Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Understanding the Bible (was Re: St Paul and Women) Message-ID: Date: 3 Jun 91 04:12:55 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand Lines: 115 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >I am free to make any opinion I choose regarding the 'wrongness' of >Biblical writers. But then I am a non-believer. There seems to be a >certain amount of 'smorgasboard' approaches to Bible writers. My >prejudices are based more on reading the Bible and take essentially >at face value the statements. > So you read the Bible like a fundamentalist, thats fine. >Some conclusions I have come to are that a number of statements of >morality and existentialism that are given in the Bible are WRONG. >However, if one beleives the Bible to be the word of the Diety, one >can not dismiss the statements of one author while holding some >other dear. > I think you misunderstand non-fundamentalist approachs to the Bible. It is not a case of dismissing some statements and loving others on the basis of authorship. Every last word written in the Bible has a ``setting in life'', to borrow a phrase. This means that there are five things which are important which we should understand before we come to the text itself. They are 1. Who wrote it? 2. Where did they write it? 3. When did they write it? 4. To whom did they write it? 5 Why did they write it? Most commentaries that you pick up will address these questions in an introductory section before they come to comment on the text itself. Often they will make further comments on each section as they go along. Once you have an understanding of these questions you are in a much better position to determine whether the passage is directly applicable to your situation now. Another factor to consider is whether the passage is prose or poetry. You should understand a passage differently if the passage is in poetry because the word picture being created is more important that the precise words being used. A problem with the fundamentalist approach, as I have experienced it, is that they treat poetry with the same literalness as prose. A substantial part of the Hebrew scriptures are poetry. > >If you wish to accept a 'canon' which has these writers expunged >then be ready to accept complaints from those who do not agree. > While I often find the ``quote and kill'' methods of fundamentalists hard to take (by that I mean they will quote a verse and expect all discussion of the point to cease) I do respect their right to read the Bible in the manner they do. > >The Bible does teach, for certain classes of people, discrimnation >even genocide. A 'tour' of ancient Israelite history will have at >every turn "Distroy and lay waste" as how to deal with other >non-Israelites. On some occassions certain of the 'enemies' were >granted a stay of execution, "take the un-married women for wives, >but distory the rest". > As you read the Bible like a fundamentalist I can certainly see how you reach your conclusions. There are other ways of reading the Bible which, in my opinion are more valid, which would not lead you to the same conclusion. One is to view the writings as a stuggle to understand God. There are a number of passages in the Old Testament which I read and from my vantage point all I can say is that they got it wrong because we know now that God isn't like that. > >Some of the OT statements have been interpreted to be only for >these ancient Hebrews, but in many cases, such as 'morality' laws, >these are accepted as 'for Christians' as well. Where the 'it >applies to Christians as well' stops has been much debated relative >to setting up earthly kingdoms by force of arms. It seems the only >thing Christians can agree on is that they need not sacrifice >animals or gather at the temple in Jerusalem. >-- There was in the very early church church some agreement on what laws applied to whom. There are a set of seven laws which are known as the laws of Noah which were understood by both Jews and Christians to apply to non-Jews, that is still the position of Jews today. I believe that the majority of christians have never heard of the laws of Noah and so this is why they argue about what is applicable and what is not. The remainder of the legal sections are in a very real sense optional for non-Jews. However, many have found them conveinient to use as expansions of the laws of Noah when examining a detailed situation. Many have found the more detailed moral teachings to be helpful but find such things as the food laws of no direct bearing on their day-to-day life. This is a quite legitimate use of the legal sections of the Bible. Just for the record here are the seven laws. (I use men in an inclusive sense.) 1. Men may not worship idols. 2. Men may not blaspheme God. 3. Men must establish courts of justice. 4. Men may not commit murder. 5. Men may not commit adultery. 6. Men may not steal. 7. Men may not eat flesh cut from a living animal. The last law has often been reinterpreted in modern times to prohibit cruelty to animals. > >John Clark -- ___ Bill Rea (o o) -------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w--- | Bill Rea, University of Canterbury, | E-Mail b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz | | Christchurch, New Zealand | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- [The discussion of the Noachic laws is normally connected to Acts 15 --clh]