Tips On Reading The Bible

[David813]

Dana71 wrote: If someone were to want to read the bible,say the New Testament, where would be a good place to start without getting discouraged and confused?Hmmm. I would suggest returning the Bible and getting a good Stephen King novel.

[Ted]

Dana :-6

A very good question. The Bible should be read in conjunction with a couple of good Bible commentaries such as "The Interpreter's one Volume Commentary on the Bible".

It should not be read as history though there is some history involved. The book is midrashic and makes great use of metaphor. It is primarily a religious book and must be read as such. It was never intended to be taken literally though one could take the historical parts somewhat literally.

There are some good books out there that would help one learn how to read the Bible. One of the best is "Reading the Bible Again For the First Time" by Marcus Borg. It is a very easy book to read and is highly explanitory.

I contend and have support in the view that if one reads the Bible ignoring the fact that it is midrashic and metaphorical then one is in serious danger of reading into the Bible what one wants and not what the authors meant or intended.

I have spent years learning how to read the Bible and recommend the challenge. It is highly worthwhile and very enlightening.

Good luck.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[RedSoxFan]

David813 wrote: Hmmm. I would suggest returning the Bible and getting a good Stephen King novel.


Or go to the store and buy some cottage cheese!

[Clint]

Dana71 wrote: If someone were to want to read the bible,say the New Testament, where would be a good place to start without getting discouraged and confused?
I would have at my side, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and an expository dictionary of Greek and Hebrew words. I would then read the Torah beginning with Genesis and ending with Deuteronomy so I could better understand what Jesus is talking about when I read John, then probably Acts.

I would leave all the commentaries in the book store collecting dust rather than royalties. Commentaries present themselves as authoritative to the point people defer to them rather than the Bible. Reading books about the Bible is usefull but they shouldn't replace the Bible. I would ask God for spiritual guidance and enlightenment as I read. I would then begin to discuss what I had learned with others who hold the Bible in high esteem and regard it as a gift from God to us. The discussion is important because that is when what we are learning begins to take root and our thoughts about what we have learned get sorted out and tested.

Keep in mind that you are beginning a spiritual journey, not an academic one.

[john8pies]

The 4 Gospels seem a natural place to start, but of course the letters of Paul etc were written some years before them.

[Ted]

I must disagree with Clint very strongly so. If one does not understand how the Bible was written and that includes the style which is midrashic then one is in danger of reading into the Bible what one wants to read into it.

That was the problem of the reformation. Those who knew little of what they were talking about figured they could just read and accept the Bible with all of its inconsistentcies. Now, in view of modern scholarship in Biblical studies, archaeology, science and anthropology the inconsistencies are even more apparent.

By not understanding what they were reading and how it was written they simply read into it what they wanted to.

However, your friend must choose the way s/he wants to tackle the problem.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[Clint]

I immediatly wrote a response to Ted. I'm going to hold it. I would rather see what others might have to say.

[Ted]

Clint :-6

Now you know I can take it. LOL The problem is that for years I've been told that I read into the Bible what I want to. Yet I base what I read and my understanding on the style and intent of the writer.

If we don't do that then we in fact are reading into the Bible what we want to read into it based on our 21st Cent appraisal of history. That is indeed an error. It must be read for what it is if one wants to understand what the writers said and meant.

One of these days I am going to introduce the topic of Creation-spirituality.

I have already quized telaquapacky on his use of "Jesus" alone. If we are Trinitarian Christians we must indeed express our praise to God Almighty: Father, Son and Holy Spirit and not fall into the error of Jesusolatry.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[Clint]

Yes I know you can take it :-5 . I would really like to if others have something to add.

I certainly agree with you that the Bible has to be read knowing it can’t be understood with a 21st century mindset. We have to do our best to stand in the sandals of those who did the writing.

I also agree that God is "echad" and cannot be separated and worshiped in parts. I think your new word for it is a stretch and a bit offensive though.

[Ted]

Clint :-6

It is certainly no more offensive then is Num. 31 where we see "god" apparently okaying war crimes or the Psalm that apparently okays the dashing of the brains of young children out on the rocks.

The Bible is full of atrocities that cannot be equated with God. That is man's perception and in some cases an out and out attempt to justify crimes in the name of God.

