Watch it I like to play with people's assumptions and (mis)perceptions!
Well, I study the Bible... er, actually the 2,000-3,000 year old biblical texts, who wrote them, why, to whom, and under what historical circumstances. It is a subjective (reader oriented) interpretive grid imposed upon these texts by a later generation of readers who had their own agendas and beliefs.

I'm interested how (religious) ideas get formed and how interpretive or authoritative traditions get created which eventually become "truth" bears for a particular culture. The Bible is something different.

Is there a place for a biblical scholar in atheist-theist debates? What does a biblical scholar whose interests are purely object (i.e., focused on the texts themselves--again not the Bible) have to offer to such a debate? Curious to hear your initial remarks before I really divulge what the objective study of the Bible is all about and what conclusions it leads us irrefutably to (remember I like to tease out you assumptions and faulty premises).

Currently I study the Contradictions in the Bible, 1 biblical contradiction a Day, explained with modern historical and source-critical methods. Find out more [Link removed]

Personally I enjoy using modern bibles because when you shove them up believer's assholes the corners hurt.

Welcome to the fray.

A word of caution. Beware the Context Nazis. These are the ones who will tell you that you are taking everything out of "context."


Even though most of the morons don't know what context means.

Context is what it's all about. So I look forward to these clowns. Proper context, as you know, is the historical and literary contexts within which these 70+ 3,000-2,000 year old texts were written. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I wish you luck. Most of them think "context" means " what I want it to mean."

For myself, you sound like a potential ally.

You must be pretty special if you need two introductions!

(February 9, 2013 at 11:29 pm)Aractus Wrote: You must be pretty special if you need two introductions!

I am but in fact, I completely forgot that I had joined this forum before. My apologies.

I take it you are a devotee of the documentary hypothesis?

(February 9, 2013 at 10:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I wish you luck. Most of them think "context" means " what I want it to mean."

For myself, you sound like a potential ally.

Most of them think "context" means "makes god look good".

If you think "And I heard God say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill. Spare no one; have mercy on no one. Kill the old men, young men, young women, mothers, and children." means that God is commanding people to commit evil atrocities, you will get one of two responses by our resident theists:

1: You are reading it out of context.
2: Genocide is not evil if God commands it.

Quote:Is there a place for a biblical scholar in atheist-theist debates?

Yep. Oh yeah.

Case in point: What is hell? Just ask that question and see what answers ya get.

Hello. I'm interested in how religious ideas get formed as well. Am also intrigued by what you've put for your religious views.