Re: What Bible?

At 10:28 AM 3/10/2006, Debbie Mann wrote:

Babylonean history looks much like Genesis. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel
of Mary, Apocrypha - people argue over the literal details of our
Bible - but Early Christians didn't agree on much. They didn't have
one Bible - that didn't happen until 325 A.D. in Nicea. Why Paul's
Bible? Why not James' Bible? James knew Jesus personally - why was
Paul considered more inspired? Did politics or truth determine these
details of what we believe? Was James just too restrictive and the
more liberal views of Paul more politically digestable?

People make these documents the basis of beliefs which they then take
personally. When the documents are disputed, the believer feels
personally affronted and frequently as though they need to defend
God. It is only our belief system which has been challenged, not
attacked, and God needs no defense.

Mother Theresa had a quote (no, I'm not Catholic - Protestant
Eclectic and yes I absolutely believe the Apostle's Creed) - the
quote said something about when everything else is gone, God remains.

'Study to show thyself approved' Study what? The scriptures. What
scriptures? Study how? Are they science, allegory or what? The
historeans thought David was mythological, but the archeologists have
proved him real. Likewise the Philistines. Supposed contradictions
have been resolved by determining that there were two famous figures
of the same name in different countries a few decades apart. There's
amazing verification of much of the historical content of the Bible.
Too bad the Temple didn't do offsite back-ups of their data.

Why not Judith? Why not the amazing detective stories of Daniel?
(Daniel and the Dragon and Susanna) Why wouldn't one accept ancient
records which show methods that did not become common until many
centuries later? [end quote]

@ Two items of possible interest to you. ~ Janice

[1] Oral Arguments / On the Reliability of Oral Tradition / J. P. Holding
       http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html

[2] The Bible: The User's Manual Or, What to Do with Your Sacred
Text James Patrick Holding http://www.tektonics.org/uz/useguide.html

A reader has made an excellent suggestion for a practical piece on
"how to use your Bible". It's a good idea, because as this reader
noted, some today use the Bible as some sort of talisman or even a
roulette wheel. I recall one example of this from Pat Robertson (the
very sort of person we should NOT listen to for this sort of advice)
who, when trying to decide on whether or not to relocate, asked God
to show him and then flipped his Bible open, landing his finger on a
passage that was a military instruction to "go north" -- so he
relocated! The absurdity of this method is illustrated by the joke
about the man who used the same tactic to decide whether or not to
commit suicide, and landed on the passages, "And Judas went and
hanged himself" and "go ye and do likewise"!

It may be best (and here, I am indebted to the form of the reader's
questions somewhat) to lay this out in terms of "do" and "don't" admonitions.

Do:

Memorize texts. As the reader noted, David memorized the Bible so
that he would not sin against God. If it's the Word of God, or even
if it's just an authoritative text, it makes sense to do as you would
for any other text you consider important, and memorize important
bits of it. There's a caveat to this, however: It's not enough to
simply be able to recite (it never is, any time, for any text) but
one must also know what the text means. In fact, I'd say that it's
far more important to memorize meaning and message than it is to
memorize words. Indeed, if you have a poor "playback" memory (as I
do) that may be your ONLY alternative. The point is that if you are
someone who has arrived at the conclusion that the Bible is an
important document, memorization of it by some means (textual or
conceptual or both) simply makes sense as a means of use -- and it's
also supported Biblically (as noted), and reflects as well ancient
use of it and other texts.

Check references. As the reader noted, The Bereans used the OT to
check up on Paul's teachings. This is also a common sense point for a
Christian; if it's the manual for the faith, you obviously check it
when someone makes claims based on it! The caveat yet again is that
knowing meaning of texts, and how to interpret, has to be part of
this; otherwise we turn into Tom Paines who ignorantly accuse the NT
writers of misusing the OT (not being aware of Jewish exegetical
methods of the NT era), or into Unitarians who just read the text in
English devoid of any context and come up with screeds against the
Trinity by using decontextualized proof texts.

Investigate context. Read it like a newspaper? Bosh, as that advice
is meant to be taken. It's a complex document with forms ranging from
a treaty to Greco-Roman rhetoric. If you don't know who wrote it and
why and to what circumstances, it won't speak to you at all (and
sadly, many prefer options in our "do not" section below to this sort
of sound examination!). And if you don't have a reasonable grip on
this were any passage is concerned, then frankly, you have no
business quoting it to others. (Some passages admittedly are easier
to grasp than others, but the point remains the same, and don't be
deceived into thinking you have grasped a passage because you easily
came up with a way to read it). What it boils down to is that you
don't show a text respect unless you know what it is saying.

Interact with others on what you read and determine. Iron sharpens
iron. If you may be in error, do this for correction; if you are in
the right, you will benefit others. This "sharing" also extends to
interaction with those in the know about interpretation and exegesis
(commentaries, or at the very least, more than one translation in a pinch).

Read it "Christocentrically". Meaning, more or less, recognize God's
overall plan, or take a long view; and thus avoid such niggling ideas
as, "Boy, OT sacrifice sure seemed like a waste of time!"
We all bring presuppositions to the text, it's a necessary evil (e.g.
the definitions of English words, for instance, would be
presuppositions). But the diligent Bible student will, upon reading a
Biblical text that conflicts with his presumptions, revise the latter
to be in more conformance with the former.

Do not:

Treat it like a Ouiji board. This is the sort of thing Pat Robertson
did. I'm not talking here about normal reading practice of flipping
open just to read, but for the purpose of divining messages from the
text. Not to say God can't speak to you like that (it's obviously
possible theoretically), but is has no basis in history or precedent.
This also goes for when regular reading is done and it is claimed
that certain verses "jump out" at you. Perhaps they do -- thanks to
conscience rather than God. But don't put the jump ahead of the
careful step of exegesis and application.

Treat it like a telephone or like the oracle at Delphi. Yes, we do
believe that the Bible contains messages received through God's
prophets; but what I refer to here is what our reader referred to as
reading the Bible as "a means to experiencing a closer relationship
with God." This is a symptom of the
<http://www.tektonics.org/af/christianmyths.html>Christian myth that
God is our "buddy".

Read it in bite size pieces irrelevant to context. Unless you have
some reason to do so, it's not a good idea to divide and read by
chapters. The chapters were not in the original, and they only
sometimes correspond with proper breaks in the story. Look for good
narrative or argumentative breaks instead; that is, unless you're one
of those sorts of people (and many are) who can easily pick up
reading anywhere you have left off without losing track of context.

Feel obliged to read the Bible "in order," or completely over a whole
year, etc. Here's some surprising news: You can limit the amount of
time spent reading books like Leviticus and Esther. These books
SHOULD be read, and understood in their context, but not as often by
far as those of more relevance. One of the great mistakes of current
Sunday School and devotional literature is to try to fit in these
books into reading programs as frequently as more impactful books
like Romans. This ends up creating lessons that "force" meaning onto
texts where none such is intended (since teachers struggle to make
the texts relevant, rather than employing serious contextual study
which may not be as relevant).

  Force meaning into texts. This is a habit of many modern pastors
who have no concern for original intent of the Biblical authors. If a
text's first context does not support a given view, it ought not be
used -- period. Now a caveat here is that it can be said, "Didn't the
NT use the OT without regard for context?" Yes, and that was normal
<http://www.christian-thinktank.com>exegetical method for the period.
The problem is that you need a "license" to exegete that way --
either prophetic inspiration or else an act of God (like the
resurrection of Jesus). If you don't have these, tread this territory
at your own risk.
Received on Fri Mar 10 10:53:47 2006