Let us not blame God for man's stupidity.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[RedSoxFan]

Dana71 wrote: How rude Red Sox Fan.



Thank you Ted & Clint. It was not a question for myself, my friend wanted to know. I have never read the bible all the way through so I had no clue. But its helpful if I chose to readit as well:)


Sure.....only tell me how rude I was. Did you forget about David making a suggestion?

[Ted]

RedSoxFan :-6 :-6

I love it. LOL.

Peace be with you.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[telaquapacky]

Ted wrote: I have already quized telaquapacky on his use of "Jesus" alone. If we are Trinitarian Christians we must indeed express our praise to God Almighty: Father, Son and Holy Spirit and not fall into the error of Jesusolatry.I believe the Father is God. I believe the Son is God. I believe the Holy Spirit is God. Three persons, one God? One God, three manifestations? Actually, Scripture is ambiguous on the subject. To split hairs on it would be to go beyond what Scripture says. The precise, detailed nature of the Godhead is beyond our comprehension. Any extreme view that makes one member of the Godhead “God” to the exclusion of the other two is certainly wrong.

But worshipping Jesus worships the other two. Consider Philippians 2:5-11

5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,

10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Ted wrote: It is certainly no more offensive then is Num. 31 where we see "god" apparently okaying war crimes or the Psalm that apparently okays the dashing of the brains of young children out on the rocks.John 7:24

Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."

Numbers 31:16 clearly explains a righteous counteroffensive to the Midianites who used the strategy of Balaam against the Israelites. If Balaam’s strategy doesn’t seem grave enough to justify so harsh a treatment of the Midianites, consider that Jude and Revelation are still talking about it fifteen centuries later. Read Jude starting in verse 11 and Revelation 2:14. In God’s eyes the Midianites were guilty of something that called for decisive action.

A superficial reading of Psalm 137:9 does indeed sound depraved. But a completely different view is shown when one reads the Psalm as it was intended by the author. Psalm 137 is a prophetic lament for the Israelites when they were captives in Babylon. The theme of Psalm 137 is echoed in Jeremiah 51:24 and Revelation 18:6. "Before your eyes I will repay Babylon and all who live in Babylonia for all the wrong they have done in Zion," declares the LORD.” (Jeremiah 51:24) “Give back to her (Babylon) as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Mix her a double portion from her own cup.” (Revelation 18:6) Compare to Psalm 137:8,9 “O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us-- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” A superficial reading might lead one to make some rash assumptions. Does David say who will be doing the mayhem against the infants? God? David himself? It doesn’t say, and we ought not to assume. The point David is making at the end of Psalm 137 is, “Look out, Babylon. What goes around comes around. You guys got your jollies dashing our infants against the rocks. Someday someone else is going to get their jollies dashing your infants against the rocks.” It’s called justice, my brother. We serve a just and holy God.

Ted wrote: The Bible is full of atrocities that cannot be equated with God. That is man's perception and in some cases an out and out attempt to justify crimes in the name of God.
John 5:46, 47

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

John 5:19

Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

There is absolutely no incongruity between the character of the Son and the Father as described in every word of Holy Scripture, if it is read and understood in obedience to the Spirit.

My best tip on reading the Bible is this: Always read it with the attitude of "Sin is bad, God is good." If any verse of Scripture gives any other impression, it is not because there is any problem with the text- the problem is with the spirit of the interpreter.

[Clint]

telaquapacky,

Outstanding post!! Thank you for taking the time to research.

[Ted]

telaquapacky :-6

No matter how one reads Num 31 it is an atrocity. The murder of innocent children and the rape of young virgins is wrong. This is not justice this is a war crime.

So it would appear that it is okay to dash their kids heads out because it is simply returning the "favour". Innocent children. Some justice! Another atrocity probably not written by David at all but likely during the Babylonian exile.

It would appear that to you it is okay is some roaming group of people decide to take your land from you. They can just move in and say God told them they could push you out. I wonder how we Canadians would feel if the Americans decided in their wisdom that God has told them to move into Canada and take over. This is justice!

On top of all that pesumably the Babylonian exile was punishment from God for sin. So the Babylonians do what God wanted them to do and then they turn around and get a "slap in the face." This is justice!

