Bible scholarship

[Tricky]

I'm uncertain what is meant by "historical document". Certainly it was created in history, but so are all other published books. It is just a matter of how far back in history. To me, a historical document is about the past, which a great deal of the bible is. However, it is much more. It is folklore, when it tells the Sumarian flood story in Genesis. It is a lawbook when it lays out rules Exodus and Leviticus. It is proverbs when it provides comfort and words to live by, like in the Psalms. It is love poetry, like when it talks about lovemaking in The Songs of Soloman, and of course, it is philosophy when it discusses the teachings of Jesus. And it is prophecy, when it makes predictions, like in Revelations. The vast majority of the Bible has little do do with history, other than that it has a historical setting.

So why, Iacchus, are you making the claim here that everyone here regards it as only history? Is this just your way of saying "most people here don't think it was divinely inspired"? If so, then that is certainly true, at least among the atheists here, because atheists, by definition, don't think anything is proven to be divinely inspired. However, it can still be beautiful and inspirational and guiding and sexy and thought provoking and deadly boring, and of course, historical. The Bible is all these things, in different parts.

Are you sure you've read this book?

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Well said!

 

[triadboy]

Tricky's the bomb!

 

[Doctor X]

Much easier to blather incoherently about what you want a book to mean if you do not bother to read it or the scholarship concerning it.

--J.D.

 

[Iacchus]

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 -- you're stating as fact that the Bible has no mystery to it, and can be entirerly described as a historical document, and in that perspective, there are no more mysteries?

No, I'm referring to the collective perspective here, particularly to those who subscribe to this board, not mine.

 

[Iacchus]

So why, Iacchus, are you making the claim here that everyone here regards it as only history? Is this just your way of saying "most people here don't think it was divinely inspired"? If so, then that is certainly true, at least among the atheists here, because atheists, by definition, don't think anything is proven to be divinely inspired.

By Jove, I think you've got it! ...

By the way, if you insist that we consider it merely from an historical standpoint, might I suggest that you're only reading the half of it?

 

[Iacchus]

I'm uncertain what is meant by "historical document". Certainly it was created in history, but so are all other published books. It is just a matter of how far back in history. To me, a historical document is about the past, which a great deal of the bible is. However, it is much more. It is folklore, when it tells the Sumarian flood story in Genesis. It is a lawbook when it lays out rules Exodus and Leviticus. It is proverbs when it provides comfort and words to live by, like in the Psalms. It is love poetry, like when it talks about lovemaking in The Songs of Soloman, and of course, it is philosophy when it discusses the teachings of Jesus.

Oh, tricky, I didn't know you had it in you!

And it is prophecy, when it makes predictions, like in Revelations.

Really? ... How so?

 

[Iacchus]

The Bible is merely a recording of something we (most of us) don't understand. This is what makes it a mystery, and this is what's lacking if we wish only to view it from an historical standpoint.

By the way, anyone know how many times the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, Son of Man, prophet, disciple or, any words derived therefrom are listed in the Bible? 25,000 times perhaps? 50,000 times? 100,000 times? More? It would be interesting if someone could actually do a search and find this out?

 

[Tricky]

By Jove, I think you've got it! ...

By the way, if you insist that we consider it merely from an historical standpoint, might I suggest that you're only reading the half of it?

Thank you, but I believe I just stated that we should not consider it from merely an historical standpoint. How can I be any clearer?

Oh, tricky, I didn't know you had it in you!

Why not? I told you I used to be a Christian. I have read the entire bible (even the boring parts).

Really? ... How so?

LOL! Really, Iacchus. I thought you knew the Bible better than this. Revelation is just packed to the seams with prophecy, like
this passage.

Revelation 20:7
When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison
8
and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth--Gog and Magog--to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.
9
They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
10
And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Now admittedly this book reads like a bad acid trip, and the author can't seem to keep his tense constant, but it is certainly not history. What would you call it?

 

[Iacchus]

Thank you, but I believe I just stated that we should not consider it from merely an historical standpoint. How can I be any clearer?

Well my main point being, and it's the only point I wished to make, is that if you take the mystery away from religion, then it's reduced to nothing more than politics which, can then be explained from its historical side. And I'm afraid that's not religion. And it's at this point that I don't wish to hear someone's political interpretation of the Bible, not unless it entails some spiritual understanding as well. Which, can be a big leap for a lot of people to take I guess?

Why not? I told you I used to be a Christian. I have read the entire bible (even the boring parts).

Well that one seems to have slipped my mind then.

LOL! Really, Iacchus. I thought you knew the Bible better than this. Revelation is just packed to the seams with prophecy, like
this passage.

Now admittedly this book reads like a bad acid trip, and the author can't seem to keep his tense constant, but it is certainly not history. What would you call it?

And yet you don't actually believe it's a revelation from God do you? Which, is basically what I was getting at.

 

[Tricky]

Well my main point being, and it's the only point I wished to make, is that if you take the mystery away from religion, then it's reduced to nothing more than politics which, can then be explained from its historical side.

Sorry, but that's a definition of "mystery" with which I am unaware. There is plenty of mystery in the Bible. Where did Cain's wife come from? Who opened Jesus' tomb? There are all sorts of things that aren't really explained satisfactorily. In fact, if anything, it is the religious people who take away the mystery by applying the "God did it" all-purpose-answer to all of the mysteries.

In fact, it almost seems as if you are worried that these mysteries might get solved, so poking around for the facts is discouraged.

