Bible scholarship
- Thread starter Tom Morris
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible scholarship
Iacchus said:
Well, I've got to disagree. My personal belief is that once you understand the history and the context of the Bible, only then are you in a position to comment on what it says without falling into the category of "making ◊◊◊◊ up."
However, history means nothing outside of what was originally intended. In which case it either strikes a chord with you or it doesn't if, in fact there is any universal meaning to it at all. And yes, I do appreciate things from the historical standpoint as well.
Iacchus said:
I'm sorry; the only way I can interpret this is that you are saying the original intent of the Biblical authors is no longer relevant to the meaning of the Bible.
Is that what you're saying? That the things the writers of the Bible were writing about are irrelevant to the words that we read an interpret today?
Okay then, Who is the original author of the Bible? Those who wrote it? Or, that which inspired them to write it? While there's no doubt those who wrote it added some of their own intent as well, however, that isn't to say the Bible does not have a Universal or, transcendent meaning. Otherwise there would be no point in discussing it.
Iacchus said:
So your basic argument is, it doesn't matter what the writers meant, it only matters what God meant, and God didn't mean anything at all to do with that time period?
Well, you should be happy with a Good News Bible, then - it's just as good as a 1611 KJV, after all it's all about what God intended, not what was written - and who's to say what that is, eh?
Besides you, I mean.
Tom:
Welcome to the forums.
Two drink minimum . . .
. . . mind the hounds. . . .
Right, one major problem with the KJV is that it was based on poor textual witnesses. Here is my "quickie" list of inexpensive books.
OT:
Friedman has two wonderful works for a basic overview of the authorship:
Who Wrote the Bible?
The Bible with Sources Revealed
His second I list is a good text to use. It has some issues, but for those--do you use the MT or the LXX and DSS for this passage--you need to read scholarly works devoted to the passage/subject. Nevertheless, it is a great source for seeing how the texts are multiple texts stitched together.
NT:
Stop what you are doing and buy this book now:
Gospel Parallels
I wrote NOW!!!
I will wait.
Hmmm . . . hmmmm . . . Put on the 8-track . . . hmmmm . . . hmmmm
Right . . . this puts the gospel texts side by side to one another. The used and very cheap versions are fine. The translation is RSV which is fine enough--many scholars use it for the English and translate passages they disagree with.
With this you can see how Lk and Mt rewrote Mk. Q? You can see Q. It also has a good introduction to textual criticism. Granted he claims the texts for the NT are very certain--HA!--but that is just a bit of bias on his part. A wonderfully useful source.
You will note that the link to Friedman's first book offers a "deal" on this Mack book:
Who Wrote the New Testament
this is also a great introduction.
--J.D.
Welcome to the forums.
Two drink minimum . . .
. . . mind the hounds. . . .
Right, one major problem with the KJV is that it was based on poor textual witnesses. Here is my "quickie" list of inexpensive books.
OT:
Friedman has two wonderful works for a basic overview of the authorship:
Who Wrote the Bible?
The Bible with Sources Revealed
His second I list is a good text to use. It has some issues, but for those--do you use the MT or the LXX and DSS for this passage--you need to read scholarly works devoted to the passage/subject. Nevertheless, it is a great source for seeing how the texts are multiple texts stitched together.
NT:
Stop what you are doing and buy this book now:
Gospel Parallels
I wrote NOW!!!
I will wait.
Hmmm . . . hmmmm . . . Put on the 8-track . . . hmmmm . . . hmmmm
Right . . . this puts the gospel texts side by side to one another. The used and very cheap versions are fine. The translation is RSV which is fine enough--many scholars use it for the English and translate passages they disagree with.
With this you can see how Lk and Mt rewrote Mk. Q? You can see Q. It also has a good introduction to textual criticism. Granted he claims the texts for the NT are very certain--HA!--but that is just a bit of bias on his part. A wonderfully useful source.
You will note that the link to Friedman's first book offers a "deal" on this Mack book:
Who Wrote the New Testament
this is also a great introduction.
--J.D.
No, I'm saying history means nothing without the mystery. Because it's the intent (mystery) which inspires the deed (history). So, if you don't understand anything of the original intent (God's), which must be Universal, how can you possibly duplicate the results yourself?scribble said:
And what did I say about the King James Version above?