I really love this kind of justice. It does not reflect in anyway the life and teachings of Jesus in whom we are to see the fullness of God. I would say that the "fullness" of God is an indication that we see in Jesus the totaliy of what God is and it ain't what I read in a lot of the atrocities in the OT. Perhaps God has a multiple personality problem? I don't think so but it would appear from the above that He does.

More to come.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[Ted]

I thought it time to resurrect this thread on the Bible.

Through the years I've been studying not only the Bible but the history of the Bible. I recently gained new insights into what I had known.

Originally there was only one Torah. It was the oral Torah. The Hebrew people resisted writing it down as a sacred text for a couple of reasons. They were afraid the written text would promote inflexibility and backward looking. Both of these have occurred. It was during the Babylonian exile that it was decided to collect all of the stories into one location. They used both the oral history remembered and some small documents that had been written down.

Their view was that the sacred writings must be interpreted midrashically and not historically. Not only that they also felt that as time progressed it would have to be reinterpreted for the new era. This of course is one of the beauties of written literature in that it can be interpreted more than one way. It is obvious that to write it down would promote folks to continue to take it as the ultimate truth.

"The prophets and patriarchs of the Bible were not regarded as superior to the rabbis because they had participated in the original revelation. As R. Ishmael had already explained: There is no anteriority or posteriority in scripture. On each page there was also space for the student to add his own commentary. [a reference to a student's Torah] When studying the Bible through the Bavli, the student learned that nobody had the last word, that truth was constantly changing, and that while tradition was numinous and valuable, it must not constrict his own power of judgment. p106, "The Bible: A Biography", Karen Armstrong.

The oral Torah and tradition took precedence over the written word.

In this way the Torah and subsequently the Tanach became a "living" book as it was designed to meet the needs of all future generations. It was to be studied in light of each era and appropriate wisdom discovered.

The same is true of the New Testament as well. Without the use of midrash and allegory the Bible becomes totally inflexible and backward seeing and fails to accomplish was it was meant to accomplish right from the very beginning in the early Hebrew tradition. To read it any other way is to misuse it in terms of the original intent and makes it an inflexible and in many ways an absurd document.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[caesar777]

The best way to read the bible is with a suspension of disbelief.

View it as you would any good fairy tale.

It's very entertaining, although frightening when you realise that some people actually believe it to be true.

[Ted]

caesar777:-6

That is certainly one viewpoint. However, there are many scholarly people who feel much differently. Wisdom can be taught in many ways.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[caesar777]

That is true Ted, wisdom can be taught in many ways.

The story of the boy who cried wolf teaches us that it is foolish to lie and the story of king Midas teaches us that money is not everything, but I don't believe these stories to be true.

The bible is full of similar stories and I view it in the same way.

Peace be with you.

[watermark]

Hi Ted-

You said something back in 2005 that made me wonder. If you are in favor of seeing the Bible metaphorically, allegorically, and as a byproduct of the times in which it was written, how can you find the violence and brutality depicted in the OT to be different than any other part of the Bible? I haven't studied the Bible like you but it seems that maybe those parts you commented on to be void of God are also metaphorical and not to be taken literally?

E

[Ted]

watermark:-6

Almost none of the Bible is to be taken literally. There are some kernels of history spread throughout but the Bible in general is to be taken metaphorically. The Bible must also be interpreted in light of our knowledge base today as well as our own personal experiences. Things do not have to be historically accurate to present very profound truths.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

JAB:-6

I'm not even sure how to interpret that response.

Are you saying that I am not entitled to my opinion and one that can be supported by the research? Are folks really afraid of the truth. Jesus did tell us we would know the truth and it would make us free.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

JAB:-6

I get chided for standing up for my beliefs. I though life was a two way street with some give and take. I have always said that folks are entitled to believe as they do. They present their views. Are you suggesting that I am not entitled to present mine with the same vehemence?

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

JAB:-6

Would you please show me where I've said "the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt?" I've never said that and to say I have is a falsehood. Such a statement is an out and out lie.

What I do object to is bibleolatry.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

JAB:-6

It may be a figure of speach but it presents a lie.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

jester:-6

I make a very clear distinction between truth in metaphor and historical accuracy. Something does not have to be historically accurate to present truth. That is a falsehood that came out of the enlightenment. A metaphor can often present a truth in a more profound way than can historical accuracy.

So the answer is simply the Bible presents great truths but for the most part in a midrashic or metaphorical way.

