When we look at an historical narrative, it's reasonable to consider the author as a product of their time period. Freud was a Victorian, and if he diagnoses a woman as Hysterical, or endorses the use of cocaine for treatment, we take that as an historical belief later revised.
You cannot do this with the Bible and still believe the Bible is the word of God. The OT is filled with direct quotes he supernatural being himself commanding slaughter, rape, torture, and destruction. The NT quotes Jesus as endorsing slavery, demanding execution of his enemies, outlining the jealousy of the son and the father, and threats of wrath for disobedience.
None of this is presented as information from historical sources, but as direct quotes from a supernatural entity, who also seems to be a product of the time period in which the Bible was written.
While it's easy to blame the errancy of man, and claim that God and Jesus were simply misquoted every time we don't like the implication of what they're saying, it doesn't make sense to do this with a divinely inspired, perfectly edited text with direct divine quotes.
It becomes not a critical reading of the text where the characters actions and statements line up with what we're told about them, but an exercise in apologetics: selectively reading around the parts we don't like, to create the message we want to hear.
If the Bible were as perfect a literary work as claimed, and presented the message many Christians claim it does, "you're not reading it the right way" would be nonsensical.
You cannot do this with the Bible and still believe the Bible is the word of God. The OT is filled with direct quotes he supernatural being himself commanding slaughter, rape, torture, and destruction. The NT quotes Jesus as endorsing slavery, demanding execution of his enemies, outlining the jealousy of the son and the father, and threats of wrath for disobedience.
None of this is presented as information from historical sources, but as direct quotes from a supernatural entity, who also seems to be a product of the time period in which the Bible was written.
While it's easy to blame the errancy of man, and claim that God and Jesus were simply misquoted every time we don't like the implication of what they're saying, it doesn't make sense to do this with a divinely inspired, perfectly edited text with direct divine quotes.
It becomes not a critical reading of the text where the characters actions and statements line up with what we're told about them, but an exercise in apologetics: selectively reading around the parts we don't like, to create the message we want to hear.
If the Bible were as perfect a literary work as claimed, and presented the message many Christians claim it does, "you're not reading it the right way" would be nonsensical.
