(March 11, 2013 at 12:05 am)jstrodel Wrote: Do you own any Bible commentaries? Do you know what the word exegesis means? Do you know who Bruce Metzger or FF Bruce are, or why Westminister Theological Seminary split from Princeton theological seminary? Do you know who Maimonides is? Do you know what the Septuagint is? Have you ever heard of the Masoteric text of the Bible and do you know how it relates to the Dead sea scrolls? Have you ever read through the Bible? How many times? Have you ever done a study of one book of the Bible, perhaps one of those Old Testament books that atheists love to quote that are so difficult and scary with a commentary?

The average atheist evangelist has less understanding of the Bible than a 1st year Bible student. They are quick to ridicule anyone who doesn't know about biology or physics but they fail to hold themselves to the same standard.

Of course, this is not true for all atheists. I am sure some people on this forum know the answer to some of these questions. But most atheists do not.

jstrodel Wrote:Do you own any Bible commentaries? Do you know what the word exegesis means? Do you know who Bruce Metzger or FF Bruce are, or why Westminister Theological Seminary split from Princeton theological seminary? Do you know who Maimonides is? Do you know what the Septuagint is? Have you ever heard of the Masoteric text of the Bible and do you know how it relates to the Dead sea scrolls? Have you ever read through the Bible? How many times? Have you ever done a study of one book of the Bible, perhaps one of those Old Testament books that atheists love to quote that are so difficult and scary with a commentary?

The average atheist evangelist has less understanding of the Bible than a 1st year Bible student. They are quick to ridicule anyone who doesn't know about biology or physics but they fail to hold themselves to the same standard.

I find it hilarious that you think all that is vital to understanding the Bible, when it is nothing more than a variety of circle-jerk interpretations that have absolutely no greater value or verifiable accuracy than a straightforward reading, which seems perfectly acceptable to Christians until you mention something that is contradictory, or reveals the sadism and petty cruelty of the god before which they grovel. Then, all of a sudden, you aren't reading it right and it doesn't mean that can't mean that because God is good haven't you read the bible it says so. Maybe, that Christian will be generous enough to entertain with a complex series of mental gymnastics to show that the Old Testament no longer applies, except where it still does, and when Jesus said that the law would be in effect until the end of time, he didn't really mean you actually have to adhere to it, even when he commands everyone to do just that until heaven and earth are no more.

If you wish to insist that the Bible is non-fiction, that is how I will read it. Non-fiction should be straightforward, direct, and informative. Bloated, turgid prose which requires entire teams of people ages to make sense of, is the sort of shit literary majors get hardons for, and just like literary majors, it serves absolutely no practical purpose.

CleanShavenJesus there is absolutely no truth to what you are saying, at a serious level of Bible study. The truth is that exegesis does not always yield absolutely certain conclusions, the same as it does not in readings of other historical texts. No reputable theologian follows that method, in fact, people search their hearts and study the scriptures with sobriety and seriousness, wrestling with contradictions as they are seen. For an example, look at Wayne Grudem's systematic theology.

Name where God is cruel to others? I find the justice of God to be a wonderful and beautiful thing. It is a beautiful thing to know that when you die there is justice, and wrong will be recompensed.

What you say is a "straightforward" reading is a reading that is based in an appreciation of your culture, in your language, without having any revelation. I am not surprised that you are so confused and make so many errors.

The fact that you bring up the old testament shows your ignorance of scripture. The New Testament and Jesus himself clearly changes the nature of the law as you can see in the way that Jesus relates to the Pharisees.

You have probably spent less than 100 hours studying scripture in your life.

The fact that you are dichtomozing scripture into fiction non fiction categories shows that you have no understanding of exegesis whatsoever. The Bible obviously does not reduce into those categories, there is history, there is poetry, there is prophecy, there are allegories, there are a whole range of literary genres.

Why should God follows the trends of the english language?

(March 11, 2013 at 1:22 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 11, 2013 at 12:36 am)jstrodel Wrote: Christianity is western civilization. If you hate it so much, why not abandon it completely and separate yourself from its blessings?

Can you, just for a little while, disconnect yourself from that pipeline of debunked christian apologetics you've got yourself hooked up to? I'm sure there's a real, genuine person underneath, but so far all we've seen is the bullshit.

I'm pretty sure there is nothing there but the bullshit. You can always tell a bullshitting pro when he uses the word "exegesis" instead of "apologetic nonsense."

Minimalist, where do you turn to when you want to understand the original meaning of scripture? The NRSV? I take it that you are joking about the concept of exegesis at all, you seem to have some knowledge of the ancient world. What sort of methods do you use to study ancient cultural traditions (I take it you do this for a living?)? Do you buy a book at barnes and noble and just read any old translation of an ancient text and assume that the translator captured every detail in the translation, and interpret it informally, as if reading Sports Illustrated?

The heavy handedness with which you deal with an obviously necessary issue, the need for careful analysis of ancient texts (which you reduce to apologetic bullshit) shows that you aren't really concerned about learning or the ignorance of the atheist community on the nature of the Bible, you are more concerned with pissing the furthest in a pissing context.

I was impressed by some of your posts about the historical Jesus. You seem to be fairly well informed about Biblical history. I would have thought that you would use your knowledge to encourage atheists to get an even handed understanding of Biblical history, but you seem to be more interested in mobilizing people for some sort of culture war than actually encouraging the dissemination of honest approachs to Biblical criticism.

Why should we care to understand the Bible, unless one has a liking for disseminating fiction?

It's something worth doing for fun, or maybe for historical correlation in the few bits which actually happened, but the Bible has no value beyond that. It doesn't matter which translation, which scholars, or which supplementary materials one chooses to use: it's a work of fiction which simple minds take too seriously.

I wouldn't argue against atheism unless I understood the authors. Once I had an argument with my cousin about Ayn Rand and I felt badly afterwards because I had not read anything about Rand's ideas in years and I was not really familiar. I felt badly about it afterwards, because I didn't really feel like I knew exactly what I was rejecting.

This is what atheists do when they say "why should we care about the Bible". It is psuedo-intellectual. You don't have any respect for learning, all you care about is building your political movement. That is really what it is about, because you look at peoples intentions and they say, I am not building a political movement, I want to understand the truth. But then you push them, on what terms do you understand truth? How much effort do you put into understanding truth that is not directly in your professional sphere?

You say "it is worth doing for fun" because you have ruled it out in advance. You have closed your mind to the possibility that it may be true even as you mock and ridicule Christians for their closed minds. I would not read any book the way that you read the Bible.

There is no truth to be found in the Bible. It is made-up stories and nothing makes it exceptional compared to the thousands of other competing myths in the world. To approach it as if any truth existed within is a waste of time. You know not to read Tolkien as if it was depicting real history. The Bible is older, more boring and much more terribly written, but no different beyond that.

I will not assume the Bible contains a single nugget of truth. It must be clearly and unambiguously demonstrated from multiple sources which are independently verified. Until that happens, it's just a source of emergency rolling papers.

You are free to make that claim and consider yourself a free thinker without any knowledge of what the Bible teaches from a real assessment of what it teaches, but I won't respect you. I think that would be more like an atheist propagandist than a philosopher.

What makes your assessment, or anyone's assessment, of the Bible more 'real' than mine? What is the objectively true interpretation of scripture?

I never claimed to be a philosopher.