More and more scholars are coming to the conclusion that the Exodus is a metaphor it is not historically accurate. This includes many Jewish scholars. The Exodus is the story of everyone's life. You prefer the term "saved" and I prefer the term "transformation". The story of God rescuing or saving people is what the Exodus metaphor is about: salvation, transformation, finding the new life in Christ (if one is a Christian), enlightenment in Buddhism etc.

Shalom

Ted

Shalom

Ted:-6

[double helix]

Personally, if I was going to read the Bible for the first time I would begin with the first page. Genesis on through to the end. Without any aids or interpretive guides.

[Bryn Mawr]

Jester;725735 wrote: I tell folks to start with reading the book of John, focus in one the life of Jesus. Don't worry abotu the parts you dont understand yet, just focus in on the truth you see and practice as much of it as you understand, gradually you will understand more and more. Don't fret the big stuff, it takes care of itself in time. Seek to know the attributes of God as Jesus lives out his life. Look for the comapssions that he demonstrates and you cant go wrong. When you finish John, read the psalms next.


How do you view the books of the Old Testament? Not just the Pentateuch but also the Prophets.

I ask mainly because I have a problem with the eye for an eye philosophy they contain and the fire and brimstone preaching that's come out of them.

After that comes the question of whose religion is it anyway and, if you accept and revere the holy books of Judaism as sacred, how can you put aside the rest of Jewish holy law.

[Ted]

jester:-6

Perhaps you could show me where I've been inconsistent. I would be most interested in that.

You say that discussing with me is like batting your head against a brick wall. I think the reason that you find it so is that I don't agree with you and in your proselytizing you have simply not convinced me. You get annoyed because I do not change my thinking to your way. That is all. I have repeatedly said I do not want nor expect folks to think or believe as I do. I don't need that as I have found thousands who do.

Of course it is futile. I was raised like that and found it unacceptable. If you expect to change me to believing in the literalist/fundamentalist point of view it is indeed futile. However, that is not the intent of debate or discussion, certainly not in this purview.

I have agreed with you that some of the characters mentioned in the Bible were real people. I've always said there were kernels of history spread throughout the Bible. That does not mean that all of them were real people. You still make no effort to understand the use of midrash and metaphor in sacred writings. Some futility on my part but so be it. That being said the ancient scriptures were passed on orally for years and we know what that does. They have been enhanced for both political and religious reasons. They have been subject to the redactors and editors. Things have been added to the originals and subtracted and well as changed.

Your comment about the fabrics is well put. I even liked your metaphor. Now, however, you are picking and choosing what you want to believe. It is ok to metaphorize and ignore, for the most part, the issue ofd fabrics and the eating of pork and shellfish but you will accept the commandment about homosexual acts. We cannot have it both ways. That is inconsistent. If homosexuality is wrong on the basis of Leviticus then so is wearing clothing of mixed fabrics and the eating of shellfish. Clearly picking and choosing.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Bryn Mawr]

Jester;726264 wrote: In a nut shell, but this is a huge explaination to try to nut shell it, but here goes:



I hope I answered your question, as usualy I have more myself as a result, good question, thanks for asking it.


An extremely well thought out answer and I'll try to comment on the points it raises :-

Your first sentence is very much how I view the Old Testament - the historical records of the Hebrews rather than a sacred work, even though it documents the formation of their religion. Indeed, whilst acknowledging the fact that Christianity grew out of Judaism I feel that it is a separate religion with its own precepts and and moral requirements - in short, I believe that the laws of Judaism do not apply as binding on Christians, only the laws given by Jesus (which, I think, included following the Ten Commandments).

If you take Matt 5 literally then every word of Mosaic law is still binding and, additionally, not just the action but also wanting to commit the action is to be considered as breaking the law - the fact that it is difficult or impossible is immaterial. To say that Jesus made Mosaic Law whole and complete (fulfilled) does not give licence to chose which of the laws to follow. On the other hand, if Jesus made Mosaic Law whole and complete and, by fulfilling it, set it aside, then none of the precepts of Mosaic law are binding on his followers.

It is either all or nothing - animal atonement for the transgression of sins is part and parcel of Mosaic Law and, if you take Matt 5 literally, must be observed.

