writing of the Bible is loaded with assumptions:.....

It seems that asumptions only bother wanabe skeptics when they are religious. If the assumptions support godless evolution then they are ok by them. Either we apply the rules of skeptisism consistently and without bias or else we can't expect to be taken seriously when we pontificate.

 

[Hokulele]

Argument from "I know you are but what am I?".

 

[Radrook]

I'm afraid that I have no idea what relationship your statements above bear to what I wrote and fear that your screed is based on a mis-reading of the previous discussion's intent.

I have no idea why you find what I wrote irrelevant.

Again, no. That is not godlessness. Rather it is an approach that views biblical material as literature. The assumption is not godlessness, but errancy (the Bible is not inerrant -- as has been demonstrated repeatedly in the past). These texts are very obviously literary. In fact, they have significant literary merit. We examine them from that perspective and ask questions from the vantage of that assumption.

The approach is based on the an assumption of which you are well aware.

No one in his right mind claims today that God wrote the Bible. Humans wrote it.

Of course humans wrote it. The names of the men who wrote it are well known.

Whether inspired by God rests on several assumptions.

Not assumptions but conclusions based on convincing factors.

We prefer to avoid those very problematic assumptions and....

Problematic to you because it sdoesn't jive with your assumptions. Actually there are thousands of scholars which don't view them as problematic at all. Perhaps because they aren't hindered by preconceptions or an anti-religious mentality.

....examine the texts as literature, plain and simple.

No one in his right mind would claim that the Bible isn't literature or that it shouldn't be examined as literature. However, to examine it as literature does not require adopting a biased approach which is the foundation upon your supposedly higher criticism is based. As I said previously, such an approach generates it's own support via predispositions to view things in a constant suspicious manner. It refuses to consider alternative interpretations which would be consistent with the religious view. But instead prefers whatever seems to support the anti-religious or godless one. It searches for nonexistent borrowings from pagan literature, it sees false worship where none exists, it perceives contradictions where there aren't any, it suspects lies without any basis to suspect lies, it assumes a hodge podge of things-all in the service of one purpose-proving the Bible is a book of lies written by liars.



http://apologetiks.com/2008/06/29/illigitimate-biblical-contradictions/

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It seems that asumptions only bother wanabe skeptics when they are religious. If the assumptions support godless evolution then they are ok by them. Either we apply the rules of skeptisism consistently and without bias or else we can't expect to be taken seriously when we pontificate.

You can decide either to address the issues at play or continue to pursue non-sequiturs such as this. It is your choice. I have explained that our intent here is to discuss the gospels as literature. I have provided the actual assumptions we make, which are minimal and do not necessarily include belief in God nor non-belief.

The primary assumption is that the works are literary and that they can be addressed as works of literature.

There a multiple assumptions behind the idea that God is responsible for the content of the Bible, as already discussed. The same is not true for the literary approach to the gospels.

Sticking your fingers in your ears, stamping the floor, and repeating "But you are assuming, you are assuming!", especially when your concerns have already been addressed appears childish at best. If you will accept a little advice, if I were you, I would try a different approach. The one you are pursuing is not only not working, but it reflects very badly on your rhetorical skill.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I have no idea why you find what I wrote irrelevant.

To discuss this you will need to show where I stated or even implied that what you wrote was irrelevant. I did not say it lacked relevancy, but that it did not address the issue we were discussing. It was a non-sequitur.

The approach is based on the an assumption of which you are well aware.

Yes, I am well aware that we assume that the gospels are works of literature that can be approached as works of literature. We make no claim as to whether or not they are literally true. That sort of issue doesn't enter into what is actually there -- what Jesus' message actually was (as far as we can tell), whether or not Jesus' message differed profoundly from Paul's message, what might have been created by the author of Mark as a metaphor rather than an actual occurrence. Taking Mark as example, this is a work that is loaded with parables. Parables are metaphors used for teaching purposes. I have a strong feeling that the author of Mark did the same with some of the earlier stories. I have no way of being sure of this, but it seems to to me. None of this impacts the underlying message of the gospel -- that few understood who Jesus was, but you the reader can now know the Good News, that he is the Messiah that suffered and died.

If you don't like the discussion, then fine, but don't mistake the intent with the consequence.

Of course humans wrote it. The names of the men who wrote it are well known.

The names of a few of them are well-known. Most of the others, including all of the gospels, are not. The ascriptions were not made for another century until after they were written at a time when apostolic legacy was considered vitally important.

Not assumptions but conclusions based on convincing factors.

You've been provided the assumptions. I would like to see your list of convincing factors.

Problematic to you because it sdoesn't jive with your assumptions. Actually there are thousands of scholars which don't view them as problematic at all. Perhaps because they aren't hindered by preconceptions or an anti-religious mentality.

Oh come on. Those assumptions are problematic because they are so extensive. We try to make the fewest assumptions possible when discussing matters; there are simply numerous assumptions that underlie the belief that God is responsible for the content of the Bible in a way that He is not responsible for other literary works. If you have direct evidence demonstrating that God inspired these works and no others, then I would like to hear it.

There are consequences that arise from those assumptions, as well. One of those consequences (based on another assumption) is that if God is responsible for the Bible, then no contradictions should be possible within it. But that is not what we find when we read it.