And I'm afraid that's not religion. And it's at this point that I don't wish to hear someone's political interpretation of the Bible, not unless it entails some spiritual understanding as well. Which, can be a big leap for a lot of people to take I guess?

No, not at all. One can have spiritual understanding without having spiritual belief. I was confirmed in the Episcopal church. I have a pretty good grasp of the spiritual side and of the "mysteries". I simply don't believe them.

Now are you really saying that you only want to hear the interpretations of believers? I surely hope not.

And yet you don't actually believe it's a revelation from God do you? Which, is basically what I was getting at.

Again you seem to be saying that if I don't believe it then it doesn't count. Come on, Iacchus, it's a prophecy. In my opinion, it is a lunatic prophecy, but a prophecy nonetheless.

I am saddened that you only seem to respect the opinions of those who feel the same way you do.

 

[LW]

Again you seem to be saying that if I don't believe it then it doesn't count. Come on, Iacchus, it's a prophecy. In my opinion, it is a lunatic prophecy, but a prophecy nonetheless.

You may want to reconsider your wording or at least add a small definition for "prophecy". You see, there are people for which "prophecy" means that it is something that came from God and that is true.

So, when you use "prophecy" in context of the Revelations, those persons might take that to imply that you agree that the text came from God and the events it predicted either happened or will happen.

 

[Tricky]

You may want to reconsider your wording or at least add a small definition for "prophecy". You see, there are people for which "prophecy" means that it is something that came from God and that is true.

So, when you use "prophecy" in context of the Revelations, those persons might take that to imply that you agree that the text came from God and the events it predicted either happened or will happen.

Perhaps, but the "capital P" Prophecy again requires belief, so it appears that a non-believer would be prohibited from using that word. What can a non-believer use to describe Revelation then? "Little p" prophecy? Drunken ramblings?

 

[Iacchus]

Sorry, but that's a definition of "mystery" with which I am unaware. There is plenty of mystery in the Bible. Where did Cain's wife come from? Who opened Jesus' tomb? There are all sorts of things that aren't really explained satisfactorily. In fact, if anything, it is the religious people who take away the mystery by applying the "God did it" all-purpose-answer to all of the mysteries.

In fact, it almost seems as if you are worried that these mysteries might get solved, so poking around for the facts is discouraged.

Actually, the mystery of God should be much easier to answer if, in fact God resides within us, right? In which case all these "lessor mysteries" would pretty much take the back seat to the whole thing, don't you think?

No, not at all. One can have spiritual understanding without having spiritual belief. I was confirmed in the Episcopal church. I have a pretty good grasp of the spiritual side and of the "mysteries". I simply don't believe them.

However, there is a difference between knowledge and the actual experience of something.

Now are you really saying that you only want to hear the interpretations of believers? I surely hope not.

Nope. I could care less. Why? Because it's something we all have to make up our own minds about. If I can't see it, then what point does it serve if I have to rely on somebody else, especially if they're in the same boat I'm in? In which case you get, the "blind leaders of the blind." It's funny because you almost have to become the goat, rather than the sheep, in order to understand.

Again you seem to be saying that if I don't believe it then it doesn't count. Come on, Iacchus, it's a prophecy. In my opinion, it is a lunatic prophecy, but a prophecy nonetheless.

I am saddened that you only seem to respect the opinions of those who feel the same way you do.

I suppose you could say false prophecy, but compared to what, true prophecy? And where would that come from? If the word has no meaning which, is what you seem to suggest, then why include it in the dictionary?

Actually, I think LW was right-on about what he or she had to say.

 

[Tricky]

Actually, the mystery of God should be much easier to answer if, in fact God resides within us, right? In which case all these "lessor mysteries" would pretty much take the back seat to the whole thing, don't you think?

Sure it would be easier to answer. Just decide that God is a "fact" and it all falls into place. The answer would be a simple statement of belief, so it would be a whole lot easier than messing with all that "evidence" business.
(Is a lessor mystery one in which you are wondering where you will get the rent money? )

However, there is a difference between knowledge and the actual experience of something.

And what makes you think I have not experienced it? I had genuine belief, my friend. I don't think it is for you to decide whether or not I "actually experienced" spirituality.

Have you ever "experienced" atheism?

Nope. I couldn't care less.edited by Tricky to correct an annoyingly incorrect cliche. Why? Because it's something we all have to make up our own minds about. If I can't see it, then what point does it serve if I have to rely on somebody else, especially if they're in the same boat I'm in? In which case you get, the "blind leaders of the blind." It's funny because you almost have to become the goat, rather than the sheep, in order to understand.

Here we disagree. I don't think we ever have to "make up our minds". I think we should constantly re-evaluate to see if the evidence has changed. As I grew up, I gathered more evidence and my position changed. This in no way means that my previous position was not heartfelt.

I suppose you could say false prophecy, but compared to what, true prophecy? And where would that come from? If the word has no meaning which, is what you seem to suggest, then why include it in the dictionary?

I do not suggest the word has no meaning. The word "unicorn" has meaning too, though that doesn't mean one exists.

Is your position that all Prophecy is true? How then can you call things that are as yet unanswered "Prophecy"? If the test is truthfulness, then you are only expressing your belief that it will turn out to be Prophecy.

My definition is that prophecy is any prediction based on zero or scant evidence that a person expects to come true.

Actually, I think LW was right-on about what he or she had to say.

It was a valid point, but I think I have addressed it properly.

How do you define prophecy? Would you agree with Muslims that Muhammad is rightly called a prophet?