Taking your parallel between God and your father. Your father never rose up in unrighteous anger - but then he never rose up in righteous anger and killed you and all of your siblings as punishment for something you did wrong. Even though he had reason to be angry and to punish you he held back and taught you a lesson without excessive cruelty. The God of the Old Testament did not hold back and, in that, he was less great than your father.

As I said at the start of this post, I do not hold the Old Testament to be a sacred work for the Christians - part of their heritage to be studied but not part of the teachings of Christ.

Especially, I do not believe that Leviticus is part of the moral imperative of the Christian religion.

[guppy]

interesting thread..thanks for all the different ideas..and thoughts..gave me some stuff to think about...:-6

[Bryn Mawr]

Jester,

Until Monday - I need time to think whilst I'm away :-6

[Bryn Mawr]

Jester;727655 wrote:

I have an alternate view; I cannot prove it other than one simple verse that follows the word 'remnant', which refers to 'believers'.




We must be using different texts - could you throw me another pointer?

The only use of the word remnant in Matthew is Matt 22:6 but with no following believers.

There is a relevant text a short way later :-

36 "Teacher, 21 which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 He said to him, 22 "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: 23 You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 24 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

but this relates to the rational behind the law rather than it's ongoing applicability.



Strong's shows me another ninety uses of the word but I'd prefer not to guess.

BTW - Matt 1 shows Rachab as being the great grandmother of David and some equate her with Rahab - is this the lineage you were thinking of?

[Ted]

jester:-6

It is rather interesting that the comment on homosexuality is the law but the comment on fabrics or eating pork or shellfish is not the law and neither is the stoning of disobedient children or prostitutes. As I've said you are picking and choosing and trying to rationalize it. If one is the law so is the other.

Your comment on frustration is exactly as I thought it would be. You are telling me and everyone else that you have the right way and I do not. If I don't think like you I'm doomed. You are saying that I am misleading others but perhaps it is you who are misleading. Here you are making a judgment that you have no God given right to make. That is ok since God alone is my judge and in Him I trust.

You speak of context. Good and well but the context of yesterday is not the context of today. D. Hall in his book "The Cross in Our Context" quotes Nicholas of Cusa. "In Nicholas's scheme, the dumbest people in the world are those who think they know. Their certainty about what is true not only pits them against each other; it also prevents them from learning anything new. This is truly dangerous knowledge. They do not know that they do not know, and their unlearned ignorance keeps them in the dark about most things that matter." pg 31.

From pg 43 we read "For instance, if today we tried to commend the Reformation dogma of the peculiar and unique authority of Scripture (sola scriptura) by asking people to accept the idea of the Bible's direct dictation by the divine Spirit, not only would we go against the grain of every contemporary assumption about historical documents, but we would also put in the way of faith a barrier, a "false scandal," that would inhibit our contemporaries from appreciating what the Reformers and even the biblical authors themselves actually understood abou the nature of Scripture's inspiration."

From pg. 44 But if the Christian message is intended for this world, if it is to be rendered in language and act that are in any genuine manner "address" (that is, being-spoken-to), then the specificity of contests must be allowed to play a vital role in the theological reflection that serious Christian obedience and wisdom presuppose."

It becomes quite clear that certainty is a block to faith and that contemporary context is of vital importance. We do not live in the past We live in an entirely different context from that of the biblical authors.

I will add in here that I have often been criticized for saying that any language we use for divinity is by its very nature metaphor because we have not the language to speak of God.

IBID 27 "The search for "just the right words" was bound to fail, because the incarnate Word that alone deserves the appellation Truth cannot be reduced to language."

I don't believe Paul was an apostle? I don't know where you got that from but it certainly did not come from me. I most certainly do believe that Paul was an apostle. However, I do not believe that all the letters attributed to Paul actually come from Paul. About half of them come from his followers and were written after his death.

That I am doing the misleading is certainly and opinion to which you are entitled but not everyone agrees with you on that one. In fact many see it the other way around.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[theia]

Ted, I'm reading Thomas Keating's "Manifesting God" and am finding it inspiring. One of the quotations he made was, "My thoughts are not your thoughts. Nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord." Isaiah 55.8. For me that seems to fit with your reference above about thinking we "know" the answers.

I love the simplicity of Keating's writing...I'm just about to move on to his chapter on "What is Divine Therapy?" It is all truly encouraging.