No one in his right mind would claim that the Bible isn't literature or that it shouldn't be examined as literature. However, to examine it as literature does not require adopting a biased approach which is the foundation upon your supposedly higher criticism is based. As I said previously, such an approach generates it's own support via predispositions to view things in a constant suspicious manner. It refuses to consider alternative interpretations which would be consistent with the religious view. But instead prefers whatever seems to support the anti-religious or godless one. It searches for nonexistent borrowings from pagan literature, it sees false worship where none exists, it perceives contradictions where there aren't any, it suspects lies without any basis to suspect lies, it assumes a hodge podge of things-all in the service of one purpose-proving the Bible is a book of lies written by liars.



http://apologetiks.com/2008/06/29/illigitimate-biblical-contradictions/

I'm sorry, but what lies in the works do I suspect? I don't recall anyone arguing that there was any attempt to lie in the gospels. Rather, I think that the folks who wrote them strongly believed the message. Whether or not that message fits with the real world is an entirely different matter, but that isn't what we are discussing right now. We are trying to approach the works from within their contexts and not assuming that they try to speak to our times necessarily. Shakespeare spoke to his time. The biblical works were written at a particular time and are best understood in that context. Granted, good works of literature can speak to all times, and the gospels certainly do that; but this discussion concerns approaching them from within their historical context.

I am also sorry that there are contradictions in the biblical account. I know theologians attempts all sorts of contortions to avoid the contradictions, but they exist all the same.

Are there assumptions within the literary approach? Heck, yes. If you look back you will see that I am actually arguing against one of the assumptions that Piggy provided. I don't know if I'm right or he is, but it is in discussions such as this that we can arrive at truth.

Lastly, I don't see anyone refusing to consider other interpretations. If you want to provide one and you can make a good enough argument, then we will listen. In Habermasian arenas, the best argument wins.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Either we apply the rules of skeptisism consistently and without bias or else we can't expect to be taken seriously when we pontificate.

I agree. People who are biased enough to lie about evidence should not be taken seriously.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Radrook,

I'm trying to understand your position, but I sense that we are talking past one another since what I see you writing doesn't follow what I have written previously. In my experience this happens either because the one person doesn't know what s/he wants to say or because s/he is trying to make an argument different from what is actually written. I think you know what you are trying to say, so I assume the other.

I suspect that you took the wrong approach in saying that we assume the non-existence of God in our discussion. We are not trying to prove that God does not exist in this analysis, so we are not doing the circular reasoning bit of assuming our conclusion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect what you actually want to argue is that we cannot understand properly what is in the gospels without the grace of God, since understanding can only dawn on those provided it. It's an old argument and a very dangerous one (there actually is a circular argument built into that one).

Let me know if that is your actual argument, because the argument from assumptions just isn't working.

 

[Greediguts]

I've now read several different interpretations of Ezekiel chapt. 11. I'm not finding a true consensus...

The line that struck me was "Which say, It is not near; let us build houses: this city is the caldron, and we be the flesh." Other versions have this translated as "pot" instead of "caldron" and "meat" instead of "flesh". It would appear that the second half ("this city is the caldron, and we be the flesh") is the reason not to build houses. I felt, when reading this, that it was a common metaphor of the time and readers of that era would have a clear understanding of what it meant.

I also cannot find any proof of that.

So then going with the city being the cauldron, I viewed the "wicked" men remaining as being overconfident and pompous. They felt protected in the city (cauldron/pot) and that they would be the ruling class(flesh/meat) as they had been spared being exiled. That changed when I remembered the parable about the pot in chapter 24. The "pot" was safe for no one.

If a portion of the community had been exiled, their homes would be empty. It could refer to the leaders taking their homes so no new buildings would need to be constructed.

I also wondered why God would want the men removed from the city and judged at the border. Everyone in the "pot" was going to be cooked. Looking at chapter 12, it looks like this could be part of another prediction that would have actually been the recent past.

"And in the morning came the word of the LORD unto me, saying,
Son of man, hath not the house of Israel, the rebellious house, said unto thee, What doest thou?
Say thou unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; This burden concerneth the prince in Jerusalem, and all the house of Israel that are among them.
Say, I am your sign: like as I have done, so shall it be done unto them: they shall remove and go into captivity.
And the prince that is among them shall bear upon his shoulder in the twilight, and shall go forth: they shall dig through the wall to carry out thereby: he shall cover his face, that he see not the ground with his eyes.
My net also will I spread upon him, and he shall be taken in my snare: and I will bring him to Babylon to the land of the Chaldeans; yet shall he not see it, though he shall die there.
And I will scatter toward every wind all that are about him to help him, and all his bands; and I will draw out the sword after them.
And they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall scatter them among the nations, and disperse them in the countries.
But I will leave a few men of them from the sword, from the famine, and from the pestilence; that they may declare all their abominations among the heathen whither they come; and they shall know that I am the LORD."(Ezekiel 12:8-16)

If the prince is Zedekiah (the last king of Judah), he actually did escape when the Babylonians took the city (not by digging, he escaped via a gate near the palace). He was captured, taken to Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah and forced to watch as the Babylonians killed his own sons. Zedekiah was then blinded and taken to Babylon. So he was brought to Babylon but literally did not see it.

As a side note, the Book of Mormon claims Zedekiah's son, Mulek, survived and crossed the ocean to America where he established a new civilization.

On a second side note, I've been using the King James Version(KJV) when I quote the bible. The more scholarly work I read, the more flaws I see that were discovered in the KJV. I'm going to move to the New Revised Standard Version(NRSV) as there seems to be a consensus among most scholars in its use.