The mystery is like the recipe which goes into the loaf of bread. While the bread itself which, is certainly a good thing to have, becomes the history. However, there's no possible way we can bake the loaf of bread for ourselves if, we don't have the recipe. 
Iacchus said:The mystery is like the recipe which goes into the loaf of bread. While the bread itself which, is certainly a good thing to have, becomes the history. However, there's no possible way we can bake the loaf of bread for ourselves if, we don't have the recipe.
Yes, but I'm not writing the Bible, I'm just reading it. Are you saying it's impossible to understand the Bible unless you are God (ie: the recipe-holder?)
If so, why bother at all?
No, all I'm saying is the Bible means nothing unless you understand the mystery behind it which, is what it's supposed to entail, the mystery of God.scribble said:
And how would you know? By applying the recipe (what you gleen from the Bible) in your own life. In other words the Bible has more to do with the recipe itself, and having the ingredients on hand (your understanding) to bake the loaf of bread yourself.
phildonnia
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2001
- Messages
- 2,439
Someone mentioned the Skeptics Annotated Bible. I also like to use http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.html since it has a nifty search, multiple versions, and concordances.
Iacchus said:
So now the recipe isn't what God meant when he wrote the Bible... now the Recipe is what I get when I understand the Bible.
Congratulations, you've argued yourself in a circle.
Once again, you can't get your understanding (recipe) unless you know what the hell the author (be it God or Man) was talking about.
Iacchus said:
I think regardless of whether God's mystery was behind it or not, it IS a historical document, and in order to be understood, you must understand it's context.
If you think not, then I challenge you to give a copy of the KJV1611 Bible to a child and ask him what it means. If he needs help, he is only allowed to go to a dictionary. Understanding the context is not important, you say.
No one in this conversation is talking about dismissing the Bible except you.
Is there more to the Bible than history and politics or, is there a genuine mystery behind it? Because without the mystery, there certainly is no reason to believe in God now is there?scribble said:
In context with what? The history so-called scholars wish to accept, denigrated by the lack of mystery? Like I said, are you looking to validate it or, looking to dismiss it?
Yes, except that everyone else has on this thread has already refuted it as, merely an historical document.
Iacchus said:
I don't know - is it even possible to answer that question before you've learned enough about the Bible to know what isn't a mystery? (ie: when the books were authored, what was going on at the time, what the idioms of the day mean, etc)
How do you know if the Bible holds any mystery when you refuse to examine the facts? Yes, when you have your head buried in the sand 24/7, the world outside your sand-hole is a big mystery. Some of us prefer to take our heads out of the sand and learn what we can, and let the mysterys be where they are. Some of us feel there are enough unknowns without manufacturing them from willful ignorance.
You might think knowing the facts ruins the fun, but I don't share that opinion. If God is out there, he's going to be just as cool if I know all I can about his book, as he will be if I remain a willful ignoramus as you seem to endorse.
If by "validate it," you mean I study it wish a sincere wish for there to be a God, then yes. I read it with a desire to validate it. So far, I have been unsuccessful.
If I were looking to dismiss it, I certainly wouldn't spend so much time studying it. I would just dismiss it. I could have done that a long time ago.
Everyone else refuted it? Everyone but you? Everyone but you and me? I think you're making things up. In fact, it remains true that NO ONE has said that it is either "refuted" nor "merely" a historical document.
Except you.
Iacchus said:
That's a fact, is it? -- you're stating as fact that the Bible has no mystery to it, and can be entirerly described as a historical document, and in that perspective, there are no more mysteries?
Bulls**t. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about anymore, you're just making words fit together.
Here's a tip: there are *plenty* of thoughtful, non-ostrich-acting Christians out there who study the Bible the same way I do. They don't feel that knowing what God said ruins His mystery.
Neither do I. I think you gotta' know what God said before your'e qualified to even talk about Him. How you get off saying the less you know about God the better you know Him is beyond me - but that's the kind of thought process that leads to severe internalization and eventually can even lead to things like solipsism, which is, of course, only rebranded insanity.
You're walking down a dark, dangerous path. And not the one God would want you to walk; Jesus Christ himself is famous for his time spent fondly debating the law (ie: the old testament). He made sure he understood it inside and out, or so we are told. Should you not attempt the same?
I know actually studying the Bible is a lot harder than maintaining the belief that the less you know about the Bible, the more you love God.
But that doesn't make your stance any more appreciable to me. A method which has only ease as it's appeal does not appeal to me.